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

[gurneyhalleck1]

Outstanding post, Marduk. Very lucid points. I’ll consider them greatly.

And we Californians are accent-free. Everyone knows that We have great weather, earthquakes, wildfires, incompetent governors, ungovernable populace, and unfortunately, Los Angeles. But hey, we have the San Francisco Giants and no accents so that’s why I stay!

Dear brother Gurney,

Conversations with you are always so intelligent (despite your Valley accent ).

Actually, I need to ask the source of your statement from George Reshaina. I found it at a Wiki site, but it appears not to be a direct quote from him. It seems to be a summary of elements found in George Reshaina’s book, but I suspect the “so with Honorius” was a commentary addendum by the author of the article.

In fact, according to Joseph Patrich in his book The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church…, George Reshaina gives effusive praise to the hierarchs who supported the Monothelite heresy - Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria, and Archbishop Arcadius of Cyprus – but no Pope Honorius (Patrich cites pp 316-318 in George Reshaina’s book for this information). Don’t you find that not a little strange? If Pope Honorius through his legate was “pressing” monothelitism at the Synod of Cyprus, why doesn’t he include Pope Honorius in his list?

The fact is, the first time the idea of monothelitism even entered the mind of Pope Honorius was when Sergius posed the question to him. This, Sergius did after the Synod of Cyprus. Whatever else Honorius may have written to Sergius, we know for a fact that he instructed Sergius to avoid debating the matter in public. Seriously — if Honorius was “pressing” his monothelite views in a Synod, don’t you find it not a bit peculiar that he would be instructing Sergius to not promote the matter either way?

As I’ve always maintained, Honorius’ personal belief was never taught publicly to the Church. No one apart from the main engineers of the Monothelite heresy ever had an inkling of Pope Honorius’ role in the mess, and this was not discovered until Sergius had produced the letter of Honorius at the Council. George Reshaina is generally believed to have died in 680 (when the Sixth Ecum began), so he would not have been aware of Pope Honorius’ involvement. Hence, his own silence as to Honorius’ role in the monothelite heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

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?

I would consider any Pope that developes a dogma or doctrine claiming it needs to be believed for you to be saved that does not have biblical evidence to be a heretic.

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

 

[Nicea325]

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?

Nicely said gurney…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Are you sure about this? From what I read the letters correspond to the time of the synod in 634? I’ve looked all over the place and it seems that Sergius had sent his letter well before the synod? I’m open to being wrong on this but this is the impression I’m getting in my readings here. When I can get to the Christendom book series that I have at home by Dr. Warren Carroll, I can double check.

The fact is, the first time the idea of monothelitism even entered the mind of Pope Honorius was when Sergius posed the question to him. This, Sergius did after the Synod of Cyprus.
Blessings,
Marduk

 

[tomarin]

I would consider any Pope that developes a dogma or doctrine claiming it needs to be believed for you to be saved that does not have biblical evidence to be a heretic.

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

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…

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dear sister Anna,

I find that question strange. As far as Church authority, I submit to my bishop first and foremost, as I hope any other apostolic Christian would. On rare occasions, if there is a situation when the Metropolitan intervenes, I would submit to the metropolical synod. On even rarer occasions, if my patriarch has to intervene, I will submit to the patriarchal synod. On occasions even rarer than that, if the Holy Father has to intervene, I would submit to him. The fact is, it is a rare occasion I even have to think about the Pope in terms of faith and morals. I only think about him when I have to defend him against deprecators (which is often enough ).

In short, I have not yet found a circumstance where I have to submit mind and will to the Pope distinct from the submission I give to my bishop. Given the structure of the Catholic Church, it’s hard for me to imagine a circumstance when I’d have to choose between my bishop and the Pope. My metropolitan or patriarch will surely have resolved the matter before it even needs to get to the Pope.

Does that answer your question?

Blessings

Not exactly, for you as one in communion with Rome, to whom do you submit mind and will and under what circumstances? Only to Ex Cathedra teachings? or other teachings as well?

Surely Catholics are supposed to follow all of the church’s teachings in faith and morals? I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with this line of questioning.

I’m asking about the submission of mind and will in the context of LUMEN GENTIUM.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

Are you sure about this? From what I read the letters correspond to the time of the synod in 634? I’ve looked all over the place and it seems that Sergius had sent his letter well before the synod? I’m open to being wrong on this but this is the impression I’m getting in my readings here. When I can get to the Christendom book series that I have at home by Dr. Warren Carroll, I can double check.

