Obedience to Church: How far?

[JoeyWarren]

Stupid Catholics for example will do what ever a Bishop or Priest says regardless of what the Church officially teaches.

Point in case just happen recently. A certain Priest of a certain parish told parishoners that “Limbo” is “Doctrine” and you don’t believe in Limbo then you are classified as a “Cafeteria Catholic”

The sad point was that there was not one single Catholic at that parish that knew better. It’s a small parish with nothing but “Cradle Catholics” whom know little about what the “CCC” actually says.

When I learned of this, I confronted the Priest for verification. I ended up contacting the Arch-Bishop whom in turn contacted the Priest and the matter was resolved and parishoners were informed correctly during the next homily.

Stupid Catholics! I remember when Pope Paul II died and a stupid Catholic was showcased on CNN making this statement: “My savior has died”. And of all places, this woman was in Rome. Catechism needs to start in Rome and correct these stupid Catholics with stupid beliefs. Only then will the Protestant word take us serious.

 

[believers]

Stupid Catholics for example will do what ever a Bishop or Priest says regardless of what the Church officially teaches.

Point in case just happen recently. A certain Priest of a certain parish told parishoners that “Limbo” is “Doctrine” and you don’t believe in Limbo then you are classified as a “Cafeteria Catholic”

The sad point was that there was not one single Catholic at that parish that knew better. It’s a small parish with nothing but “Cradle Catholics” whom know little about what the “CCC” actually says.

When I learned of this, I confronted the Priest for verification. I ended up contacting the Arch-Bishop whom in turn contacted the Priest and the matter was resolved and parishoners were informed correctly during the next homily.

Stupid Catholics! I remember when Pope Paul II died and a stupid Catholic was showcased on CNN making this statement: “My savior has died”. And of all places, this woman was in Rome. Catechism needs to start in Rome and correct these stupid Catholics with stupid beliefs. Only then will the Protestant word take us serious.

Joey, First off, They are not stupid. It is the fault of the catholic church. The “cradle catholic” ignorance is the result of what happens when a church claims authority in all matters of faith. No bibles in the mass and no real teaching outside of church. Most catholics go to church on Sunday thinking that’s all they have to do. Why doesn’t the church do something about it? They have all the power?

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you should explain why you think Kreeft’s statement that Catholicism should be believed because it’s true is the same thing as saying that only infallible authorities command our obedience? Isn’t that saying that truth is the same thing as infallibility?
Edwin

Yes…I certainly think that truth is the same thing as infallibility.

I do believe it was you who said: I have a mistaken attitude which I share with many other “conservative” Catholics, which is a confusion between infallibility and truth.

Please give me an example of a theological concept which is true, but fallible, or infallible but false.

 

[Catholig]

I am confused regarding the concept of obedience in the RCC. Specifically, I’d like to know in what context must we obey the Archbishop?

I understand that if the Archbishop would come to my door and demand that I turn over the keys to my car, I would not be bound to do so…

However, when he is speaking on the areas of faith and morals, if it is in agreement with Church teaching, then we are bound to obey.

Let’s say that I believe that I have been having private revelation from the Blessed Mother, but the Archbishop has recommended that I keep these revelations private. He is indeed speaking on an issue of faith–so must I obey him? Is he protected from an erroneous judgement in this area?

PRmerger,

I would feel awkward if, having had visions of Our Lady, I was bound to keep silent because of what could be seen as beaurocratic red tape, however… would Our Lord & Lady approve of you disobeying the pastor which they gave you? I mean obedience is a virtue.

Catholig

 

[monina]

Just as we have to obey our parents, who are fallible, we as Catholics must obey our priests/bishops, who are fallible.

I understand how difficult this can be–it’s hard for children, who love and trust their parents, to obey, so how much harder for Catholics to obey a bishop, a man they most probably have never even shared a conversation with!

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

For example (just to cite a few topics from recent threads), if an Archbishop said that individuals who are late for mass 20 minutes or more have committed a mortal sin, is this absolutely so? If he proclaims that the Divine Office must be prayed out loud rather than recited in one’s head, must faithful Catholics in his diocese do so? If he announced that anyone seeing the “Vagina Monologues” was committing a mortal sin, is this absolutely so? If he chides an individual whose “Ts look like upside down crosses” to change his handwriting , must this faithful Catholic do so? (Yes, that was an actual thread in which an individual questioned whether it was bad that one’s Ts resembled upside down crosses.)

