Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

[Anna_Scott]

Why this interest in women preachers?
As for most Baptist men, you asked about my church and I gave you the answer. I’m sure that there are some Baptists men that don’t want women preaching and there are some Baptists men that it don’t matter. I don’t know whats in their minds and in their hearts on this subject. This is a question I really can’t answer unless you take a poll on it.

rev kevin,

It is important to identify the particular Baptist faith that would allow women to be ministers, since that is not the case for all Baptists.

The Southern Baptist Convention is against women ministers and makes this very clear on their website:

**VI. The Church
**
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

Matthew 16:15-19; 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-42,47; 5:11-14; 6:3-6; 13:1-3; 14:23,27; 15:1-30; 16:5; 20:28; Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 3:16; 5:4-5; 7:17; 9:13-14; 12; Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 3:8-11,21; 5:22-32; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-14; 3:1-15; 4:14; Hebrews 11:39-40; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Revelation 2-3; 21:2-3.
(Link: sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp)

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

As always, you and I think alike, Anna. I have so wanted to return to Catholicism, and run to Mass ASAP. Between Honorius, indulgences, the treasury of merit, and this statement you point out in L.G., it has been a series of little stumbling blocks.

I hope Mardukm and other learned Catholics will share their views on this and offer insight. I find it troubling as you do…

Yes, gurney-- There are many things about Catholicism that I admire; and as you’ve said in previous posts, Popes have done so much to safeguard the Church against heresy. We have a few exceptions, so this thread topic is very important.

It’s those exceptions that bother me; and the call to “submit mind and will” to the Pope, even beyond Ex Cathedra teachings.

I also have concerns about indulgences, and some of the Marion doctrines–though I had a very surprising experience with the Blessed Virgin Mary during our celebration of the Feast of BVM.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m with you on Mary. I have no problem whatsoever believing in the Assumption or Immaculate Conception. I’m on board with Marian dogmas. I think in some corners of the Catholic world devotion to her gets out of hand and can borderline be idolatry and mariolatry as they call it. But 9 out of 10 times the devotions to Mary are a good thing and point toward her Son. I have renewed my interest in the Holy Rosary and Mary as of late. Thanks be to the Holy Spirit.

If I can get past those other issues mentioned in my last post, I’ll be ok.

Yes, gurney-- There are many things about Catholicism that I admire; and as you’ve said in previous posts, Popes have done so much to safeguard the Church against heresy. We have a few exceptions, so this thread topic is very important.

It’s those exceptions that bother me; and the call to “submit mind and will” to the Pope, even beyond Ex Cathedra teachings.

I also have concerns about indulgences, and some of the Marion doctrines–though I had a very surprising experience with the Blessed Virgin Mary during our celebration of the Feast of BVM.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

As always, you and I think alike, Anna. I have so wanted to return to Catholicism, and run to Mass ASAP. Between Honorius, indulgences, the treasury of merit, and this statement you point out in L.G., it has been a series of little stumbling blocks.

I hope Mardukm and other learned Catholics will share their views on this and offer insight. I find it troubling as you do…

Gurney,

I did want to make one more point about LUMEN GENTIUM. It does contain a great deal of important information about authority through the lens of Catholicism; and I don’t disagree with all of the document. It is certainly an important Vatican II document and has a great deal of historical merit.

Anna

 

[tomarin]

Gurney,

I did want to make one more point about LUMEN GENTIUM. It does contain a great deal of important information about authority through the lens of Catholicism; and I don’t disagree with all of the document. It is certainly an important Vatican II document and has a great deal of historical merit.

Anna

What specific problem do you have with this particular encyclical?

 

[Anna_Scott]

I would not agree, shaick. The Catholic Church views the Church as coming before Scripture wasn’t even completed, which is true. The Church defined the doctrines of the Trinity, Christology in general, and moral precepts for Christianity 1500 years before anyone thought of using the Bible as the only means for discerning truth. The Church is one with Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit according to Catholic beliefs. The bishops, heirs of the apostles, the pope, the descendent of Peter’s Chair, binds and it lets loose the sins of man as well as guides the moral conscience of each Catholic. As far as “anything extra” added is a false gospel, I would consider what that really means? Does it mean that the Church can never add extra understanding to the Scriptures and clarify? Can it not add morally-binding truths that were not fully discussed in Scripture? Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, abortion, stem cells, trial marriages, gay marriage, bisexuality, pornography, in vitro fertilization, eschatology, soteriology, how we’re saved with regard to specifics of the Atonement or imputation vs. infusion, on and on and on…the Church must clarify and expound upon ideas to coherently teach its flock, right?

