New ‘Declaration of Truths’ Affirms Key Church Teachings

[Tis_Bearself]

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on papal authority. I genuinely can’t see another explanation of your position than moving towards Protestantism or sedavantism. I was definitely not taught to reject Church teaching if I simply didn’t like it.

A person is not automatically a Protestant or a sedevecantist because you personally disagree with them. That is not very kind, nor is it conducive to any sort of discussion. It’s basically a personal attack.

I also find all the questions about how someone was educated and the denigrating of their education to be very uncalled for.

I am also not seeing any huge rejection of Church authority in 13pollitos’ posts. She is simply stating that in the history of the Church, there have been some Popes who acted in an immoral manner and we should realize that is a possibility and not idolize all Popes as if they are perfect human beings. Although recent Popes have been generally good, even saintly, men, they were human and had some flaws, and there is always the possibility that a less good man could be elected Pope.

 

[KMG]

Catholics are not called to blind obedience to the pope. The notion that we do something because the pope said so is actually exactly what Protestants have historically used as a calumny against Catholics.

 

[KMG]

Because the pope’s opinions on air conditioning are not binding on Catholics.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Because the pope’s opinions on air conditioning are not binding on Catholics.

What encyclical or document decrees something about air conditioning?

 

[Ender]

I think the thousands and thousands of slaves owned by the Church would disagree, but believe whatever makes you happy!

Where are the church documents teaching that slavery was acceptable? What catechisms include support for it? I’m sure there were a few bulls accepting it in specific instances, but there is nothing like the universal support one can find on topics like contraception, and the condemnation thereof. Slavery is not a good example of what you’re trying to show.

 

[AlbMagno]

A straw man argument.

 

[13pollitos]

I’m finding that just too hard to believe unless you were being taught by the modern more progressive nuns who are iffy about submitting obediently to Papal authority. I grew up in a very conservative and traditional environment and can never remember being taught to follow my own conscience rather than follow the Pope. We come from very different worlds. I was taught that the Pope teaching in communion with the Bishops must be accepted as infallible in matters of faith and morals. What you are describing was taught to us as the Protestant church.

None of the schools I attended had progressive nuns. All wore a full habit and veil, even in the 1980’s and 1990’s. They were wonderful faith filled women.

Do you honestly believe any and all things a pope writes or says is to be taken as binding? If that is the case, what are we supposed to do when a pope makes conflicting statements or writes something that contradicts his other writings? Which do we follow?

There have in the past been popes who had mistresses and children. One even made his son a cardinal. The papacy during that time period was used to gain power and dominate. Thank God we have not had those problems with the last SEVERAL popes! With the grace of God it will never happen again. But to deny we have had some truly bad men who used the papacy for seriously bad things is false.

I never said Catholics can reject papal authority if we disagree with what the pope decrees. Not everything a pope says or writes is binding. If we ever wonder what is binding we can look to Tradition and doctrine. If it is in agreement with both, or if spoken ex cathedra, it is binding. The rest is prudential judgement.

What would you do in a situation where a pope began saying that it is good to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, but because in a broken world Catholics may find that too difficult to balance and so we can just say ten Hail Marys instead? Or what if in the future a pope decides that abortion in some circumstances could in fact be permissible and in vitro is a good thing? Or perhaps the pope starts to establish Papal States again and give power and land to his illegitimate children by papal decree?

 

[Emeraldlady]

None of the schools I attended had progressive nuns. All wore a full habit and veil, even in the 1980’s and 1990’s. They were wonderful faith filled women.

This was what I was taught and it has remained an absolute conviction to this day. To know that the Holy Spirit is at work protecting the teaching office of the sovereign Bishop of Rome is essential to my faith and hope and I make sure that my children have the fact of this wonderful gift underpinning their faith as well.

Lumen Gentium - “this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.”

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.*

 

[Emeraldlady]

Do you honestly believe any and all things a pope writes or says is to be taken as binding? If that is the case, what are we supposed to do when a pope makes conflicting statements or writes something that contradicts his other writings? Which do we follow?

To be clear, in the thread we aren’t talking about “any and all things a pope writes or says”. We are talking of his teaching charism and the official documents such as Laudato si, Amoris Laetitia, “The Gifts and Callings of God are Irrevocable” and the other documents Cdl Burke is challenging.