The Pope has the keys. So if the Pope says that no one who goes to see the Vagina Monologues is allowed into heaven, that is the end of the matter.
The bishop doesn’t. In fact it is not a sin to see the Vagina Monologues, and the bishop can’t make it into a mortal sin, However he can make it into a venial sin, by forbidding Catholics to see it. In my opinion that would be wrong, but it is not obviously wrongheaded. You can’t expect your leader to make exactly the right call all the time, and Catholic strategy against the Vagina Monologues is a classic case where you may be required to co-operate with something you disagree with.

 

[1ke]

For example (just to cite a few topics from recent threads), if an Archbishop said that individuals who are late for mass 20 minutes or more have committed a mortal sin, is this absolutely so? If he proclaims that the Divine Office must be prayed out loud rather than recited in one’s head, must faithful Catholics in his diocese do so? If he announced that anyone seeing the “Vagina Monologues” was committing a mortal sin, is this absolutely so? If he chides an individual whose “Ts look like upside down crosses” to change his handwriting , must this faithful Catholic do so? (Yes, that was an actual thread in which an individual questioned whether it was bad that one’s Ts resembled upside down crosses.).

None of these are pronouncements of doctrine. They are his pastoral teaching and application of doctrine, morals, and disciplines.

Regarding mass: The bishop absolutely has a right to admonish those in his diocese showing up late for Mass. Whether or not it is a mortal sin depends on the individual case. Objectively, it is a wrong act.

Regarding the VM: Again, the bishop is absolutely right to admonish people not to see this play. And, yes, it is grave matter due to its content.

As to the divine office, yes one should follow your bishops instructions.

As to handwriting, that is not a matter of faith or morals, and it is a personal opinion of their bishop. No, you would not have to change your handwriting because the bishop made a comment about it.

 

[Dorothy]

If it could be an erroneous judgement, why am I bound to obey him?

You are bound to obey him with regard to being silent about private revelation, because he is your legitimate authority. If he is acting unwisely, he will have to answer for that. Your place is to be in obedience. True private revelations always urge the seers to be obedient to authority. If the private revelation is true, then the Lord will have the last word.

If the authority is clearly teaching heresy, of course you are not bound to obey him.

Peace,

Dorothy

 

[Randy_Carson]

If it could be an erroneous judgement, why am I bound to obey him?

Wouldn’t lack of submission to the Bishop be the surest way of discrediting the message you have been receiving?

 

[Dorothy]

Wouldn’t lack of submission to the Bishop be the surest way of discrediting the message you have been receiving?

I believe you are correct. If the “message” is from God, obedience is required, and then it is in the Lord’s hands to do what He wills.

In all of the private revelation I have read about our Blessed Mother, a special note was made of Our Lady telling the visionaries to obey their bishop and priests. The Lord works through our obedience. Obedience is greater than sacrifice.

Peace,

Dorothy

 

[Eireann]

Let’s say that I believe that I have been having private revelation from the Blessed Mother, but the Archbishop has recommended that I keep these revelations private. He is indeed speaking on an issue of faith–so must I obey him? Is he protected from an erroneous judgement in this area?

Obedience is a virtue, and it’s called holy obedience, no-one should ask you to be obedient un-to sin.

Saint Margaret Mary

On Obedience

St. Margaret Mary Alacoque was told by a Superior not to do something ordered to her in a vision. She consulted Our Lord next time He appeared, who told her:
"Therefore not only do I desire that you should do what your Superior command, but also that you should do nothing of all that I command without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please me."
(“Autobiography” # 47). He also told her (ibid. # 57): "Listen, My Daughter, and do not lightly believe and trust every spirit, for satan is angry and will try to deceive you. So do nothing without the approval of those who guide you. Being thus under the authority of obedience, his efforts against you will be in vain, for he has no power over the obedient."

 

[Contarini]

Yes…I certainly think that truth is the same thing as infallibility.

What do you mean by that?

Here is what I meant by it–tell me if it’s the same thing. I mean that many Catholics speak as if only ideas that are promulgated by an infallible authority need be treated as true, and as if we have no access to truth except through such an authority.

Please give me an example of a theological concept which is true, but fallible, or infallible but false.

