Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[nsper7]

Think about it this way. Celibacy is an easier path to perfection, and married life is more difficult. Yet married Catholics can certainly be far more holy than religious. Both paths are good. It’s the difference between running on a level field (matrimony) and running downhill (the religious vocation). In truth, any time someone offers a sacrifice to God with humility and love, their path to His glory becomes easier, whether that person is married or not. This is why it’s easier also for the poor to enter Heaven than for the rich, or to receive greater glory in Heaven. They have more opportunity for sacrifice.

Running downhill (sacrificing much) is easier, but a good runner on a level plain can certainly beat some runners that are running downhill (by which I mean they can become more holy). The journey to Heaven is not a competition, and we should not be trying to be more holy than our neighbors but to be as holy as God wants us to be. However, I think this analogy might help make the difference between the religious vocation and matrimony clearer. The religious vocation often requires more sacrifice than matrimony, and it gives a believer time to devote him or herself wholly to God without having to fight so many worldly distractions. This can “speed the way” for a soul on this path, though some religious won’t take advantage of this grace and remain more sinful or tardy in their union with God than people who aren’t in this vocation.

There can be athletes on the level plain and losers on the downhill slope, and visa versa. The downhill slope (the sacrifice and totality of self-giving to God) makes it easier to run toward holiness, though. It’s in that sense that the religious vocation is “superior,” and eases the way to higher glory in Heaven.

Although religious life may ease the way to higher glory in Heaven, might it also make the path to Heaven more difficult since the religious is bound under penalty of grave sin (breaking vows is a very serious offense) to things that a layperson is not bound under?

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, thank-you very much for your posts on this thread. They are very illuminating.

One thing I would like to hear more about is what you were just saying about dogma and doctrine both being binding. Theologians have debated over many doctrines, including the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s Assumption, Papal Infallibility and Transubstantiation. However, once these were defined as dogmas, all debate ceased to be legitimate.

Similarly, there is debate among many Catholics over Mary’s role as Mediatrix of All Graces and Co-Redemptrix, even though both roles are Catholic doctrines. The Church seems to permit this debate. So I don’t understand why you’ve said that doctrine cannot err and is absolutely binding. True doctrine obviously cannot err, but the question of what exactly the true doctrine is is for the Church to decide, and on many questions of debate, she seems to only close the matter through dogma.

This is an excellent question, because it does come up frequently and I feel that our catechetical programs do not address it. A doctrine is a teaching, from the Latin docere. There are all kinds of teachings, not just Catholic or relgious teachings.

Teachings that come from scripture are obviously doctrines. Those teachings cannot be in error, because the teachings of the scriptures are inerrant. What we have to learn to separate in scripture is what is teaching, what is commentary by the author and what is historical information or background information. Not everything in scripture is doctrine. There is a lot of historical information and background information, as well as commentary by the authors, in order to help the reader understand the teaching.

There are other teachings or doctrines that come to us by way of Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium. The Immculate Conception is an excellent example. There are hints to it in the scriptures, but it is not spelled out. It was taught by the early Church from generation to generation. But as it was passed on, things were added or subtracted from it. This created questions and debate. Even St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure dabated against it. They believed that what was being handed down had been distorted and that Mary was born without original sin, not conceived. It wasn’t until another Franciscan, John Duns Scotus who came up with his explanation that the issue was settled for Thomas and Bonaventure. In light of so many claims that the doctrine had been misunderstood and so many attempts ot clarify it, it was necessary for the Church to make a definite statement on the doctrine. The statement said that the doctrine was a matter of faith and has to be believed. This is called a dogmatic stataement. That’s how it came to be called the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The Church does not make dogmatic statements about every doctrine, because some of them are self-evident through scripture, sacred tradition or the magisterium. She does not make a statement on them, because they are open for rejection. She does not make a statement on them, because they are evident. For example, the Church has never made a dogmatic decree on the Messiahship of Jesus. This is a doctrine. It remains a doctrine. But it is so evident, that the Church does not need to say anything about it. Either you beleive or you don’t believe.