There have in the past been popes who had mistresses and children. One even made his son a cardinal. The papacy during that time period was used to gain power and dominate. Thank God we have not had those problems with the last SEVERAL popes! With the grace of God it will never happen again. But to deny we have had some truly bad men who used the papacy for seriously bad things is false.

You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. There is no guarantee that Popes won’t sin. The guarantee of the Holy Spirit is that the Magisterium can never teach error on matters of faith and morals.

I never said Catholics can reject papal authority if we disagree with what the pope decrees. Not everything a pope says or writes is binding. If we ever wonder what is binding we can look to Tradition and doctrine. If it is in agreement with both, or if spoken ex cathedra, it is binding. The rest is prudential judgement.

Again, we aren’t talking about “everything a pope says or writes”. We are talking about official Magisterial teaching as in the Pope in communion with the Bishops or the Bishops in communion with the Pope. To be clear do you regard Amoris Laetitia, Laudato si matters of prudential judgement?

What would you do in a situation where a pope began saying that it is good to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, but because in a broken world Catholics may find that too difficult to balance and so we can just say ten Hail Marys instead? Or what if in the future a pope decides that abortion in some circumstances could in fact be permissible and in vitro is a good thing? Or perhaps the pope starts to establish Papal States again and give power and land to his illegitimate children by papal decree?

This is a “false dilemma” falacy. I don’t believe that the Church will ever teach error regarding matters of faith or morals. It is the very fact that sustains my faith.

 

[KMG]

Amoris Laetitia is not infallible. Neither is Laudato Si.

 

[Rockoh22]

I think the problem is that we have too much papal talk of the cuff. I believe the Pope has to take this questions and ponder them, then answer. But that is my idea, and I am not in charge.

I have sent some letters to Management about this problems, but have not heard form Him yet. (This means I pray about it)

 

[13pollitos]

That doesn’t contradict what I said.

When a pope is speaking ex cathedra or when what he is stating is confirmed by Tradition and doctrine…

 

[13pollitos]

This is a “false dilemma” falacy

It is NOT a “false dilemma” fallacy. Research popes in the Middle Ages. If it can happen in one time period, it can happen again.

Again, we aren’t talking about “everything a pope says or writes”. We are talking about official Magisterial teaching as in the Pope in communion with the Bishops or the Bishops in communion with the Pope. To be clear do you regard Amoris Laetitia, Laudato si matters of prudential judgement?

Um, then why are you determined to say I am wrong? Official Magisterial teaching is done either ex cathedra or is supported/confirmed by Tradition and doctrine. Which is exactly what I said at the very beginning.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Amoris Laetitia is not infallible. Neither is Laudato Si.

‘Infallible’ is not a characteristic of the documents. It relates to the teaching authority of the Pope. The question I asked was are Amoris Laetitia and Laudato si personal judgement calls that each Catholic is free to reject if they so desire citing ‘prudential judgement’?

 

[13pollitos]

Do they confirm Tradition and doctrine? Do they assert changes to either Tradition or doctrine? Is there confusion with either that calls for the author to point towards scripture or other documents to reconcile them? Were they spoken ex cathedra?

I don’t feel like anyone should answer this for you. You should by now, as an adult raised in the faith, have the capacity to determine for yourself. I am assuming you had faith formation growing up that helped you shape your conscience to conform with the Church. There is no reason for you to keep trying to bait other posters on the same issue repeatedly. It was one thing when you focused your baiting behavior towards me, but I would encourage you to avoid doing that with other posters. Not everyone needs to think as you do in order to be Catholic. By our baptism and confirmation we are Catholic for eternity. It is highly uncharitable to compare us to people who are “attempting to destroy the Church”. You are likely to be reported by someone if it continues. It seems there are a lot of flag happy people on this site lately.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Do they confirm Tradition and doctrine? Do they assert changes to either Tradition or doctrine? Is there confusion with either that calls for the author to point towards scripture or other documents to reconcile them? Were they spoken ex cathedra?

I don’t feel like anyone should answer this for you. You should by now, as an adult raised in the faith, have the capacity to determine for yourself. I am assuming you had faith formation growing up that helped you shape your conscience to conform with the Church. There is no reason for you to keep trying to bait other posters on the same issue repeatedly. It was one thing when you focused your baiting behavior towards me, but I would encourage you to avoid doing that with other posters. Not everyone needs to think as you do in order to be Catholic. By our baptism and confirmation we are Catholic for eternity. It is highly uncharitable to compare us to people who are “attempting to destroy the Church”. You are likely to be reported by someone if it continues. It seems there are a lot of flag happy people on this site lately.

