Obedience to Church: How far?

[Dorothy]

<< We just don’t have the assurance of its truth until it is pronounced by the Magisterium as infallibly true.>>

What the Church has pronounced as dogma is infallibly so.

An official pronouncement is necessary only when there are questions about a particular doctrine/dogma. For example:
The Assumption of our Blessed Mother.

Prior to the official pronouncement of that dogma, the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother was believed. There had been churches, for many years prior, with that name.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

The Arrchbishop of my archdiocese has refused to discipline or correct a priest whom I know to be heterodox.
Therefore, if the archbishop told me that I had to attend that priest’s masses and hear his heterodox sermons, I would not obey him at all in this instance, and I would incur no guilt for the refusal.

 

[prv]

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.

“Stupid Catholics” who are consequently the result of stupid religion teachers who very often don’t even go to catechetical school to know what true doctrine is. But this is entirely off the OP’s query.

 

[puzzleannie]

The pastor has no claim of infallibility, and may be leading his flock into error.

We as Catholics are the beneficiaries of the magnificent gift of the Magisterium. But if there is no guarantee of inerrancy on some pronouncements made by a bishop, I hesitate to blindly obey someone who’s a sinner, human, and capable of error.

as has been stated previously, you obey your bishop in all matters related to his authority to preach, teach and sanctify in his diocese, that is not sinful, and that does not contradict the magesterial authority of the Church, of which the bishop partakes. He is the one who applies canon law in his diocese, mandates how the liturgical rubrics are to be implemented, and how the Church’s mission of teaching and evangelism is to be carried out in his diocese. For instance, he decides what texts are to be used in teaching religion, where priests and deacons are to be educated, and so forth. The priest operates under the authority of the bishop, not on his own, as pastors do in some (not all) protestant denominations.

Not every action, teaching and pronouncement of the bishop or pastor relate to dogma (defined doctrine infallibly taught as universal truth by the Catholic church). They may relate to ordinary teaching, to discipline, to canon law, to administration etc. and are to be obeyed in all matters that are not sinful and do not contradict the magesterium. For instance, if the bishop in Denver says the age for Confirmation in his diocese is 10, and the bishop of Brownsville says it is 16, then they are right within their own dioceses. That is not a matter of doctrine but of canon law.

 

[guanophore]

Just for clarity: I am not having private revelation and used it only as an example.

I mean no disrespect when I question why we must obey when there is no claim of infallibility. I simply want to be able to distinguish our obedience from that of, say, Protestant Christians who follow their pastor’s interpretation of Scripture into heresy. The pastor has no claim of infallibility, and may be leading his flock into error.

We as Catholics are the beneficiaries of the magnificent gift of the Magisterium. But if there is no guarantee of inerrancy on some pronouncements made by a bishop, I hesitate to blindly obey someone who’s a sinner, human, and capable of error.

It is really about how much you trust Jesus at His word. When he placed people in authority, and instructed us to obey them, He knew that people do make mistakes. But, HIs Spirit is begger than all the mistakes we can make, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.

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?

Your bishop is not making an infallible pronouncement. He is giving you rule and direction. In his pastoral role, he is not “the Magisterium”. Hopefully he is guided by that Magesterium, but every individual by themselves is capable of making a mistake. The “prounoucements” are not erroneous, but certain implementations of them may be. For example, we still see abuses that resulted from “the spirit of vatican II”. The teaching was solid, but how that became eventually implemented in the parishes is a far cry.

It simply does not make sense to me that I must obey a fallible man, who is making no claims of inerrancy.

That I must obey an **infallible Church **and all her **infallible teachings **gives me great comfort.

Can you do a word study on obedience? Is it possible for you to look up how many times Jesus uses the word obey? One that I have been meditating upon recently is:

1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” Matt 23:1-4

The “seat of Moses” (teaching authority) was transferred to Peter by Jesus. As such we can have confidence that we are safe in doing whatever we are told.

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).

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.

I think you need to distinguish between “prounoucements” and rules of order and instructions to the faithful.

 

[BobP123]

Ok, here’s the thing.