First of all, why limit the issue to theological truth? That changes the question considerably. Would you grant that truth and infallibility are not identical outside the realm of theology? What then is special about theology in this regard?

But more to the point, what does it mean for a “concept” to be “infallible”? This is the basic confusion I was addressing. Do you mean

1. Certified by an authority we know to be infallible–i.e., an authority that cannot err; or
2. Known by us to be true with absolute certainty, whatever that certainty derives from (could be intuitive knowledge, for instance); or
3. Are you simply stating the truism that if something is true then it cannot be false?

The point I was initially making is that in my opinion many Catholics confuse these three senses. Obviously in sense 3 truth and infallibility are the same thing. To say “I believe X to be true” is to commit myself to rejecting the proposition that X is false.

In sense 2 there are obviously many things that we believe to be true but about which we could conceivably be mistaken. That category is larger for some of us (who are skeptical by disposition) than for others. There are extremely few things about which I would say that I can’t possibly be mistaken–almost none, in fact. Others would have a much bigger category. But obviously we have all had the experience at some point of being very certain about something and discovering that we were wrong–or of encountering someone who stated something with absolute confidence which we knew to be wrong. In short, to hold something to be true is not the same thing as to believe that we cannot be mistaken about it.

But most relevantly, there are many things we can know to be true–even things that I know infallibly to be true, such as my own perceptions and consciousness–that are not revealed to us by some certified Infallible Authority.

Now to Kreeft’s statement. As you report it, it appears to be saying that we should believe Catholicism because it is true in its claims about itself. Of course one of those claims is infallibility, and of course “truth” in this sense involves the truth of defined Catholic doctrine. But there is no way you can get from that statement to the proposition that you only owe obedience to those decrees of the Church hierarchy that happen to be infallible. If the Church as a whole is true, then you owe the Church as a whole your loyalty. And that means, among other things, that you obey its leaders except when their commands violate your conscience.

That is how I understand the Catholic position anyway. I’d like to see ome other Catholics jump in on this!

Edwin

 

[clmowry]

The Church has the ability to teach infallibly on faith and morals.

That does not mean that an individual bishop cannot be in error.

We can find frequent examples in history of Bishops who needed to be corrected either in their teachings or their behavior.

That said, if you believe a Bishop is in error, I think you are obligated first to seek to improve our understanding of that “error”. (i.e. If I think the Bishop is wrong in teaching that the Church cannot have female priests, I might want to work on understanding why he might be right before I assume he is wrong.)

If you are still convinced that a Bishop is in error (or your Priest, or Deacon or anyone else for that matter) then you can always apeal to a higher authority to help either clarify your understanding or seek to correct the error.

However, unless you believe that following the Bishops teaching is in fact sinful, then you are obligated to follow that teaching until the issue clarified through a higer authority.

Unfortunately I think we are way to quick to assume that we are right, move into open descent and then expect the Chruch to prove us wrong before we’ll accept their authority.

Basically we act like teenagers who don’t want to follow the house rules and figue if we make enough fuss they’ll let us have our way.

Chuck

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

The reason I am Catholic is because I have been assured that what I have been presented by the Magisterium is divinely revealed Truth. Without error.

If the Church is saying that some pronouncements could be wrong, but I still must obey, how is this different from any Protestant teaching, which makes no claims of infallibility?

 

[clmowry]

Nah. I don’t buy it for a second.

If a cradle Catholic does not understand their faith fairly well, then they must be either illiterate or lazy.

The catechism, bibles and Catholic commentaries are readily available at the Church, in book stores, at libraries and on the internet.

There are several opportunities for adult faith formation at our parish every week. We have over 1,400 families registered in the Parish. Fewer than two dozen ever attend any sort of training.

Blaming the Church for the failure of individuals to pursue a deeper understanding of their faith is a copout.

In general, people don’t understand their faith because they don’t care enough to put forth the effort.

Even if you offer to spoon feed it to them nobody shows up.

Chuck

Joey, First off, They are not stupid. It is the fault of the catholic church. The “cradle catholic” ignorance is the result of what happens when a church claims authority in all matters of faith. No bibles in the mass and no real teaching outside of church. Most catholics go to church on Sunday thinking that’s all they have to do. Why doesn’t the church do something about it? They have all the power?