Transubstantiation is another subject on which there is no formal dogmatic decree. Why not? Because there have been enough dogmatic decrees on the Eucharist and the mass, that the doctrine of transubstantiation does not need to be restated. It’s already included in scripture, in the writings of the Fathers and in other conciliar documents. It remains a doctrine and is binding. There has never been a official dogma that says that bread and wine cease to be bread and wine. There are so many other statements that include this doctrine, that there is no need for a specific statement on this subject.

Mary co-redemptorix is a tough one. That’s not really doctrine. That was not taught by the early Church and it is not commonly held by all the Catholic Churches. That evolved from the early teachings of the Eastern Church on the Theotokos… Mary co-operates with redemption by becoming the God-bearer. Since it is an unsettled question and we cannot trace it back to the Fathers or the scriptures, there is hesitation concerning the use of the term co-redemptrorix, espcially because to the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox, the term is offensive. It does not translate well into Eastern languages, just as Theotokus does not translate well into Latin and Western languages. But we have accepted Theotokus as a doctrine and no one has ever needed the Church to make a decree on it, because the term was used by the Eastern Church from Apostolic Times.

If a teaching or doctrine is self-evident because it is found in scripture, tradition or the magisterium and there is no debate among the Churches, there is no need to make a dogmatic declaration. It is a teaching that is self-evident and has always been believed. Therefore, it is binding on the Church, unless it gets distorted as happened with the Immaculate Conception and the God-Man.

That’s why the Council of Trent declared the dogma on celibacy. The doctrine was distorted by heretics who taught that celibates did not fulfill God’s command to Adam and Eve to be fruitful.

Today there may be a need to have a dogma on marriage. People think that you can marry, divorce and remarry. Others want to make marriage equivalent to celibacy. Others see the question of celibacy and marriage as a question of status in the Church. It all boils down to a poor understanding of marriage, not of celibacy.

It’s a lot to take in at one time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Although religious life may ease the way to higher glory in Heaven, might it also make the path to Heaven more difficult since the religious is bound under penalty of grave sin (breaking vows is a very serious offense) to things that a layperson is not bound under?

I personally doubt it. God provides extra grace to a Catholic who has taken those vows, so that he can more easily fulfill them.

 

[JReducation]

Although religious life may ease the way to higher glory in Heaven, might it also make the path to Heaven more difficult since the religious is bound under penalty of grave sin (breaking vows is a very serious offense) to things that a layperson is not bound under?

We have to understand that both the married state and religious life are vowed states. There is no marriage without vows and no religious without vows.

If you violate the vows that you made, you are in grave danger. The advantage that I have over a married person (having once be married myself) is that as a religious I do not go to God through my spouse. Been there. Done that and have two children to prove it.

In this sense, religious life is much more liberating, because my relationship with God is one-on-one. I don’t have to please or care for a spouse to please God. That’s what I mean by one-on-one.

On the other hand, marriage can be very liberating too, because the person is now part of a couple. Responsibilities, decisions, problems and struggles are shared. The religious does not have this intimacy with anyone. He does not sit up in bed at night talking to his partner about how badly he feels because maybe he was too harsh on the kids. If he was harsh on his students, he has to deal with it between him and God.

I believe that the greatest challenge for a religious is not celibacy. Because we have a family. That’s what the religious community is about. They are our family. Our parents, siblings and other relatives cease to be our family. They visit us once a year and I visit them every five years. Other than that we communicate via a monthly email and no phone calls without permission, not even to my son and daughter. The sex is not that important. Intimacy is what most human beings long for, but we get that through community living and through prayer.

The greatest challenge religious is obedience. This challenge is not present in marriage. The religious vow of chastity has two more elements that you do not find in the promise of celibacy made by a diocesan priest.

We vow not to marry. That we have in common with a diocesan priest.

We take up our religious community as our new family. The diocesan priest is allowed to keep his family. He may even live with his family. When retires he returns to live with them and they care for him or he cares for them.

