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

[guanophore]

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.

You are in agreement with Catholic teaching then, on this point. One has to wonder, then, why you attempt to contradict what God has already revealed to the Church?

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

Perhaps you don’t realize that you are in a tradition that has done this, and you are only acting out of what you received, which was deficient.

Or, perhaps you really do want to “subtract” for yourself what you believe the CC “added to to salvation”?

**With out Scripture there is no concrete proof as to what is needed for our salvation.**

Scripture is not “concrete proof” either, since it must be received by faith, and is not subject to the scientific method of analysis. What you are using is your own perception of what is written, which differs from what others perceive.

Yes anything extra added not supported by what GOD has laid out in HIS Word is extra- not a requirement.

It seems clear that you believe the abbreviated version of the Gospel you have received is the “complete” one, and that the CC has “added” to it. You donm’t seem to realize that the Reformers began the subtracting,a nd it has been going on ever since. The Apostles would hardly recognize some of the “bible churches” that exist today.

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

If you wish to “boil down” the gospel to this, such is your perogative. However, Catholics are not at liberty to remove what was given to us. It is whole and entire, and we can’t start pulling out certain threads, saying they are not “essential”. This is not for us to determine.

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?

It is necessary to receive the Gospel from those to whom it was committed. Jesus directed HIs Apostles “teaching them all that I have commanded”. He has commanded quite a bit!

Now I have talked to some Reformed brethren on there who say that Jesus’ teachings are not relevant to Chrsitians, and that they are not about us. This is one technique to excise part of the Gospel lmessage.

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.

Yes, I think if you reject the sacred tradition, the Divine Liturgy, the prayers of the Apostles, the testimony of history, etc, it leaves a big gap in history.

If one rejects all the available evidence, what else can there be but a gap?

All that you mentioned can be easily sorted out by reading Scripture:

If this were true, there would not be so many fractures in the body of Christ today.

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

And how was it decided which laws were cultural, and did not apply to the Chruch, and which were moral, and must be kept?

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Scott,

She finds it disturbing and confusing that it says that we must submit our minds and wills completely to the Roman Pontiff EVEN WHEN he isn’t speaking ex cathedra. All we hear day in and day out in Catholic media is that non-Catholics don’t understand infallibility and submission of will to the papacy. We hear how these non-Catholics get it wrong and think that Catholics have to submit their wills to the pope even when he isn’t speaking ex cathedra. How silly. How inaccurate. Then, one reads Lumen Gentium and, low and behold, that’s exactly what it says!? …

I think you and Anna have encapsulated the entire conundrum.

You might notice that this is not a matter that falls under Papal Infallibility per se. This is actually the function of the universal jurisdiction claims of the bishop of Rome. He not only erects dioceses and names-transfers-fires bishops, he ‘line item’ vetoes decrees and entire sessions of councils and synods, and he tells everyone what to think on religious matters through his encyclicals, audiences and speeches (as indicated here and in Lumen Gentium), clearly a function of the teaching office and an expression of the Ordinary Magisterium. But when he is shown to have been mistaken or needs to be reversed or conveniently ignored by a successor, we are told it was not an ex cathedra infallible teaching. It’s a real dodge.

 

[guanophore]

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

What part of this is inconsistent with what you read in Scripture about submitting to your leaders, and the Apostolic instruction?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The submitting to leaders in the Scriptures does not use the language of ordinary, extraordinary magisteriums and it doesn’t spell out rules of engagement for what to believe that is ex cathedra and otherwise. The bible isn’t this legalistic, especially the NT. None of these tidbits are a part of Holy Scripture.

What part of this is inconsistent with what you read in Scripture about submitting to your leaders, and the Apostolic instruction?

 

[guanophore]

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

Here are some of the passages that seem to me to convey the same concept:

1 Peter 2:13-15

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

These are only secular authorities, but the Apostles urges us to submit to them.

1 Peter 5:5-6

5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

The submission of mind and will is an attitude of humility, that trust of a child, that one rests in the hand of God, and there fore, there is no evil that any man harm us.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1 Cor 16:15-16

15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

The Apostle instructs Titus to vigorously exercise his apostolic authority:

Titus 2:15

15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

I can speculate that your concern about this humble obedience relates to the shepherd possibly wandering away from the will of God. Is that what is concerning, or am I missing the point?