 

[rwoehmke]

I am not questioning the Church’s authority regarding doctrine. I am questioning how far we must obey an Archbishop when he makes statements regarding faith and morals.

There are an infinite number of “gray areas” in which it may not be clear whether something contradicts Church teaching (hence, the great success of these Catholic Answers forums).

For example (just to cite a few topics from recent threads), if an Archbishop said that individuals who are late for mass 20 minutes or more have committed a mortal sin, is this absolutely so? If he proclaims that the Divine Office must be prayed out loud rather than recited in one’s head, must faithful Catholics in his diocese do so? If he announced that anyone seeing the “Vagina Monologues” was committing a mortal sin, is this absolutely so? If he chides an individual whose “Ts look like upside down crosses” to change his handwriting , must this faithful Catholic do so? (Yes, that was an actual thread in which an individual questioned whether it was bad that one’s Ts resembled upside down crosses.)

My point is that am Archbishop is a fallible man who is making no claim of infallibility when speaking on many, many matters. It does not seem reasonable to me that I should obey a fallible man. Infallible Church, yes, Fallible man making pronouncements on numerous issues, no.

The first question that those folks needed to ask themselves was nit indeed a matter of Faith and Morals. I noticed the examples were all conditional using the if word. The case of the Vagina Monologues could have been a legitimate prohibition. It is somewhat reassuring to me if a Bishop actually said that. I can still remember Edward Cardinal Mooney of Detroit forbidding Catholics of his archdiocese under pain of mortal sin to attend certain movies. One was The Moon is Blue" it was F-rated by the Legion of Decency and another “The Outlaw”. He had the authority to do this. Today those movies would be considered quite tame but for the times they were over the edge. Recall though that they were part of the downward spiral that has seized the world of entertainment.

The upside down crosses example hardly sounded like the person was accused of Mortal Sin and the example of being late for Mass 20 times was not all that unreasonable as it demonstrates a habitual inability to make it to Mass on time. It would seem that to be occasionally late can’t be helped, but habitual tardiness indicates a deeper problem. Even then I doubt he out and out called it a mortal sin, but called the person to attend to his disregard of his obligation to fully attend Sunday Mass.

I am far from scrupulous but I would hesitate to say that a Bishop does not have the authority, fallible or not, to bind his subjects under pain of sin. It is repugnant to the modern mind perhaps, but it is not without precedent.

 

[PRmerger]

What do you mean by that?

I mean that if something is true, then it is without error, that is, infallible. If something is infallible, then it must be true.

Here is what I meant by it–tell me if it’s the same thing. I mean that many Catholics speak as if only ideas that are promulgated by an infallible authority need be treated as true, and as if we have no access to truth except through such an authority.

I believe, as a Catholic, that ideas promulgated by the Magisterium have the guarantee of truth/infallibility. Can a theological concept be true without being officially propagated by the Church? I suppose so, but as Catholics we are free to accept, or free to deny such a truth and still be faithful Catholics. example: the appearance of the Virgin at Medjugorge. We as Catholics are free to believe it’s true that she is indeed appearing there; we also can deny she’s present.

First of all, why limit the issue to theological truth? That changes the question considerably. Would you grant that truth and infallibility are not identical outside the realm of theology? What then is special about theology in this regard?

I am only talking with respect to theological concepts because, as you maintain, there are many examples in life of things which we may intuitively know to be true, which have not been divinely revealed. However, only in the realm of theological truths do we have the guarantee of infallibility of certain truths.

But more to the point, what does it mean for a “concept” to be “infallible”? This is the basic confusion I was addressing. Do you mean

1. Certified by an authority we know to be infallible–i.e., an authority that cannot err; or
2. Known by us to be true with absolute certainty, whatever that certainty derives from (could be intuitive knowledge, for instance); or
3. Are you simply stating the truism that if something is true then it cannot be false?

I am speaking with respect to #1, because, as I stated earlier, theological truths are the only truths which have the guarantee of infallibility given by the Holy Spirit.

Now to Kreeft’s statement. As you report it, it appears to be saying that we should believe Catholicism because it is true in its claims about itself. Of course one of those claims is infallibility, and of course “truth” in this sense involves the truth of defined Catholic doctrine. But there is no way you can get from that statement to the proposition that you only owe obedience to those decrees of the Church hierarchy that happen to be infallible. If the Church as a whole is true, then you owe the Church as a whole your loyalty. And that means, among other things, that you obey its leaders except when their commands violate your conscience.
Edwin

Where has it been taught that we owe obedience to all pronouncements made by the hierarchy?