The second element that is included in the vow of chastity of the religious is obedience to this family. The founder, the rule, the community govern your life, your work, your prayer, how you dress, where you go and when, where you live and how, who your friends are and you are subject to the decisions made by your brothers in community, if you’re outvoted. You are also bound to work on changing to be more like the founder of the order. Even though it’s not a marriage, it has all the demands of a marraige, but to a larger group. The vow of chastity come witht he vow of obedience and poverty. You must obey and you must surrender not only what you have, but who you are and allow yourself to be molded to fit into this family that you have joined. The family does not accommodate to you. The family existed long before you came around. Metaphorically, you married into this family when you made the vow of chastity.

You are liberated from the duties of marriage and family life, which are challenging enough. But you are not left without obligatons. You take on a different kind of family that makes other demands on you, demands that you cannot refuse under pain of very grave sin. Just as a husband and wife would be in a grave state of sin if they refused to fulfill their duties to each other.

In reality, no one gets a free pass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The Church does not make dogmatic statements about every doctrine, because some of them are self-evident through scripture, sacred tradition or the magisterium. She does not make a statement on them, because they are open for rejection. She does not make a statement on them, because they are evident. For example, the Church has never made a dogmatic decree on the Messiahship of Jesus. This is a doctrine. It remains a doctrine. But it is so evident, that the Church does not need to say anything about it. Either you beleive or you don’t believe.

So how is it that Catholics have been permitted to disagree on various doctrinal points, including the ones I listed? I mean, how can they know when disagreement is permissible, as it was in the case of the Immaculate Conception?

For a while during that debate, the two clashing sides sometimes called each other heretics, and the Pope had to declare to them that neither side was heretical.

It reminds me of the doctrinal debate between Thomists and Molinists, a debate permissible in the Church, within the bounds of Orthodoxy. Also it reminds me of the debates over Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix. All these are permitted. I wonder how we know when a doctrinal debate is permitted, when some teaching doesn’t seem evident to everyone.

Transubstantiation is another subject on which there is no formal dogmatic decree. Why not? Because there have been enough dogmatic decrees on the Eucharist and the mass, that the doctrine of transubstantiation does not need to be restated. It’s already included in scripture, in the writings of the Fathers and in other conciliar documents. It remains a doctrine and is binding. There has never been a official dogma that says that bread and wine cease to be bread and wine. There are so many other statements that include this doctrine, that there is no need for a specific statement on this subject.

Is Canon 1 of the Council of Trent a dogmatic statement? It anathematizes rejection of the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

“If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue” and anyone who “saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation.”

Mary co-redemptorix is a tough one. That’s not really doctrine. That was not taught by the early Church and it is not commonly held by all the Catholic Churches.

That is odd, considering Pope John Paul II used the term “Co-Redemptrix”, and numerous 20th century popes referred explicitly to the concept.

The “New Eve” teachings of Irenaeus and Justin show how this teaching was present from the beginning. Mary’s role in the Annunciation is a big part of the Co-Redemptrix doctrine, though it is not the whole. Her role in offering Jesus to the Father at Golgotha, which Pius XII emphasized, also is key to this understanding. There are a number of scriptures implicitly referring to it, especially in the foreshadowings of Jesus and Mary at Golgotha visible in 2 Maccabees 7, and in the Mary/Eve parallels.

If a teaching or doctrine is self-evident because it is found in scripture, tradition or the magisterium and there is no debate among the Churches, there is no need to make a dogmatic declaration. It is a teaching that is self-evident and has always been believed. Therefore, it is binding on the Church, unless it gets distorted as happened with the Immaculate Conception and the God-Man.

Who has the right to say when a doctrine is sufficiently distorted or unclear for debate to be legitimate? I know the Church does, but does the Church make that distinction or are we left to use our best private judgment?

That’s why the Council of Trent declared the dogma on celibacy. The doctrine was distorted by heretics who taught that celibates did not fulfill God’s command to Adam and Eve to be fruitful.

Yes, that makes sense.

Today there may be a need to have a dogma on marriage. People think that you can marry, divorce and remarry. Others want to make marriage equivalent to celibacy. Others see the question of celibacy and marriage as a question of status in the Church. It all boils down to a poor understanding of marriage, not of celibacy.

Tragically, that’s probably true.

 

[JReducation]

These are all good questions. This reminds me of when I was in the classroom.

