Mortality of Disobedience?

[AndyF]

What is the gravity of knowingly disobeying the Holy See?

In short, is it a mortal sin to do what you know is against Canon Law?

Thank you,
Penitant

The Church is Christ.

"What is the gravity of knowingly disobeying [Christ].

AndyF

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

What is the gravity of knowingly disobeying the Holy See?

In short, is it a mortal sin to do what you know is against Canon Law?

Thank you,
Penitant

Back to the original question. The doctrine of the Church teaches what is both “venial” and “mortal”. It makes little sense to say that committing an act that is taught by the Church as “venial” is mortal because it is the Church we are disobeying. The Church is not who we are disobeying, it is the natural law, and divine law in all sin that we disobey. Thus, the only determination of a “mortal sin” is of its gravity. When priests in my parish years ago told parishoners that swallowing toothpaste prior to mass was a mortal sin, they were not preaching from the proper authority. Such mentalities have existed at the papal level as well, but none of been indoctrinated. And doctrines evolve. Let us distinguish between dogma and doctrine as well. Doctrine is subject to change, but dogma is not.

We have a responsibility to inform our conscience, not by “blind” obedience but rather by “Faith-seeking-understanding”. If we cannot reconcile our reason with our faith, then we cannot act morally.

Thus if we disobey a Bishop and we have no good reason to do so, then we are in violation of Natural and Divine Law, since authority is found in Nature, and through Apostolic Succession.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

The Church is Christ.

"What is the gravity of knowingly disobeying [Christ].

AndyF

The Church is both Human-and-Divine. Thus we call it Christ because of its perfection. Yet we also are not so neive to say that humans within the Church are “perfect”. Thus when a Pope is contradicting God’s law he is also contradicting Church Law. So you can spin it this way, I just fear that people who are not-Catholic will misunderstand this explanation as almost a blind-type of obedience.

 

[fix]

Agreed, and I have not said anything of that sort. I do not know why people have “infered” that from what I have said, unless they naturally assume the worst? Nevertheless it is a good distinction. But also wise to note that CANON LAW has been noted to evolve and sometimes change. Again let us not forget the distinction between Church Law and Divine Law. I suspect some people (from experience) have a difficult time seeing the division. And as I said previously, “true-Church Law” is never in contradiction with the Divine. But at times, saints have had to contradict Bishop-Authorities. Which according to “Church Law” is reasonable so long as it is according to Divine Command or the “higher-authority”. As Aquinas says,

Sure individual persons, like bishops, can err. That is nothing new.

A pefect exemplification of what I am speaking about is what G.K. Chesterton talks when writing about St. Francis and his father. Whether or not he was “stealing” because God commanded him (he had special knowledge from the divine) to give out his father’s clothing. The Bishop disapproved of his actions and hsi faher who is of a natural “authority”, yet he did so because God had directly commanded it. And thus without God, Francis would have stolen, but with God, Francis did not commit any injustice, because God owns all things and at any time has the right to take them away (since all we are is stewards).

If I am understanding your example it seems that any priest, or bishop, may be mistaken in any prudential matter. The issue in this thread is “Church Law” or “canon law”.

Individuals may make errors. I guess it helps to specfically define what we mean by Church law.

 

[davidv]

And doctrines evolve. Let us distinguish between dogma and doctrine as well. Doctrine is subject to change, but dogma is not.

Our understanding of dogmas and doctrines develop, they do not change. “Disciplines” can and do change. There is a clear and important distinction between “develop” and “change”.

 

[fix]

Back to the original question. The doctrine of the Church teaches what is both “venial” and “mortal”. It makes little sense to say that committing an act that is taught by the Church as “venial” is mortal because it is the Church we are disobeying. The Church is not who we are disobeying, it is the natural law, and divine law in all sin that we disobey. Thus, the only determination of a “mortal sin” is of its gravity. When priests in my parish years ago told parishoners that swallowing toothpaste prior to mass was a mortal sin, they were not preaching from the proper authority. Such mentalities have existed at the papal level as well, but none of been indoctrinated. And doctrines evolve. Let us distinguish between dogma and doctrine as well. Doctrine is subject to change, but dogma is not.