 

[guanophore]

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.

If you were to submit yourself in humble obedience to a person in authority over you, what do you imagine the worst possible negative outcome might be?

For example, if a person were a slave…

Titus 2:9-10

9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

What if the servant were submissive and Godly, but the master beat them and treated them cruelly anyhow?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

These are general exhortations to being obedient. One could apply these to Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Catholicism, etc. In fact, the reference you have here that says: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supremefits very nicely with 16th Century Anglican thinking more than Catholicism? It fits more with conciliarism and the Imperial Roman days than with the papacy?

Orthodox and Anglican Christians have no trouble with authority or submission. It’s not a matter of submitting. It’s a matter of to WHOM we must submit and to what degree? There have been heretical bishops who were Arians or Nestorians. Would the faithful be expected to adopt what they know to be heresy from one of those bishops? Of course not. Or to magistrates and leaders in the secular world there is a great deal of sin, take abortion for example. One isn’t supposed to blindly give in to their wills? Or look at the United States Council of Catholic Bishops telling Catholics to support the ObamaCare health care fiasco. I’m not submitting blindly to that. No thank yuh!

Anna and I are concerned about the degree to which we must submit our minds and intellects to the ordinary magisterium. It’s not about obedience or submission but the degree to which common sense, our own consciences and intellects, and opinions can play a part. Lumen Gentium very plainly makes it obvious that whether it’s ex cathedra or not, we must submit blindly to the braintrust no matter what. That’s what we get from LG 25. and that concerns me. It concerns Anna as well.

Here are some of the passages that seem to me to convey the same concept:

1 Peter 2:13-15

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

These are only secular authorities, but the Apostles urges us to submit to them.

1 Peter 5:5-6

5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

The submission of mind and will is an attitude of humility, that trust of a child, that one rests in the hand of God, and there fore, there is no evil that any man harm us.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1 Cor 16:15-16

15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

The Apostle instructs Titus to vigorously exercise his apostolic authority:

Titus 2:15

15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

I can speculate that your concern about this humble obedience relates to the shepherd possibly wandering away from the will of God. Is that what is concerning, or am I missing the point?

 

[guanophore]

Are these interpretations or celebrations, applications that you see?

Yes, there are celebrations in the Sacred Tradition, prayers, practices, and most importantly, how we are to understand the Holy Scriptures.

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

Well, dear one, it was not the decision of Catholics that our Reformed brethren felt it necessary to stop passing the traditions, and to ignore them for hundreds of years.

Your inability to see that they have been constantly held, practiced, and passed down through the paradosis makes them non-existent only to yourself.

Have you considered the degree of hubris that is necessary for a person to beleive that, since he cannot see something, it does not exist?

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.

Yes. The Sacred Tradition is as much God’s Word as the Sacred Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

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.

They are one and the same, schaick. Have you considered how it might change your faith if you were to accept this fact?

 

[mardukm]

Hi Scott, I think you and Anna have encapsulated the entire conundrum.

You might notice that this is not a matter that falls under Papal Infallibility per se. This is actually the function of the universal jurisdiction claims of the bishop of Rome. He not only erects dioceses and names-transfers-fires bishops, he ‘line item’ vetoes decrees and entire sessions of councils and synods, and he tells everyone what to think on religious matters through his encyclicals, audiences and speeches (as indicated here and in Lumen Gentium), clearly a function of the teaching office and an expression of the Ordinary Magisterium. But when he is shown to have been mistaken or needs to be reversed or conveniently ignored by a successor, we are told it was not an ex cathedra infallible teaching. It’s a real dodge.

Kind of like how EO have had to make numerous “qualifications” on numerous teachings just to create a rift between modern EO’xy and its Catholic roots? I think polemicists from both sides can always use the “dodge” rhetoric to great effect. But it is nothing more than an appeal to emotions.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

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.

Indeed, the mustard seed has become the greatest of all the trees, and there are many birds nesting in the branches.

The Church has continued what she did in Jerusalem, deciding in each and every situation what the will of God is for the flock, and teaching the people.