You may have a very difficult time making a comparative analysis because there is no source that gives the actual date of the Synod. Mention of the Synod is sparse in contemporary sources (I think George Reshaina’s work may be the only one), so some scholars doubt it ever actually took place.

Our analysis must be a deductive process. My own conclusion is based on two premises:

1. Scholars generally agree that Sergius’ query to Pope Honorius was motivated by the opposition of St. Sophronius.
2. The bishop of Rome was the court of last appeal.

When St. Sophronius was not yet Patriarch, Sergius had nothing to worry about. In fact, St. Sophronius visited Sergius in 633 while the former was just a monk to debate the matter of monoenergism. But Sergius had nothing to worry about from a lowly monk. However, in 634, St. Sophronius was elected Patriarch of Jerusalem. Sergius’ first contact with St. Sophronius was at the Synod of Cyprus via legation that same year (in fact, it was one of the first acts of the new Patriarch to request Archbishop Arcadius of Cyprus to convene a synod for the purpose of discussing the issue). St. Sophronius proved to be as intractable as ever, and this time, he had the support St. Maximus. It seems only logical that only after this failed conciliation at Cyprus, Sergius felt the need to appeal to an even greater authority – hence, he wrote to Pope Honorius.

Btw, don’t you find it suspciously odd that a local Eastern synod would be inviting the bishop of Rome to send a legate? As I mentioned in an earlier post, I find the claim spurious, and suspect that it was manufactured by the author to bolster the status of a local monothelite synod (if it even existed at all).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Not exactly, for you as one in communion with Rome, to whom do you submit mind and will and under what circumstances? Only to Ex Cathedra teachings? or other teachings as well?

Only dogmatic teachings. I don’t feel bound to agree with the Pope on peculiarly Latin doctrines or theologoumena.

Blessings

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dear sister Anna,

I find that question strange. As far as Church authority, I submit to my bishop first and foremost, as I hope any other apostolic Christian would. On rare occasions, if there is a situation when the Metropolitan intervenes, I would submit to the metropolical synod. On even rarer occasions, if my patriarch has to intervene, I will submit to the patriarchal synod. On occasions even rarer than that, if the Holy Father has to intervene, I would submit to him. The fact is, it is a rare occasion I even have to think about the Pope in terms of faith and morals. I only think about him when I have to defend him against deprecators (which is often enough ).

In short, I have not yet found a circumstance where I have to submit mind and will to the Pope distinct from the submission I give to my bishop. Given the structure of the Catholic Church, it’s hard for me to imagine a circumstance when I’d have to choose between my bishop and the Pope. My metropolitan or patriarch will surely have resolved the matter before it even needs to get to the Pope.

Does that answer your question?

Blessings

Only dogmatic teachings. I don’t feel bound to agree with the Pope on peculiarly Latin doctrines or theologoumena.

Blessings

How do you interpret LUMEN GENTIUM?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Gurney,

This is really a great thread. Just wanted to pause to say that.
Anna

 

[mardukm]

How do you interpret LUMEN GENTIUM?

Which part exactly?

Blessings

 

[rev_kevin]

How interesting. However, do you feel most Baptists men are against it or favor it?

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]

Using head coverings to distract away from teaching is a pointless exercise. The head coverings that is a cultural sign of respect that was relevant at the time and isn’t now. Disciplines and doctrines are two different things. Just like the priesthood. Celibacy, for example, is a discipline. The pope could reverse that next week and declare the clergy free to marry as Orthodox priests do. But the pope cannot declare women to be priests because this goes to the fundamental heart and soul of the fatherhood of the priesthood. So, head coverings are mere discipline, like fish on Fridays. Women in positions of power within the Church is another matter and it will not change, nor should it.

You’re seeking to make this all cultural, which it was not. Paul’s view of women no doubt was influenced by his Judaic upbringing but Paul is not the only person we’re dealing with here. Jesus, right? Why did Jesus have no female apostles? Certainly He was not a man who was afraid to buck the system and tick people off. And none of the apostles afterward were women. And on top of that for 2,000 years clergy remained all-male, as it should be. The priesthood is not a mere pastorship in a protestant church. It is a sublime and deep, mystical, grace-conveying, sacrament-bringing office that ultimately is sacrificial in nature. It is sacerdotal, not just ministerial preaching. This is true in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. It is more than just preaching.