Let’s see which ones I can answer. I’m not a genius you know.

So how is it that Catholics have been permitted to disagree on various doctrinal points, including the ones I listed? I mean, how can they know when disagreement is permissible, as it was in the case of the Immaculate Conception?

The best answer that I can give to this is to read. Unless a person reads, he won’t know which arguments have been closed and which ones are still on the table.

For a while during that debate, the two clashing sides sometimes called each other heretics, and the Pope had to declare to them that neither side was heretical.

The Church allows debate over a doctrine/dogma as long as the debate stays within the confines of acdemia. They are seeking to inform their faith. That’s what theology is, faith seeking understanding. The opinions of the debating parties may never be taught to the faithful as the opinions of the Church. This is where dissenting theologians have caused much trouble. They have tuaght their opinions as if they were facts.

Is Canon 1 of the Council of Trent a dogmatic statement? It anathematizes rejection of the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

This is an excellent example of what I was saying. Notice that the canon does not attempt to explain what happens in transubustantiation. It’s condemning anyone who denies it. In the statement it includes the whole doctrine. This is not a dogma in favor of transubstantiation. It is a dogma condemning heresy against transubstantiation. It’s almost a negative of a dogma. It’s not affirming something as much as it is condemning those who oppose what is held as a doctrine of the Church.

That is odd, considering Pope John Paul II used the term “Co-Redemptrix”, and numerous 20th century popes referred explicitly to the concept.

The “New Eve” teachings of Irenaeus and Justin show how this teaching was present from the beginning. Mary’s role in the Annunciation is a big part of the Co-Redemptrix doctrine, though it is not the whole. Her role in offering Jesus to the Father at Golgotha, which Pius XII emphasized, also is key to this understanding. There are a number of scriptures implicitly referring to it, especially in the foreshadowings of Jesus and Mary at Golgotha visible in 2 Maccabees 7, and in the Mary/Eve parallels.

I did not say that the term was heretical. I said that it is problematic, because it enters our language much later in the history of the Church. The early wording was: New Eve, Theotokus, Mother of the Redeemer, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, Mother of the Church, etc.

The problem is not with Mary’s role in redemption. The problem is with the term co-redemptorix. It enters our vocabulary later. The Eastern Churches and the Orthodox reject it, because they feel that it is not term found in tradition. This term, if it were made official by the Catholic Church, could cause a rift between the Orthodox and Catholics. They may excommunicate us again. If they do, they will not want anything to do with us. They have lifted the excommunications against us and are leaning to toward re-unification. The question that is raised is whether or not this term is really necessary, not whether or not Mary played a role in redemption. Catholics and Orthodox agree on that point. Which is the essential point.

Should we risk losing the progress that we’ve made by officially giving Mary a title that will offend the Orthodox and probably the other Catholic Churches as well.? One has to go for the greater good. Mary’s place in redemption is not in question by anyone. What make people uncomfortable is the language in this particular term. We have the option of using it, without including it as an official title.

Who has the right to say when a doctrine is sufficiently distorted or unclear for debate to be legitimate? I know the Church does, but does the Church make that distinction or are we left to use our best private judgment?

Besides the pope, there is the Sacred Congregation for the faith. Today that would be Cardinal Laveda. The rest of us are never allowed to make that judgment call. If the Church says that the concept is clear enough and that the rest of us just have to try harder to understand it or accept it on faith, then we can go no further.

However, theologians, in an acedemic setting, may debate how to restate the concept so that it is clearer and does not betray the truth. Notice, it has to be in an academic context. Obvioiuslly, if it’s in a learning enviornment, then the learner (student) has a right to participate in the discussion , AS LONG AS WE DO NOT SHARE OUR BELIEF WITH OTHERS AS IF IT WERE THE CHURCH’S BELIEFS.

I can say that I believe the moon is going to fall out of the stky. But I can’t say that the Church teaches this or that this is true because I said so. Worse, I can’t say that the Church is wrong, because it does not teach what I believe. In other words, all of us are free to speculate as long as we make it clear that we are speculating, not imparting Church teaching.

Does any of this help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Yes, that clarifies a lot of things for me.