Perhaps you wish that people were not so complex? It would be nice to just be chillin’ in the Garden of Eden, and have no need for rules, doctrine, and dogmas. However, we are born into a fallen world, and we have limitations that require us to have structure in order to function well.

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

I do not understand what this is saying. The hierarchy can’t make the Church exclusive. Maybe you can help me understand.

The church teaches what you cited above, that the Church has no authority to change what God has already revealed.

Perhaps your perceptions are what is going against?

 

[guanophore]

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.

Only in your mind is it an “application” schaick. For those of us who have received the Apostolic faith, yours is a different interpretation. That is easy to see because they are mutually exclusive.

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.

Are you under the misapprehension that the Catholic Church teaches either of these about herself?

GOD is not a GOD of confusion.

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

Indeed He is not, but the Bible holds no interpretations at all. Interpretation is something that occurs within the mind of man. And since this is the case, there can be as many interpretations as there are people reading it.

I agree that nothing can contradict the Revelation of God and be the Truth. But something can contradict your interpretation of scripture, and still be the 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.

It is a mystery why you are asking for “proofs” with regard to matters of faith. Surely you realize that the Revelation of God is far beyond the puny “proofs” of man?

It is not up to us to decide what is required for our salvation. It is impudent of man to insist upon proofs from God. It is like the clay saying to the potter, “why has thou made me thus”?

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.

It has become very clear that you have serious trust issues, not only with people, but with God. If you cannot trust God to see to it that His Word is preserved where He placed it (in the Church) then it is no wonder you are demanding “proofs”. It is really a way of shouting “I CAN"T TRUST GOD”.

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

Ever received the Word of God in your heart, and submitted to His promise to preserve it there infallibly? The Word of God is not a child’s game, schaick. Basically what you are saying here is that the failings of man are stronger than the power of God, so that our weaknesses nullify His Word.

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

The CC was the one who wrote the letters and memoirs. Why is this so difficult to accept?

 

[guanophore]

I thought my concerns were obvious. Guess that was *my* "false assumption." ;)

Sorry about that. I am trying really hard to get it, but what seems so self evident to you by bolding the problem passages escapes me, because I don’t have a problem with it.

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

Those were the ones that were being most challenged by heresies at the time.

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.

Ok, then I was following correctly. Now, can you please follow this train for me? Supposing you followed something that turned out wrong. Can you choose an example, for instance?

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.

You dealt with far too much of what? You mean, expected to be compliant, not question, always speak the “party line”? If you don’t submit to the party line you are ostracized and condemned? I am beginning to get a better understanding of your reluctance.

In the example you give above,you were speaking the Truth in Love, contradicting the beliefs and values of those in the community into which you spoke your words.

Is is so bad being banned as a “Catholic troll”?

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.

Why is that a problem? Did not Jesus teach His disciples to obey those who sat on the Seat of Moses? Did He not say “do as they say, but not as they do”? And no sooner than Pentecost, did not the Apostles take the “out” because they had to tell that same group of people “we must obey God rather than man”?

I asked you above for an example of something the Pope might teach that would put you into a conflict like this. Do any come to mind?

 

[Protestant101]

Y
Your inability to see that they have been constantly held, practiced, and passed down through the paradosis makes them non-existent only to yourself.

Have you considered the degree of hubris that is necessary for a person to beleive that, since he cannot see something, it does not exist?

Yes. The Sacred Tradition is as much God’s Word as the Sacred Scripture.

Guanaphore; I see you are still picking away at Protestants here on the internet. Your use of the word “hubris” is very innappropriate, and only shows a lack of pertinent Biblical proof for what you are saying.

Protestants accept the Biblical counsel that there are two types of “tradition;” one that the Bible condones, and the other one that the Bible condemns.

It is easy to see how Catholics have these two quite mixed up; and so much so that it is impossible to demonstrate all Catholic Tradition in the Bible. Your Church’s own hubris history/tradition shows two Popes, both supposedly descended from Peter, and yet both arguing over who was the real boss. It’s a very sad story in the history of Christianity.

The kind of tradition supported by the Bible is limited only to the gospel, and to the love of Christ.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You wouldn’t care to elaborate, would you?