We have a responsibility to inform our conscience, not by “blind” obedience but rather by “Faith-seeking-understanding”. If we cannot reconcile our reason with our faith, then we cannot act morally.

Thus if we disobey a Bishop and we have no good reason to do so, then we are in violation of Natural and Divine Law, since authority is found in Nature, and through Apostolic Succession.

There is a lot to decipher here. All teachings on faith and morals are binding on our consciences regardless of being a formally defined Dogma.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

Our understanding of dogmas and doctrines develop, they do not change. “Disciplines” can and do change. There is a clear and important distinction between “develop” and “change”.

Canons have changed and are considered doctrines. But I do not mean by “change” “contradict”. I mean that some laws of been dissolved and others added.

 

[AndyF]

ChrisPietraszko:

The implication isn’t mine.

The Pope either acts in an inspirational or personal capacity. He is permitted to submit pious opinions also listened to carefully by the devout. It goes without saying on a Catholic forum that that which is taught to us, and who’s source is the inspirational channels written into the Dogma of the Church, becomes our official guide along with Scripture and the works of the Doctors and Saints. Our faith that the mechanism of the Institution is working as designed I felt didn’t need mention.

But I will take your post as a good reminder to remain vigilant. Thanks.

AndyF

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

There is a lot to decipher here. All teachings on faith and morals are binding on our consciences regardless of being a formally defined Dogma.

Aw, so you approach the moral law of the Church in a fundamentalist manner? I assume that the teachings of the Church are reasonable. Of course I approach them with faith seeking understanding (faith being first).

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

ChrisPietraszko:

The implication isn’t mine.

The Pope either acts in an inspirational or personal capacity. He is permitted to submit pious opinions also listened to carefully by the devout. It goes without saying on a Catholic forum that that which is taught to us, and who’s source is the inspirational channels written into the Dogma of the Church, becomes our official guide along with Scripture and the works of the Doctors and Saints. Our faith that the mechanism of the Institution is working as designed I felt didn’t need mention.

But I will take your post as a good reminder to remain vigilant. Thanks.

AndyF

While the doctrines never change their interpretations do. Vatican II has shown that, and sometimes taken it to an extreme. Nonetheless, the understanding of doctrine changes, but the Holy Spirit’s true meaning in it doesn’t. We have to make sure our interpretation of Tradition is not a fools interpretation. This is why Doctrine is not considered infallible because it is to open-ended at times. Not that it is false, but that there could be dual meanings: such as “there is no salvation outside the Church” - unless you belong to the Pius X society (I think thats the name) the Church has somewhat emphasized that the “Church” is not limited to the Catholic Faith by some “rare” exceptions through the grace of God.

 

[AndyF]

ChrisPietraszko:

CC890 “The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms.”

CC891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

I’m not rejecting what you say outright. I have difficulty in reconciling your post with the above quotes. And from them we learn …

1/The magisterium has complete and accurate understanding of the issued doctrine, otherwise an interpretive deficiency exists in the infallible nature of the magesterium on release, and would be ill prepared to protect the faithful from deviations and defections.

2/ Professing is done without error. Interpretations are done when doctrine is revealed. It would make no sense for the Holy Spirit to release a doctrine to be adhered to immediately that could only be interpreted later. Therefore the interpretation first made is by necessity the correct one.

3/ From the above, we can see the definitions must be adhered to when decreed by an inspired and infallible magisterium qualified to interpret. It follows then that if an infallible doctrine is revealed, then it’s apparent perfection must be evident in it’s timing,appropriatness to the situation it applies to, ability to be understood when revealed, and it’s contextual accuracy.

4/ An infallible magesterium would need to perform out of this somewhat less charismic nature to reveal fallible doctrine. It would be difficult to find a sensible reason for a deliberate act such as this that would allow the possibility of imperfection to present itself, especially since this is in service to the Holy Spirit.

“there is no salvation outside the Church”

It should be noted that Opinio Tolerata views such as this is not doctrine.

AndyF

 

[fix]

Aw, so you approach the moral law of the Church in a fundamentalist manner? I assume that the teachings of the Church are reasonable. Of course I approach them with faith seeking understanding (faith being first).