I certainly agree that we should not express disagreement with the Church’s teaching as though we are teaching fact.

Thanks for clarifying the reasons the Church hesitates in dogmatizing the title “Co-Redemptrix.” I too believe ecumenism is far more valuable.

I’m still unclear on the infallibility of doctrine. I know it would be infallible doctrine if it’s Sacred Tradition, but can a council or Pope, when speaking non-dogmatically, accidentally declare false doctrines? And if the answer to that is yes, are we obliged to adhere to the false doctrines they have declared?

I’m particularly remembering Pope Adrian VI when I ask this question. I’ve read that he said the following.

“It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err
even in matters touching the faith. He does this
when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or
decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were
heretics.” --Pope Adrian VI, 1523

 

[JReducation]

Yes, that clarifies a lot of things for me.

I certainly agree that we should not express disagreement with the Church’s teaching as though we are teaching fact.

Thanks for clarifying the reasons the Church hesitates in dogmatizing the title “Co-Redemptrix.” I too believe ecumenism is far more valuable.

I’m still unclear on the infallibility of doctrine. I know it would be infallible doctrine if it’s Sacred Tradition, but can a council or Pope, when speaking non-dogmatically, accidentally declare false doctrines? And if the answer to that is yes, are we obliged to adhere to the false doctrines they have declared?

I’m particularly remembering Pope Adrian VI when I ask this question. I’ve read that he said the following.

“It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err
even in matters touching the faith. He does this
when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or
decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were
heretics.” --Pope Adrian VI, 1523

Pope Adrian is talking about the possibility of a pope speaking on his own opinion rather than what has been revealed through one of the three sources: scripture, sacred tradition and magisterium.

For example, if Pope Benedict came out and said that Mary had more children. He’s teaching on a matter of faith, but his statement cannot be supported by either scripture, tradition or the magisterium. Therefore, he’s teaching heresy. The problem here is that we have to take Adrian in the fuller context. When a pope teaches heresy he is speaking as an individual, not as part of the Christian tradition.

This has happened. I can’t remember which pope it was. But after the Americas were discovered and coffee was taken back to Europe, the pope at the time tasted it and said, “This is too delicious not to be sinful.” and he proceeded to forbid coffee. Well there is nothing in tradition, scritpure or the magisterium that says that delicious and sin are always together. Therefore, he was not teaching heresy, because he was not contradicting a believe, but he was teaching nonsense rather than morals, even though it sounded like morals, because he was talking about sin.

Yes, a pope who speaks out of line with tradition, srcipture or magisterium can teach heresy or nonsense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Okay, but how are we to judge if he is doing this, since he is the supreme guide for the flock?

By the way, that’s a rather amusing historical anecdote .

 

[rachael_maria]

It does not seem right that God calls some people to be celibate and then prefers those people.

It is not like He lets us all choose to do things the way He prefers it or not Why bother with the rest of us if this is what He really wants?

Am I the only person out there who is hung up on this? Really it is an emotional thing for me. I just wish I could be one of the favorites.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

It does not seem right that God calls some people to be celibate and then prefers those people.

It is not like He lets us all choose to do things the way He prefers it or not Why bother with the rest of us if this is what He really wants?

Am I the only person out there who is hung up on this? Really it is an emotional thing for me. I just wish I could be one of the favorites.

God loves everyone infinitely. He doesn’t play favorites. We are ALL His favorites. The Pope receives more grace than just about anyone because the task God gave him is the greatest. Being more graced doesn’t mean one is more loved.

 

[simple_soul]

It does not seem right that God calls some people to be celibate and then prefers those people.

It is not like He lets us all choose to do things the way He prefers it or not Why bother with the rest of us if this is what He really wants?

Am I the only person out there who is hung up on this? Really it is an emotional thing for me. I just wish I could be one of the favorites.

*Dear rachael_maria,

I have to agree with Lief on this.