Well said gurney!

. . . . .The Bible is very clear on what is needed- adding anything extra into the equation is preaching a false Gospel.

schaick,

I would not entirely agree that the Bible is “very clear” about what is needed for salvation–at least when taken out of the context of the time in which it was written and the Christian tradition passed on through the early Church. If the Bible is so clear, why is there so much disagreement about interpretation?

1 Corinthians 11: 1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians: 13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

The Tradition of the Gospel was given by both spoken and written word. The N.T. did not exist when the above was written. The Bible, as we know it, was assembled by the Catholic Church.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

What specific problem do you have with this particular encyclical?

LUMEN GENTIUM
". . . . .This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . . . ." (vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

It’s the submission of “mind and will,” even beyond the Ex Cathedra teachings.

 

[schaick]

schaick,

I would not entirely agree that the Bible is “very clear” about what is needed for salvation–at least when taken out of the context of the time in which it was written and the Christian tradition passed on through the early Church. If the Bible is so clear, why is there so much disagreement about interpretation?

1 Corinthians 11: 1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians: 13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

The Tradition of the Gospel was given by both spoken and written word. The N.T. did not exist when the above was written. The Bible, as we know it, was assembled by the Catholic Church.

Anna

There is only one true interpretation. Are these interpretations or celebrations, applications that you see?

A tradition passed down is a tradition to be passed down!! - not ignored for hundreds of years to then resurface.

Whether written or oral it is still GOD’s Word. It is now believed by some scholars that the Gospel did exist very shortly after Jesus death, not as an entire book but codices were circulating.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Anna,

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Thank you. I suspected this was it, but I wanted to be sure.

First, I would like to define or clarify something before explaining that passage - namely, the concept of infalliblity. Here is an excerpt from an explanation I gave in another thread:

Infallibility is a character of the Magisterium of God, not of any created being (Magisterium is the teaching authority of God).
Corollary 1: the Magisterium is always infallible.
Corollary 2: When we say that the Pope is infallible, it must be according to the Church’s understanding that it is the Magisterium of the Pope that is infallible.
Corollary 3: When we say an Ecumenical Council is infallible, it must be according to the Church’s understanding that it is the Magisterium of the Ecumenical Council that is infallible.
Corollary 4: When we say that the Church is infallible, etc.
Corollary 5: The Church can exercise the infallible Magisterium in an extraordinary manner (definitions by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council) or an ordinary manner (the day-to-day definitive teaching of the bishops).

Full text here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7101169&postcount=38

I’m sure you see that teaching from V2 and to you it probably means that one has to give religious assent to every single teaching that flows from the Pope’s mouth. That would worry me, too – IF that is actually what it is teaching. The terms “authentic Magisterium” and “supreme Magisterium” should have clued you in on the fact that the passage is not talking about just any old teaching from the Pope.

As explained above, the infallible Magisterium of God can be exercised in an extraordinary manner or an ordinary manner. The Pope exercises the infallible Magisterium in an extraordinary manner when he is teaching ex cathedra (with the other conditions in the V1 definition). But he can also exercise the infallible Magisterium in an ordinary manner. In this manner, he is teaching in explicit unity with all the bishops of the world (or at least a moral unanimity).

So when the LG paragraph states that one must give religious assent to the Magisterium of the Pope even if it is not being exercised ex cathedra, it is not at all saying one must give religious assent to every teaching that comes from the Pope’s mouth. All it is saying is that one must also give religious assent to that teaching that comes by way of the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope. One must give religious assent to this ordinary Magisterium because it is also infallible.

One can recognize that a doctrine is being taught in an extraordinary manner by the Pope when he is defining it ex cathedra (with the other conditions in the V1 definition). In distinction, one can recognize that a doctrine is being taught in an ordinary manner by the Pope when it is proposed in the normal day-to-day teaching of the entire episcopate.

Here’s the key: One only needs to give religious assent to the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope (i.e., not ex cathedra) if it is an obvious universal teaching of the Church (or if the Pope has made it clear that it is a universal teaching of the Church).

The Pope may teach that there is a purgatorial fire. Since it is not taught definitively by the universal episcopate, that doctrine would not be considered part of the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope. So I do not need to give religious assent to it.

A recent example of the exercise of the ordinary magisterium by the Pope is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The Pope was not defining anything (i.e., not teaching ex cathedra), but was appealing rather to the universal definitive teaching of the Church on the matter. Thus, it requires my religious assent.