I assume Christ was not lying when He said he who hears you hears Me. I accept that the magisterium is the authority, backed by Christ. I cheerfully submit and thank God.

 

[fix]

While the doctrines never change their interpretations do. Vatican II has shown that, and sometimes taken it to an extreme. Nonetheless, the understanding of doctrine changes, but the Holy Spirit’s true meaning in it doesn’t. We have to make sure our interpretation of Tradition is not a fools interpretation. This is why Doctrine is not considered infallible because it is to open-ended at times. Not that it is false, but that there could be dual meanings: such as “there is no salvation outside the Church” - unless you belong to the Pius X society (I think thats the name) the Church has somewhat emphasized that the “Church” is not limited to the Catholic Faith by some “rare” exceptions through the grace of God.

That understaning grows deeper does not mean it contradicts. I would add this:

Actually, if we consider the of teaching, the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as either by a or by a First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive, and thus to be believed with divine faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of and (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

ChrisPietraszko:

CC890 “The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms.”

CC891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

I’m not rejecting what you say outright. I have difficulty in reconciling your post with the above quotes. And from them we learn …

1/The magisterium has complete and accurate understanding of the issued doctrine, otherwise an interpretive deficiency exists in the infallible nature of the magesterium on release, and would be ill prepared to protect the faithful from deviations and defections.

2/ Professing is done without error. Interpretations are done when doctrine is revealed. It would make no sense for the Holy Spirit to release a doctrine to be adhered to immediately that could only be interpreted later. Therefore the interpretation first made is by necessity the correct one.

3/ From the above, we can see the definitions must be adhered to when decreed by an inspired and infallible magisterium qualified to interpret. It follows then that if an infallible doctrine is revealed, then it’s apparent perfection must be evident in it’s timing,appropriatness to the situation it applies to, ability to be understood when revealed, and it’s contextual accuracy.

4/ An infallible magesterium would need to perform out of this somewhat less charismic nature to reveal fallible doctrine. It would be difficult to find a sensible reason for a deliberate act such as this that would allow the possibility of imperfection to present itself, especially since this is in service to the Holy Spirit.

It should be noted that Opinio Tolerata views such as this is not doctrine.

AndyF

It may be important to note the two levels of doctrine that must be accepted by intellect, while the other 8 levels of doctrine can be disagreed with but “abided by” out of obedience. In other words, there are certain doctrines we can disagree with and still be “Catholic”. We just have to be obedient to them. Doctrine is infallible, but not necessarily all interpretations of it. That is my only point. Such as “There is no salvation outside the Church” while the statement is true, the understanding of “church” has been noted to change or be equivocated at times.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

I assume Christ was not lying when He said he who hears you hears Me. I accept that the magisterium is the authority, backed by Christ. I cheerfully submit and thank God.

As do I. However I do not submit myself to interpretations of doctrine that are constantly changing. Rather I attempt to stay as faithful to those as possible. Especially when it comes to “FAITH AND MORALS”.

The interesting thing about taking philosophy classes is that we are not studying “theology” we are critically evaluating morality from a reason based level. Where as people who haven’t studied philosophy have to take the Mag.'s word for it. Either way you are safe, but I am only trying to reconcile faith with reason. I assure you I will never believe anything unreasonable. And if I cannot reconcile my faith with reason - I cannot be obedient to that.

But I’m so glad that we are both good Catholics - and its good that your joy for it isn’t disordered or vengful. Some people treat their faith like hockey or base-ball team, but never really seek that personal relationship with Christ. My Philosophy professor spoke of many concervative people who once let down by all the people who cultivated conservative views led a scandalous life because his faith was never rooted in Christ. Rather everything he did was out of a “humanistic” or socialized faith. Not out of real faith. Of course his idea was “Conservativies versus Liberals” instead of looking for the face of Christ. If we place our faith in Christ then we shall find orthodoxy. But if we place our faith in an unhealthy mentality to fight with other people all the time or as Benedict but it: to be traditionalists instead of followers of Holy Tradition then where is the Holiness.