If something happens within the diocese that you don’t think is in line with Church teachings, you can bring it up with your priest or bishop first. Then if it’s something you can’t live with, then you can appeal to Rome for resolution. Excommunication also falls into this category.

There are several good canon lawyers especially suited to hear your case.

 

[guanophore]

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?

I think you are in error here believers. Yes, poorly catechised Catholics are partly the responsibility of the Church (each has a responsibility to learn, and many do not), and it is important that the Church provide this instruction outside of Mass. It is also difficult not to have the scriptures in Mass. I attended this morning, and the missal in the pew has only the readings for Sundays. I carry my own missal. I have heard from the pulpit that the missals don’t have the readings because we are supposed to listen to the word being proclaimed. I can appreciate that, but I don’t think that one excludes the other.

However, none of this is the fault of the church being infallible. They are errors in pastoring, and errors in correctly implementing the teaching of the Apostles, but not errors in the deposit of faith.

 

[Hellisreal]

I dont know who your Archbishop is, but mine has never asked me to do anything that contradicts or goes beyond Church teaching on any matter…

I guess I better say a prayer of thanks to God now for him!

Who is your Archbishop by the way if you dont mind me asking? Or is this hypothetical?

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?

 

[mark_a]

That does not mean that you owe no obedience to your bishop except when you can discern (by your fallible private judgment) that he’s expressing the infallible teaching of the Church.
Edwin

Ah. The very foundation of authority.

 

[runandsew]

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 judgment in this area?

Well, the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles, so
what would you have done if you lived in the times of the early church and one of the Apostles came to you with the same issues, except it would have been the keys to your chariot. Would you have obeyed them?
Don’t forget what happened to Ananias, and his wife Sapphira.

 

[toaslan]

There is doctrine and there is discipline.

Regarding doctrine: When we are presented, for our belief, a proposition by the Magesterium, we must accept that belief as true. The Magesterium is the Pope, or all the bishops together with the Pope, speaking to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals. This is when we are bound TO BELIEVE.

Regarding discipline: We must obey those set in legitimate authority over us. If they abuse their authority, they will answer for it to God. If they abuse their authority to such an extent that if we obeyed we would be sinning, then we may not obey.

What am I missing here?

 

[jmcrae]

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 states that the discipline of his Diocese is that being 20 minutes late for Mass constitutes incomplete attendance at Mass (thus, it doesn’t count for Sunday Obligation or Holy Day of Obligation) then someone who was 20 minutes late or more for Mass on Sunday would be obliged to stay for the next Mass in its entirety in order to make his Sunday Obligation. He has the right to establish discipline in his own Diocese.

Not to make one’s Sunday obligation is grave matter, one of the three components of mortal sin.

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?

In this case, he is establishing a discipline, and he must be obeyed.

If he announced that anyone seeing the “Vagina Monologues” was committing a mortal sin, is this absolutely so?

Why would any sane person go to a show with a name like that …?

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.)

Was it the individual who was worried, or was an Archbishop actually commanding him to do this? (This just seems so unlikely, which is why I ask. Most Archbishops have much weightier things to worry about than someone’s handwriting.)

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.

He’s the “boss” of your Diocese, which means that unless he is commanding you to commit a sin, or blatantly violate Church law, then even when he’s “wrong,” he’s right. The reason is that he’s the one responsible for what goes on; not you. You don’t lose anything by obeying him.

 

[PRmerger]

Who is your Archbishop by the way if you dont mind me asking? Or is this hypothetical?

This is all merely hypothetical.

 

[PRmerger]

Was it the individual who was worried, or was an Archbishop actually commanding him to do this? (This just seems so unlikely, which is why I ask. Most Archbishops have much weightier things to worry about than someone’s handwriting.)

No Archbishop was involved in the “upside down Ts” issue. I was merely offering numerous examples of controversies in which it may not be clear if an Archbishop’s pronouncements may be contradicting Church doctrine.

 

[Hellisreal]

This is all merely hypothetical.

Whew.

Never heard of such a thing before, and thanks be to God, I hope I never do.