I hope that helps.

Blessings

 

[schaick]

Doesn’t this statement necessarily raise the question of who compiled the Bible and by what authority? The Bible didn’t just magically appear from the heavens and float down into the hands of early Christians…

The Gospel message was recocognised by the universal Church way before the Catholic Church became the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church simply recognized what all knew to be GOD’s Word.

 

[Nicea325]

The Gospel message was recocognised by the universal Church way before the Catholic Church became the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church simply recognized what all knew to be GOD’s Word.

The above statement has absolutely no logic behind it.

The church was already founded by Christ and it was universal to begin with.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dear sister Anna,

Thank you. I suspected this was it, but I wanted to be sure.

First, I would like to define or clarify something before explaining that passage - namely, the concept of infalliblity. Here is an excerpt from an explanation I gave in another thread:

Infallibility is a character of the Magisterium of God, not of any created being (Magisterium is the teaching authority of God).
Corollary 1: the Magisterium is always infallible.
Corollary 2: When we say that the Pope is infallible, it must be according to the Church’s understanding that it is the Magisterium of the Pope that is infallible.
Corollary 3: When we say an Ecumenical Council is infallible, it must be according to the Church’s understanding that it is the Magisterium of the Ecumenical Council that is infallible.
Corollary 4: When we say that the Church is infallible, etc.
Corollary 5: The Church can exercise the infallible Magisterium in an extraordinary manner (definitions by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council) or an ordinary manner (the day-to-day definitive teaching of the bishops).

Full text here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7101169&postcount=38

I’m sure you see that teaching from V2 and to you it probably means that one has to give religious assent to every single teaching that flows from the Pope’s mouth. That would worry me, too – IF that is actually what it is teaching. The terms “authentic Magisterium” and “supreme Magisterium” should have clued you in on the fact that the passage is not talking about just any old teaching from the Pope.

As explained above, the infallible Magisterium of God can be exercised in an extraordinary manner or an ordinary manner. The Pope exercises the infallible Magisterium in an extraordinary manner when he is teaching ex cathedra (with the other conditions in the V1 definition). But he can also exercise the infallible Magisterium in an ordinary manner. In this manner, he is teaching in explicit unity with all the bishops of the world (or at least a moral unanimity).

So when the LG paragraph states that one must give religious assent to the Magisterium of the Pope even if it is not being exercised ex cathedra, it is not at all saying one must give religious assent to every teaching that comes from the Pope’s mouth. All it is saying is that one must also give religious assent to that teaching that comes by way of the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope. One must give religious assent to this ordinary Magisterium because it is also infallible.

One can recognize that a doctrine is being taught in an extraordinary manner by the Pope when he is defining it ex cathedra (with the other conditions in the V1 definition). In distinction, one can recognize that a doctrine is being taught in an ordinary manner by the Pope when it is proposed in the normal day-to-day teaching of the entire episcopate.

Here’s the key: One only needs to give religious assent to the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope (i.e., not ex cathedra) if it is an obvious universal teaching of the Church (or if the Pope has made it clear that it is a universal teaching of the Church).

The Pope may teach that there is a purgatorial fire. Since it is not taught definitively by the universal episcopate, that doctrine would not be considered part of the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope. So I do not need to give religious assent to it.

A recent example of the exercise of the ordinary magisterium by the Pope is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The Pope was not defining anything (i.e., not teaching ex cathedra), but was appealing rather to the universal definitive teaching of the Church on the matter. Thus, it requires my religious assent.

I hope that helps.

Blessings

mardukm,

I appreciate your post. Great information, though I’ve read and/or heard most of this before.

. . . .I’m sure you see that teaching from V2 and to you it probably means that one has to give religious assent to every single teaching that flows from the Pope’s mouth. . . . .

False assumption. I do not see this as meaning I must give religious assent to “every single teaching that flows from the Pope’s mouth.”

LUMEN GENTIUM does offer qualifications for acceptance of non-Ex Cathedra teachings:

“. . . . .it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . . . .”

However, this qualification seems to leave a great deal of “wiggle room.”

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

There is only one true interpretation. Are these interpretations or celebrations, applications that you see?

schaick,

Who holds the “one true interpretation” of salvation that you claim is so clear in the Bible? There are so many interpretations within Protestantism, it makes my head spin. When I was first considering leaving the Baptist Church, and began to consider all the different Protestant denominations with so many different interpretations; I felt like I was drowning in a sea of voices.