The way I look at it is how I love my children. Someone told me when I was pregnant with my second child that I would have a favorite between them. I have five now, possibly six, but I can not say I have a favorite. It seems that with every one my love grew so that I did not have to choose a favorite. I love each of them for who they are and trust me they are not at all the same. My daughter is very artistic. She is one of the art teachers pets. My one son’s idea of art is stick figures. But he could read before he started kindergarten:shrug: And my third one loves animals and trees. I call him my “little tree huger” because when we walk through trees he walks right up to them looks up at the branches and wraps his arms around it and gives it a great big hug and he loves to play with machines.
I believe they all three show signs of very different callings in life but I still love them fully for who they are. I do not love one more because she can draw better than her brother, I do not love the one son more because he seems to catch on to concepts quicker than his sister, and I do not love the youngest best because he is my “little tree huger.” I just love them for who they are and try to help them be the best they can be with their talents and will bend over backward to help them develop them so that they can reflect God’s Love as much as they can.

I look at the graces that God gives each vocation like this:
One of my children’s talents might cost more effort, or money, on my husband’s and my part to help develop than the other. But it does not make me love the one more because it costs more effort.

I just wanted to share this because I think God’s Love for us is very similar. I am sure others can clarify anything I said more clearly but this is how I see it and understand it right now.

I hope and pray it helps *

 

[simple_soul]

*I just had another thought to add to my analogy here let me see if I can get it right. If I broaden the picture here and add my love for my husband it helps me understand how a celibate would be loved by God.
Again I can not say I love my husband more than I love my children but it is a one-on-one kind of love verses the love that I express and receive with my children.
And then to complete the analogy imagine this is my husband writing all of this and then I believe it might complete the picture.

Again, I hope this helps.

 

[JReducation]

Okay, but how are we to judge if he is doing this, since he is the supreme guide for the flock?

By the way, that’s a rather amusing historical anecdote .

That’s one of the roles of the council of bishops. When this has happened in the past, the bishops challenged it and a council was called. The good thing is that the faithful are not guilty of sin, if they follow along because they don’t know that this is heresy. You can only be guilty if you know what you’re doing and choose to do it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

That’s one of the roles of the council of bishops. When this has happened in the past, the bishops challenged it and a council was called.

Good .

The good thing is that the faithful are not guilty of sin, if they follow along because they don’t know that this is heresy. You can only be guilty if you know what you’re doing and choose to do it.

So if I’m understanding this correctly, the faithful can legitimately believe the Pope has spoken a heresy when he declares a doctrine that they believe is contrary to Tradition, but they can’t say that their view of Tradition is the Church’s position unless it is later clarified.

 

[JReducation]

It does not seem right that God calls some people to be celibate and then prefers those people.

It is not like He lets us all choose to do things the way He prefers it or not Why bother with the rest of us if this is what He really wants?

Am I the only person out there who is hung up on this? Really it is an emotional thing for me. I just wish I could be one of the favorites.

Let me give you some examples from scripture and see if this helps.

Let’s go to the Old Testament.

1. God calls Abram to be the great Patriach and blesses him more than other men. He blesses him with two sons, Efraim and Isaac. But observe that God wants Isaac to be the next Patriarch. This does not mean that God did not love Efraim. He created him, otherwise he would not have been born.
2. God calls the Jews to be his chosen people and leads them out of Egypt. As the psalms say, he smited the Egyptians into the sea. Does God not love Egyptians?

Let’s go into the New Testament.

1. Mary is conceived without sin. John the Baptist is conceived with Original Sin, but is born without it. Does God love Mary more than John the Baptist? Afterall, Jesus said that there was no “greater man born of woman, than John the Baptist.” No God loves both Mary and John. But they have very different missions and are called to very different relationships with him. Thus he prepares them for their mission. Remember, John got his head chopped off. Mary lived well into her 60s maybe 70s. She was no more than 50 when Jesus was crucified. God grants her different graces, but it does not mean that he loves her more than he loves his other creatures. However, his love for her is very special and unique. I can never be duplicated. She is his mother. The love between a parent and child is not repeatable. Each is very unique.
2. Jesus had twelve apostles. John is always the Beloved Disciple. But who gets the keys to the Kingdom? It’s not John. It’s Peter

So you see, vocation or call a relfection of God’s affection. God loves all of his creation, but he does not deal the same with all, nor does he call all to be the same.