How do you determine if a papal document “confirms Tradition and doctrine”?

 

[13pollitos]

I will repeat one final time:

I don’t feel like anyone should answer this for you. You should by now, as an adult raised in the faith, have the capacity to determine for yourself. I am assuming you had faith formation growing up that helped you shape your conscience to conform with the Church

ETA: it helps to see if any changes to past teachings are being introduced. If they are, how are the changes reconciled with scripture and doctrine.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I will repeat one final time:

13pollitos:

I don’t feel like anyone should answer this for you. You should by now, as an adult raised in the faith, have the capacity to determine for yourself. I am assuming you had faith formation growing up that helped you shape your conscience to conform with the Church

And my conscience most adamantly and based on a life long formation, leads me to trust that the Holy Spirit protects the teachings of Pope Francis (the successor of St Peter, the Rock) as guiding Catholics in eschatological times. I believe that that needs to be conveyed in forums like this where some quarters of the Church want to undermine the charism of the Holy Father to teach.

 

[13pollitos]

where some quarters of the Church want to undermine the charism of the Holy Father to teach.

I don’t know anyone that wants to “undermine” the Pope. Asking for clarification is not attempting to undermine. It is attempting to understand. There is a lot of confusion in the world. People are not wanting to be led astray. Seeking clarity instead of leaving should be applauded.

You brought up Humane Vitae and it was very relevant. Pope Paul VI was extremely brave in the face of deep opposition and confusion from all sides, in the Church and outside of Her, and delivered a beautiful document that delivered clarity. It states that the Church was not going to change its teachings on life.

Saints of the Church have at times rebuked the Pope over various issues. There have been times that clarity was asked of other popes as well. It would be helpful if we were given a statement that clearly laid out the answers to the questions people have now.

That does not mean we hate the church or the Pope. I’m pretty sure many of us are praying more for Pope Francis than we have for the last few popes specifically because we are concerned. We want him to lead us and the church to the otherside of this stormy sea. We don’t want a different Pope. We want this pope to be brave and clear confusion.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I don’t know anyone that wants to “undermine” the Pope. Asking for clarification is not attempting to undermine. It is attempting to understand. There is a lot of confusion in the world. People are not wanting to be led astray. Seeking clarity instead of leaving should be applauded.

God doesn’t have a track record of delivering Truth with clarification. That would mean faith is not essential in the equation. He has done this thing by delivering Truth implicitly and then allowing for an organic maturation.

You brought up Humane Vitae and it was very relevant. Pope Paul VI was extremely brave in the face of deep opposition and confusion from all sides, in the Church and outside of Her, and delivered a beautiful document that delivered clarity. It states that the Church was not going to change its teachings on life.

Pope Francis has done exactly that. He has delivered teaching documents bravely in the face of opposition.

Saints of the Church have at times rebuked the Pope over various issues. There have been times that clarity was asked of other popes as well. It would be helpful if we were given a statement that clearly laid out the answers to the questions people have now.

How do you distinguish the ‘Saints’ of the Church from the ‘protesters’ against the Church? Is it your prudential judgement that makes you confident that 1 or 2 cardinals out of the 214 cardinals of the Church and a handful of Bishops out of the thousands of Bishops of the Church, are right against all the rest and the Pope?

Our Archbishop was a prominent feature at the Synod of the Family and has delivered teachings on the synod in accord with Pope Francis and the Magisterium, ever since that time. How can you convince me that he and the thousands of bishops of the world who support the Pope teaching charism for the eschatological times, are simply wrong and Burke is the new Pope?

That does not mean we hate the church or the Pope. I’m pretty sure many of us are praying more for Pope Francis than we have for the last few popes specifically because we are concerned. We want him to lead us and the church to the otherside of this stormy sea. We don’t want a different Pope. We want this pope to be brave and clear confusion.

How are you going to convince those Catholics who believe and trust the guidance of the Pope and his charism of the Holy Spirit, that we are wrong? I’m willing to receive the wrath of anti Francis posters to defend his papacy and his already demonstrated bravery. I’ve been there done that in the past.