A tradition passed down is a tradition to be passed down!! - not ignored for hundreds of years to then resurface.

Not sure what you are saying here. Please clarify.

Whether written or oral it is still GOD’s Word.

I agree that God’s Word can be both written and oral. That was my point. How do you know that all of the “oral” tradition made it into the N.T. Canon? Perhaps some of the oral tradition was recorded after the N.T. Canon was fixed. Do you not see this as a possibility?

It is now believed by some scholars that the Gospel did exist very shortly after Jesus death, not as an entire book but codices were circulating

A wide variety of writings were circulating in the early Church, before the N.T. Canon was fixed. Scholars continue to debate the dates of the letters and books, as well as the authorship of some of the letters/books.

Still, the N.T. Canon was assembled and fixed by the Catholic Church, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There’s just no way of getting around this fact.

Anna

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Anna,

mardukm,

I appreciate your post. Great information, though I’ve read and/or heard most of this before.

False assumption. I do not see this as meaning I must give religious assent to “every single teaching that flows from the Pope’s mouth.”

 

[schaick]

The above statement has absolutely no logic behind it.

The church was already founded by Christ and it was universal to begin with.

The Catholic Church as it stands today is most definately not the Church of Jerusalem. It has developed away from it’s slimplicity into a maze of rules, doctrines, dogmas, etc.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has made it very exclusive which goes against the very idea of the universal Church.

 

[schaick]

schaick,

Who holds the “one true interpretation” of salvation that you claim is so clear in the Bible? There are so many interpretations within Protestantism, it makes my head spin. When I was first considering leaving the Baptist Church, and began to consider all the different Protestant denominations with so many different interpretations; I felt like I was drowning in a sea of voices.

Stop listening to all those that say they have a different interpretation. Do they really or is it a different application of that one interpretation.

If a church says they are the only ones with the truth, or that they have knowledge that no others have access to that is gnosticism.

GOD is not a GOD of confusion.

The Bible holds the one true interpretation. Nothing can contradict it and be truth.

Not sure what you are saying here. Please clarify.

Prove that the Mary Dogmas existed at the tinme of the Disciples.

Prove that Peter had papal infallibility. For that matter prove he was the sole leader, vicar on earth.

Prove these are required for my salvation.

I agree that God’s Word can be both written and oral. That was my point. How do you know that all of the “oral” tradition made it into the N.T. Canon? Perhaps some of the oral tradition was recorded after the N.T. Canon was fixed. Do you not see this as a possibility?

Do you really think GOD would leave important information out of HIS Book? I trust GOD more then I trust people in getting the information right.

Ever play telephone? add gaps of hundreds of years to that.

A wide variety of writings were circulating in the early Church, before the N.T. Canon was fixed. Scholars continue to debate the dates of the letters and books, as well as the authorship of some of the letters/books.

Still, the N.T. Canon was assembled and fixed by the Catholic Church, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There’s just no way of getting around this fact.

Anna

The universal Church was referencing the letters and Books from the beginning. The Catholic Church simply recognized what GOD put forth.

 

[Nicea325]

The Catholic Church as it stands today is most definately not the Church of Jerusalem. It has developed away from it’s slimplicity into a maze of rules, doctrines, dogmas, etc.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has made it very exclusive which goes against the very idea of the universal Church.

Wrong! You have a very narrow belief about the church and its growth. If Jesus made it very clear: Go and preach to ALL (universal) nations and baptize them in the name of the Father…,then why would Chirst strict His church solely to Jerusalem? Is the United States of today the same as the U.S. of 1787? Did the FBI exist? Did Homeland Security exist? Social Security?

He would be contradicting Himself by saying ALL nations. Second, how would the Gospel spread,if Christ wanted His church to remain ‘under-ground’ and not spread to ALL nations?

Third, you apparently do not comprehend scripture very well because are not deacons (an office) FOUNDED by the Apostles? The Apostles would be guilty of your charge of ‘developing’ away from the simplicity of the universal church. Moreover, the CC has not gone against the very idea of the universal church. The church like all living organism grow and develop,so your ideas are bogus.

BTW: And where does thousands upon thousands of different denominations teaching conflicting beliefs the ‘idea’ of the universal church?

 

[tomarin]

The Gospel message was recocognised by the universal Church way before the Catholic Church became the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church simply recognized what all knew to be GOD’s Word.