The Egyptians certainly played a role in Salvation History. Without them, we may not have the 10 Commandments or Moses. They had a place in God’s plan.

Abraham, Sarah, Rahab, Efraim and Isaac, all played different parts in God’s plan. Without Efraim, we would not have Islam. The Arab peoples would not have come to know the One God. They trace their heritage to Abraham not through Isaac, but through Efraim.

Without John the Baptist, the prophecies would not have been fulfilled. Issiah told us that there would be a voice in the desert preparing the way of the Lord.

Without Peter we would not have a Church. The Church was founded on Peter and his faith. But John remained the beloved disciple. In fact, we was the only one of the original 12 who died of natural causes. God preserved his life.

Through history we see God call many people to very intimate relationships with him. But it does not signity that others are not equally loved. Those who are called into these very intimate relationships with him are called because that’s where they belong in the plan of salvation. Those who are called into other relationships with him are also called to take their place in the plan of salvation. The intimacy of the relationship is not a sign of greater love. It’s just part of God’s plan to save all of us whom he loves dearly. But each of us must take our place in this plan.

God loves us differently, because his love is not emotional. His love is part of a plan of salvation for all of us. We tend to make love an emotion. For God, love is a choice that you make. He makes chooses for the good of the person and of the whole. There is both a personal and a communal dimension to how God loves us and how he calls us. It all has one single purpose, to bring us all to heaven. The martyrs didn’t feel less loved than John, because they were about to be killed while John was sitting in Patmos writing mystical Gospels, letters and revelations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Good .

So if I’m understanding this correctly, the faithful can legitimately believe the Pope has spoken a heresy when he declares a doctrine that they believe is contrary to Tradition, but they can’t say that their view of Tradition is the Church’s position unless it is later clarified.

Not exactly. The faithful do not have the authority to deny what a pope has taught, unless they speak as one voice united with the bishops. This has happened.

But an individual or a group do not have the authority make a judgment on a papal pronouncement. They are bound to obey, unless the pope orders something that is obviously sinful. You never obey.

Everyone has the right to ask the question, until the Church takes it away. Once the Church says that this is no longer up for discussion, the discussion is closed. In that case it would take a council of bishops to open the floor again. The laity plays no role in this, neither do priests and religious.

There is a moral buffer here. You may not act on a doubtful conscience. On the flip side, you have an obligation to clear up the doubt by referring to the Church for guidance. In other words, we have an obligation to properly inform our consciences. But if there is doubt, you always err on the side of caution. Even if you find out that you made a mistake, you were trying to do the will of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Not exactly. The faithful do not have the authority to deny what a pope has taught, unless they speak as one voice united with the bishops. This has happened.

But an individual or a group do not have the authority make a judgment on a papal pronouncement. They are bound to obey, unless the pope orders something that is obviously sinful. You never obey.

To obey, but what about to believe? If the Pope closes a discussion, am I obliged to believe what he has taught? Seeing as it’s possible he might have made a heretical mistake . . .

I know we already went over some of this on a previous thread; I just forgot some of what I learned then .

Everyone has the right to ask the question, until the Church takes it away. Once the Church says that this is no longer up for discussion, the discussion is closed. In that case it would take a council of bishops to open the floor again. The laity plays no role in this, neither do priests and religious.

There is a moral buffer here. You may not act on a doubtful conscience. On the flip side, you have an obligation to clear up the doubt by referring to the Church for guidance. In other words, we have an obligation to properly inform our consciences. But if there is doubt, you always err on the side of caution. Even if you find out that you made a mistake, you were trying to do the will of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’m very glad to hear this; it yanks the rug out from under the feet of the dissenters.

Does Ludwig Ott’s book, “Fundamentals on Catholic Doctrine” cover this in more detail?

 

[JReducation]

I’m very glad to hear this; it yanks the rug out from under the feet of the dissenters.

Does Ludwig Ott’s book, “Fundamentals on Catholic Doctrine” cover this in more detail?

I’ve never read his book. I can’t say.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I added to the post above.

I’ll try ceasing my questions very soon though, as I think I’m really drawing this thread into a tangent.