I’m not picking and choosing anything to fit my agenda, rev. I would encourage you to holistically look at women as clergy over the last 2,000 years. Look at the Bible, the traditions of the Church, and all the precedents as well as what men like John Paul II have reiterated about the all-male priesthood and ask yourself if you, as a pro-women’s ordination champion, are in good company or if you’re in a minority seeking to take the views of women we possess in modernity and try to anachronistically apply them to the past.

God bless

OK as far as the fatherhood of priesthood thing, thats what the CC goes by which is fine for ya’ll. I’m not saying take the priesthood away, I’m saying why not let them preach, let them do the Euchrist, the sacraments, and so forth?

You can go by your traditions all you want and stick by the lame 2000 year that is always brought up here. But I see nowhere were Jesus says women can’t. I see Paul saying women can’t have power but I don’t see Jesus saying this.

Who’s history, the CC’s. Who’s traditions, the CC’s. The Bible, I did and I gave you examples. As far as men like John Paul II I would find what the CC says. So none of this would do me any good because I is only the CC’s view.

Dealing with Jesus, when Jesus picked his 12 he picked them to be his closest friends, now there were hundreds if not thousands of disciples, both men and women. See women back then were second class, property in a way, so they wouldn’t allow women to be equal to men, that was their culture, and still is in Muslims but not with Christian. See women are now equal to men, if your not sexist.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hope you’re not calling me sexist because I’m opposed to women’s ordination or women preachers. I think you were being sarcastic or silly at the end there so I’ll give ya the benefit of the doubt.

I’m also confused when you say that you don’t want to take the priesthood away yet let women “do” the sacraments and Eucharist (which is a sacrament)? That’s what the priesthood is? Consecration of the Eucharist, conveying sacraments, etc.?

And what “lame 2000 year” are you referring to? The fact that for 2,000 years there have never been women “priests” in Catholicism or Orthodoxy? That’s not lame; it’s reality. And it always will be. Just because you don’t see Jesus explicitely NOT forbidding women’s ordination doesn’t make it permissible. Show me where Jesus says we can’t have gay marriage? Show me where Jesus says we can’t have abortions? It’s not there. That’s why the Church relies wisely upon sacred tradition, councils, Bible, and magisterium to rule on these things and not one man’s view of the Bible in isolation of Church.

Considering the Church came before the NT, I’d tend to give a little more trust to the Church and not just proof text.

Gotta run. Getting late. Love to carry this discussion tomorrow, Kev. God bless you!

OK as far as the fatherhood of priesthood thing, thats what the CC goes by which is fine for ya’ll. I’m not saying take the priesthood away, I’m saying why not let them preach, let them do the Euchrist, the sacraments, and so forth?

You can go by your traditions all you want and stick by the lame 2000 year that is always brought up here. But I see nowhere were Jesus says women can’t. I see Paul saying women can’t have power but I don’t see Jesus saying this.

Who’s history, the CC’s. Who’s traditions, the CC’s. The Bible, I did and I gave you examples. As far as men like John Paul II I would find what the CC says. So none of this would do me any good because I is only the CC’s view.

Dealing with Jesus, when Jesus picked his 12 he picked them to be his closest friends, now there were hundreds if not thousands of disciples, both men and women. See women back then were second class, property in a way, so they wouldn’t allow women to be equal to men, that was their culture, and still is in Muslims but not with Christian. See women are now equal to men, if your not sexist.

 

[rev_kevin]

I hope you’re not calling me sexist because I’m opposed to women’s ordination or women preachers. I think you were being sarcastic or silly at the end there so I’ll give ya the benefit of the doubt.

I’m also confused when you say that you don’t want to take the priesthood away yet let women “do” the sacraments and Eucharist (which is a sacrament)? That’s what the priesthood is? Consecration of the Eucharist, conveying sacraments, etc.?

And what “lame 2000 year” are you referring to? The fact that for 2,000 years there have never been women “priests” in Catholicism or Orthodoxy? That’s not lame; it’s reality. And it always will be. Just because you don’t see Jesus explicitely NOT forbidding women’s ordination doesn’t make it permissible. Show me where Jesus says we can’t have gay marriage? Show me where Jesus says we can’t have abortions? It’s not there. That’s why the Church relies wisely upon sacred tradition, councils, Bible, and magisterium to rule on these things and not one man’s view of the Bible in isolation of Church.

Considering the Church came before the NT, I’d tend to give a little more trust to the Church and not just proof text.

Gotta run. Getting late. Love to carry this discussion tomorrow, Kev. God bless you!

Wasn’t calling you sexists. I said, See women are equal to men, if your not sexist.

I believe there are more sacraments the the ones I mentioned.