The kind of tradition supported by the Bible is limited only to the gospel, and to the love of Christ.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on topic and stop the bickering

 

[rev_kevin]

Brother! You must have forgotten that women are saved by childbearing…

1 Tim 2:12-15

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

V.12 Now some may interpert this to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church, however, commentators point out that Paul did not forbid women from ever teaching. Paul commended co-worker, Priscilla, taught Apollos, the great preacher, (Acts 18:24-26). In addition, Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions or responsibility in the church. Phoebe worked in the church (Romans 16:1). Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis were the Lord’s workers (Romans 16:6,12), as were Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2). Paul was very likely prohibiting the Ephesian women, not all women, from teaching.

V13-14 Now in previous letters Paul had discussed male/frmale roles in marriage. Here he talks about male/female roles within the church. These verses about Adam and Eve are a illustration of what was happening in the Ephesian church. Just as Eve had been deceived in the Garden of Eden, so the women in the church wer being deceived by false teachers. And just as Adam was the first human created by God, so the men in the church in Ephesus should be the first to speak and teach because they had more training. Now Paul is not excusing Adam for his part in the fall. On the contrary, in his letter to the Romans Paul places the primary blame for humanity’s sinful nature on Adam (Romans 5:12-21) This stresses that Paul’s teaching here is not universal but applied to churches with similar problems. However, contend that the roles Paul points out are God’s design for his created order–God established these roles to maintain harmony in both the family and the church.

V 15 There are several ways to understand the phrase, being “saved through childbearing.”

1. Man sinned and so men were condemned ot painful labor. Women sinned and so were women were condemned to pain in childbearing. Both men and women, however, can be saved through trusting Christ and obeying him.
2. Women who fulflill their God-given roles are demonstrating true commitment and obedience to Christ. One of the most important roles for a wife and mother is to care for her family.
3. The childbearing mentioned here refers to the birht of Jesus Christ. Women (and men) are saved spiritually because of the most important birth, that of Christ himself.
4. From the lessions learned through the trials of childbearing, women can develop qualities that teach them about, love, trust, submission, and service.

 

[rev_kevin]

What Church do you think that was, that wrote the NT?

We call it consecration.

Have you decided that you don’t want to participate in dialogue anymore here on CAF? Maybe it is time for you to move on. If that is the case, it is ok to just throw in the towel. You don’t have to start getting disrespectful and derogatory so you get yourself banned for violation of the forum rules. Just take responsibility for yourself and politely shake off the dust of your feet.

The Church founded by Christ does not have the authority to ordain women.

Yes, women were considered property in Jewish culture at the time of Christ.

Yes, women are equal to men, but no, they cannot be ordained like a man, because they are women. That is like saying “men are equal to women, and men can be pregnant and bear children just like a woman”. That is not how God set things up.

Primarily because of the example set by Jesus.

Human beings have been given the freedom by God to flout all of His commandments.

1. What makes you thing I don’t want to participate in dialoge anymore? I’m here.
   What ruled did I violate? None. Not being disrespectful or derogitory, don’t know what you call it and to me its somehow magical. My opinion, nothing against the CC.
   Don’t need to dust off my boots but thanks for the advice.
2. Personally I don’t see where Jesus started the CC but if that is what ya’ll go by then so be it. IMO its becaus they don’t want to. Again nothing against the CC.
3. They are not property now, but they are in some religions.
4. You know men can’t bear children but they can raise children. A single father can take care of his children just like a mother could. I know I raised 3 girls and 1 boy by myself. I had to be both father and mother to them. I was in a womens roll and a women can be in a mans roll.
5. What example, the 12 disciples?. Don’t forget there were also women disciples. These 12 were his closest disciples out of thousands.
6. And the freedom to preach his word, both men and women. Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty women are free at last.

 

[guanophore]

These are general exhortations to being obedient. One could apply these to Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Catholicism, etc. In fact, the reference you have here that says: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supremefits very nicely with 16th Century Anglican thinking more than Catholicism? It fits more with conciliarism and the Imperial Roman days than with the papacy?