 

[tdgesq]

Just to answer a few of your questions.

First of all, why limit the issue to theological truth?

Because “infallibility” in the theological sense is limited to faith and morals.

But more to the point, what does it mean for a “concept” to be “infallible”? This is the basic confusion I was addressing. Do you mean

1. Certified by an authority we know to be infallible–i.e., an authority that cannot err . . . .

Yes, #1 is the correct understanding of infallibility.

And you are correct that Catholics can reject the truth of an infallible statement.

We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church’s teaching . . . .

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

The point I was initially making is that in my opinion many Catholics confuse these three senses. Obviously in sense 3 truth and infallibility are the same thing. To say “I believe X to be true” is to commit myself to rejecting the proposition that X is false.

Obviously. It’s a truism.

In sense 2 . . . most relevantly, there are many things we can know to be true–even things that I know infallibly to be true, such as my own perceptions and consciousness–that are not revealed to us by some certified Infallible Authority.

Correct. I think that to say something is infallibly true is redundant in this circumstance, but I know what you’re getting at. There are all kinds of things that we know are true - even things about faith and morals - without any reference to the dogmas of the Church. If someone has a justified belief in the Trinity, but has never seen the de fide dogmatic (infallible) teachings of the Church on the subject, is he not still in possession of the truth? The answer is “yes,” of course.

But there is no way you can get from that statement to the proposition that you only owe obedience to those decrees of the Church hierarchy that happen to be infallible. If the Church as a whole is true, then you owe the Church as a whole your loyalty. And that means, among other things, that you obey its leaders except when their commands violate your conscience.

I believe there is dogma that demands obedience of the faithful, but I’m too pressed for time to cite the authorities for you right now. I agree that the second sentence is correct though.

 

[Contarini]

I mean that if something is true, then it is without error, that is, infallible. If something is infallible, then it must be true.

Given your endorsement of option 1 below, this makes no sense. Not only things promulgated by an infallible authority are true. Lots of things are true concerning which no infallible authority has spoken.

I believe, as a Catholic, that ideas promulgated by the Magisterium have the guarantee of truth/infallibility. Can a theological concept be true without being officially propagated by the Church? I suppose so, but as Catholics we are free to accept, or free to deny such a truth and still be faithful Catholics. example: the appearance of the Virgin at Medjugorge. We as Catholics are free to believe it’s true that she is indeed appearing there; we also can deny she’s present.

Exactly, and that blows your identification between truth and infallibility out of the water.

Now as to the authority of Church teachings that are not infallible, see the 1983 Code of Canon Law 752-54:

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.
Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.
Can. 754 All Christ’s faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops.

Where has it been taught that we owe obedience to all pronouncements made by the hierarchy?

Romans 13:1; Heb. 13:7, 17.

Of course anything violating the conscience must not be obeyed. That would include any commmand that violated the law of charity. I’m not going to say dogmatically that any command however ridiculous and oppressive should be obeyed, even if it clearly doesn’t violate the conscience. (You or someone else mentioned earlier a hypothetical case where the bishop tells you to untie your shoelaces or something.) But the example you gave of a private revelation certainly falls under the authority of the bishop, unless you were absolutely convinced that your conscience required you to promulgate it.

Edwin

 

[Greg27]

Bishops have a very serious role in being responsible for governing the local Archdiocese and protecting the faith. Bishops are usually then very experienced and sensible men (as examples we can look at the great Bishops in the past who were great saints and masters of Christian intellectual life) and their proclamations or announcements are I think, to be taken as sound advice. However Bishops generally don’t seem to make definitive pronoucements, which seems to be an authority reserved for the Pope and the Vatican and also the collective Magesterium.

 

[PRmerger]

Exactly, and that blows your identification between truth and infallibility out of the water.

I suppose you are right, Edwin. Many theological concepts can be true without being infallibly pronounced. We just don’t have the assurance of its truth until it is pronounced by the Magisterium as infallibly true.

Now as to the authority of Church teachings that are not infallible, see the 1983 Code of Canon Law 752-54:
Edwin

Thank you for that example. It was immensely helpful!