But for the first thousand years of Christianity there was only one Christian Church, right? Until a portion of it, East or West depending on one’s point of view, went into schism. So it would be logical would it not to assume that that early Church is identifiable with either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church (or both).

But there was definitely only one Christian church for the first thousand years of Christianity. So no need for a universal church.

Added: so to develop my argument to its conclusion, the Bible that you put your trust in for doctrines of salvation was compiled by the leaders of either the Orthodox or the Catholic church. If they had the authority to do that then why do they not have authority to teach on Christian doctrine now?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Stop listening to all those that say they have a different interpretation. Do they really or is it a different application of that one interpretation.

Are you trying to say there are no different interpretations within Protestantism–only different applications of one interpretation? There have been all kinds of threads debating the interpretation of Scripture relating to salvation. This topic would be better served on a thread of its own, if you are interested in starting one or joining the discussion on one that is still open----unless this issue is discussed within the framework of the OP’s topic for this thread: Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

If a church says they are the only ones with the truth, or that they have knowledge that no others have access to that is gnosticism.

Gnostics may claim “knowledge” others do not hold. However, your statement does not define Gnosticism. A Church claiming to be the only one holding the truth does not a Gnostic make. ---------Again----way off topic.

GOD is not a GOD of confusion.

I agree.

The Bible holds the one true interpretation. Nothing can contradict it and be truth.

I agree the Bible contains God’s truth.

Prove that the Mary Dogmas existed at the tinme of the Disciples.

Prove that Peter had papal infallibility. For that matter prove he was the sole leader, vicar on earth.

Prove these are required for my salvation.

I am not Catholic. These are some of the issues that cause me concern in considering Catholicism.

Do you really think GOD would leave important information out of HIS Book? I trust GOD more then I trust people in getting the information right.

As gurney pointed out in an earlier post, there are many important things that are not discussed in the N.T.

Ever play telephone? add gaps of hundreds of years to that.

What is your point here?

The universal Church was referencing the letters and Books from the beginning.

There were many writings that were circulating in the early Church. Not all of those made it into the N.T. Canon. So, there was a “discernment” process in assembling the Canon.

The Catholic Church simply recognized what GOD put forth.

IOW, the Catholic Church assembled the Canon through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Again—off topic.

The current thread topic is: Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

mardukm,

Although the document should be read and considered in its entirety, this is the passage that causes me the greatest concern in considering Catholicism.

(Emphasis is mine.)
**DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

CHAPTER III, ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH
AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE

25.** Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

What specific problem do you have with this particular encyclical?

LUMEN GENTIUM
". . . . .This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . . . ." (vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

It’s the submission of “mind and will,” even beyond the Ex Cathedra teachings.

. . . .I’m sure you see that teaching from V2 and to you it probably means that one has to give religious assent to every single teaching that flows from the Pope’s mouth. . . . .

mardukm,

. . . .False assumption. I do not see this as meaning I must give religious assent to “every single teaching that flows from the Pope’s mouth.”

LUMEN GENTIUM does offer qualifications for acceptance of non-Ex Cathedra teachings:

“. . . . .it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . . . .”

However, this qualification seems to leave a great deal of “wiggle room.”

Anna

Dear sister Anna,

So after all this effort, are you actually going to let us know what your concern is? Or should we just keep guessing until we get it right?

Please be frank.

Blessings

mardukm,

I thought my concerns were obvious. Guess that was my “false assumption.”

It is difficult to understand why any Marion doctrines fall under Ex Cathedra teachings, when there are so few Ex Cathedra teachings.

LUMEN GENTIUM’s requirement of “religious submission of mind and will” to the “authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” is just too much. I would be expected to submit to teachings that may turn out to be wrong.

I dealt with enough of this in the Baptist Church, where strict adherence to the Pastor’s Biblical interpretation was expected; and questioning brought about a whole world of trouble. Before I formally left the Baptist Church, I was banned from a Baptist website for taking up for Catholics. I insisted Catholics are Christians. I also said some Baptist ministers required far more loyalty to their teachings and interpretations than the Pope expects of Catholics. I was banned as a “Catholic troll.” I will admit that I bring some “baggage” to the table.

According to LUMEN GENTIUM non-Ex Cathedra teachings requiring “submission of mind and will” may be known:
*either from the character of the documents,
*from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine,
*from his manner of speaking.

These requirements seem far too subjective. IOW, Catholics must submit mind and will to the Pope, but the CC always has an “out”, if the non-Ex Cathedra teachings turn out to be problematic.

Anna