Well, if Catholics did not have more loyalty to the Pope than they did to the Protestant secular rulers, there would have been much less fuel for the Reformation. They were called “Papists” because of this sentiment of subjecting themselves to the Bishop of Rome. At that time, the Bishop of Rome, through the regional bishops, was the most powerful economic and political force in all of Europe.

When all the countries were “Catholic”, this caused less conflict, since the Roman Pontiff annointed the secular authorities. After secular authorities were installed against the will of the Pope, or in opposition to the Pope, the faithful found themselves torn between obedience to the successor of Peter, and their secular ruling authority. Anyway, all that is probably grist for another thread.

Orthodox and Anglican Christians have no trouble with authority or submission. It’s not a matter of submitting. It’s a matter of to WHOM we must submit and to what degree? There have been heretical bishops who were Arians or Nestorians. Would the faithful be expected to adopt what they know to be heresy from one of those bishops? Of course not.

On the contrary, I think this is EXACTLY what Anne’s objection is about this. There is no provision given for the excuse to disobey a ruler who is out of order (unless obedience would violate the commandment of God). And this priniciple (obeying a corrupt authority) is the basis for the Reformation. The clergy in Europe had become so corrupt that the laity could not see the face of Christ in them. They decided to disobey, to rebel, to “protest” against them.

Or to magistrates and leaders in the secular world there is a great deal of sin, take abortion for example.

Yes, another good example. Do I commit treason against my president because he is pro-abortion?

One isn’t supposed to blindly give in to their wills?

Is this how you and Anne read that passage? If so, then this is the answer to the question I have been asking (why does it bother you?).

When I read it, I don’t see anything about blindly giving anything. To me, it calls for childlike faith.

Or look at the United States Council of Catholic Bishops telling Catholics to support the ObamaCare health care fiasco. I’m not submitting blindly to that. No thank yuh!

Again, I don’t see any request to blindly accept anything.

Anna and I are concerned about the degree to which we must submit our minds and intellects to the ordinary magisterium. It’s not about obedience or submission but the degree to which common sense, our own consciences and intellects, and opinions can play a part.

Ok. Thank you for clarifying that.

There is an assumption in Catholicism that God works through the authorities He has appointed. Though they sometimes miss the mark, obedience to them even when they are in the wrong is what purifies the Church. This is a common theme running through all the lives of the saints. There is not a single one that was not persecuted by a person in authority over them. I am studying the lives of mideval mystics,a nd was not surprised to learn that Hildegard of Bingen was censured by the Bishop for doing that which is holy.

Lumen Gentium very plainly makes it obvious that whether it’s ex cathedra or not, we must submit blindly to the braintrust no matter what. That’s what we get from LG 25. and that concerns me. It concerns Anna as well.

As well it should. However, there is nothing in LG that says anything about submititing "blindly " to anything. This has never been the Teaching of the Church. We arel all called to an attitude of humility, and when we find ourselves in a conflict with the Church teaching, we respond with the attitude that it is us, not the Teaching, that requires conformity. We assume that we either don’t understand the Scripture, the TEaching, or both. We apply our faith to seeking that understanding, with the confidence that God will bless our obedience, even if it is obedience to something that does not make sense.

Besides, it is not a “braintrust”, but a faithtrust. The Divine Deposit of faith has been “once for all committed to the saints”. The Magesterium is responsible (by the graceo of God) to preserve and faithfully transmit these truths.

If the Pope is corrupt, God will use our obedience to purify the Church. This is the spiritual principle that the Reformers missed. they tried to remove the corrupt themselves (pulling out the weeds) instead of letting the angels of God sort them out.

 

[rev_kevin]

Because the Church is not at liberty to do what is not authorized by Christ.

Can you elaborate on why 2000 years of family history is “lame”?

Women have plenty of power. His mother more than all. Are you suggesting that Paul’s instruction on the role of women in Church contradicted that of Christ?

Yep. For all those “lame” 2000 years, I guess.

I don’t know what has gotten into you today.

Equal in dignity, different in role.

1. I see nowhere where Christ authorized it or didn’t authorize it.
2. Yes. Seems that is what is always used trying to prove something 2000 years. The earth has been around much longer than that and it changes. Humans have changed in the past 2000 years.
3. What did Christ say?
4. No comment.
5. Nothing.
6. Disagree.