Yes I did. It simply stated that, even when the Pope wasn’t speaking infallibly, we should still respect what he says.
Yes, but because of the succession of Popes in line with St. Peter, it is a divinely granted authority. I would say, that there is more than a human-respect-for-authority issue here, but one that is binding ‘
supernaturally’ (depending on how we view that word). I would make a comparison to the trust one has, or faith we have, in the Sacraments, and in the Ordination of priests. We understand those spiritual realities to be holy and sacred, and binding. In the same light of trust and faith, (I believe) we should understand the position of the Holy Father, who stands in relationship to God and His Church.
Now, perhaps you could read something of mine which I posted, and maybe you could tell me if I’m on the money as to what Vatican 1 meant to say?
So then, let’s suppose this. Jesus is our model for what we would expect of any Christian, most especially what we should expect of the Pope. If the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth in some unique way, then how he manages the affairs of the Church (for lack of better phrasing) should be the same way that Christ would do so. If this premise is both valid and sound (i.e. correct), then let this be our main premise.
He is to give the example of Christ on earth as Holy Father and lead the Church towards being that more perfect example of Christ for others. And He is to lead the Church in the way Christ’s Spirit leads the Church by responding to the needs of the Church in the present time, accordingly.
If the bishops’ relationship to Christ is to receive their guidance from Him in the Holy Spirit, and to be in union with Him and in submission to Him, then would the bishops’ relationship to the Pope be to receive guidance from him in the form of encyclicals and personal communications, and to be in union with him and submission to him?
I guess so, yes. I am guessing here:
Within reason! If a Pope did something, or said to do something, that was immoral and unfaithful then he would cease to be infallible because the Pope is infallible on matters of faith, morals and doctrine. If he himself is mentally unable to act in accordance with good faith, morals and solid doctrine then he is not infallible on matters of etc… If He acts outside of what is good then Bishops could pick him up on it, I would imagine. But then he would probably be rushed to a Christian psycho-therapist before you could say “one lemon short of three”. As Christians, because of the binding nature of his Papacy to God, we know this is very unlikely. And we know that to be a Pope, let alone a religious, there is serious vetting that goes on - end of guessing.
Do bishops therefore submit to the Pope’s authority in the same way that they would to Christ’s, excepting the fact that Christ’s authority comes directly from Him being God, whereas the Pope’s authority is conferred upon him by Christ?
The Bishops still have a personal relationship with God. Who knows, some may be closer to God than the Pope. But the point is, that those Bishops have chosen to serve the Church as a career, as well as being a Roman Catholic. And with any job, there is order and an order to follow - an authority, and there are rules and tasks to complete as in any job, and a need, a call, to trust that one’s superior knows what is wise to do etc…So Bishops are allowed to serve their own consciences as Christians, as any Christian can, but as part of their job role, are also called to respect the Pope’s wishes and follow orders and trust that this obedience is in accordance with God’s wishes, which will bear fruit in the long-term, even if if walking blind, initially. And this means accepting his declarations, which after being raised in debates, and after
much prayer, invites God into the decision. I doubt anyone prays more than the Pope. To trust the Pope as one’s Holy Father is to obey Christ’s wishes. There is no contradiction because Jesus made this the case.
And let’s suppose that each bishop (including the Pope) shepherds his own diocese under the guidance of Christ in the Holy Spirit. Now, Jesus does not rule over any diocese directly, nor would He pop down onto earth to essentially take control of a diocese from that bishop.
Although Jesus won’t pop down to a diocese directly to take control, God does work in mysterious ways. Diocesan B’s can be challenged, or removed. If done so within charity, there’d be no reason why God may not have wanted this. Someone earlier said that even the Pope can be debated with.
And as long as what is being done in the diocese is in accordance with the Apostolic Tradition, Jesus would let that stand. So if the Pope is the Vicar of Christ in some unique way, he would similarly not take control of a diocese from any other bishop or infringe on their ability to shepherd their own diocese. He would also let the businesses of a diocese go untouched as long as they adhere to the Apostolic Tradition and nothing goes way out of what the local bishop and the bishops of the surrounding dioceses can handle. Is this correct?
I think there is room for movement in each diocese but there are certainly do’s and don’ts which have to be adhered to. Diocesan B’s would be well aware of the sacredness of the position they hold and each Pope trusts his Bishops that they will not act out of accordance with what their role commands (of) them. Nowadays, there is quicker communication so it would be harder for a Bishop to ‘misbehave’. Maybe forty years ago there would have been more room for error. From this we could say that for much of the time a minister’s position is taken on trust, that they will fulfil what has been entrusted to them, to live as another Christ in that particular position.
).
).