I see no evidence where the CC has been around before the NT.

Oh preform, or what ever you call it when a priest holds up the wafer and says a prayer, then it magicly turnes into Jesus body and the wine into his blood. You know able to do that.

Who says women can’t be ordained? Paul? Remember womem were second class and were not allowed to do a lot of things back them but the can now, They are equal to men then they can be ordained like a man. Just because it was that way back then, women being second class, it isn’t that way now, we have evolved and realized that women are just as equal as men are, they are treated better then they were back then.

If you don’t want women to be ordained, then be it, as for me I say Go for it women.

 

[schaick]

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?

The concept of the Trinity and the Nicene Creed are completely Bible based.

Yes, I believe that the universal Church that I am a member of is guided by the Holy Spirit. A church body can not bind or loose something that is contrary to GOD’s Law, something aleady bound or loosed by GOD.

Man can not add top or subtract from what is required for our salvation.

With out Scripture there is no concrete proof as to what is needed for our salvation. Yes anything extra added not supported by what GOD has laid out in HIS Word is extra- not a requirement.

That is what it all boils down to what is needed for our salvation.

No one seems to be able to answer the following - Is belief in the Mary Dogmas, purgatory, all the newly developed doctrines and dogmas neccessary?

I say newly developed because there seems to be a large gap of hundreds of years with no proof that a tradition was actually followed by the Church of the Bible.

All that you mentioned can be easily sorted out by reading 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…

Except eschatology at this point in time we do not have the one True interpretation

If it goes against GOD’s Law it already has an answer.

 

[schaick]

How does the excommunication of the Australian nun fit into all this?

Sainthood for Australian nun who exposed Irish pedophile priest
By CATHY HAYES, IrishCentral.com Staff Writer

Published Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 8:04 AMUpdated Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 8:38 PM

Sister Mary MacKillop

In 1871 Sister Mary MacKillop exposed a pedophile Irish Catholic priest in Australia and was excommunicated. Now she is being canonized as Australia’s first saint.

Sister MacKillop, a co-founder of the Sisters of Saint Joseph, discovered that children were being abused by Father Patrick Keating in Kapunda Parish, near Adelaide in South Australia. She reported it to the other co-founder of the Josephites, Father Julian Tenison and Keating was sent back to Ireland where he continued to serve.

A friend of the pedophile priest, Father Charles Horan, swore revenge on Sister MacKillop and she was excommunicated after for years as a nun by Adelaide’s bishop Laurence Shiel who was originally from Wexford. She was left on the streets with no money.

On his deathbed, five months later, Bishop Shiel absolved the punishment and restored her to the sisterhood.

For the past 25 years, Father Paul Gardiner has advocated for Sister Mackillop’s canonization. Speaking to the Irish Times he said that Father Horan was working for Bishop Shiel who had urged him to break up the Josephites. When Sister MacKillop refused she was banished. He said “She submitted to a farcical ceremony where the bishop had . . . lost it.”

“He was a puppet being manipulated by malicious priests. This sounds terrible, but it’s true.”

Archbishop Philip Wilson, in 2009, 100 years after her death, apologized to Sister MacKillop and the Sisters of Joseph.

He said "On behalf of myself and the archdiocese, I apologize to the sisters . . . for what happened to them in the context of the excommunication, when their lives and their community life was interrupted and they were virtually thrown out on the streets . . . This was a terrible thing.”

Following Sister MacKillop’s reinstatement she became well known for her work with disadvantaged children, female ex-prisoners and prostitutes.

In 1995 she was beatified by Pope John Paul II following a decree made by the Vatican in 1961. According to the decree a Sydney woman was cured of leukemia through the intercession of Sister MacKillop. During the mid-1990s a woman was sent home from hospital with inoperable lung and brain cancer but she was cured.

In 2009, Corkman, David Keohane was beaten almost to death in Sydney. He woke from his coma last March and his family says his recovery is due to their praying to Sister MacKillop.

Steve Carey, a Keohane family friend said “All we can really say is that faith in Mary MacKillop helped them to get through this.”
Sister MacKillop was born in Melborne in 1842 to Scottish parent. She died in Sydney in 1909.

 

[tomarin]

With out Scripture there is no concrete proof as to what is needed for our salvation. Yes anything extra added not supported by what GOD has laid out in HIS Word is extra- not a requirement.

But where do you think holy scripture came from? Who made the tough decisions about what to leave out and what to keep in?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Which part exactly?

Blessings

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)

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

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…

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)

Anna