S
ServantofMary
Guest
A pastoral decision can cause someone to do something that is contrary to the Faith.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
jR, ServantOfMary has a point. The ultimate obedience is to God. But all we’re given is Scripture and the Ten Commandments. (And tradition too, but let’s leave that aside for the time being.) So that begs the question, if we see a contradiction between what Scripture says and what the Church says, which one to follow? Example: women should be quiet in churches.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not understand. Are you saying it can *make *a person do something sinful, like the old “The devil made me do it” or result in a tendancy to sin on the part of others.
J
JReducation
Guest
What Thomas said is correct. But to that we have what St. Benedict and St. Francis said. We must submit to the voice of the superior, because Christ speaks through him, even when we know better. We are not bound to submit when the superior commands sin. That is the only time that you are allowed to disobey according to the Rules of St. Benedict and St. Francis. Aquinas came much later and what he teaches is not in conflict with this.
Neither Benedict nor Francis said anything about blindness. They spoke about great humility before the superior and about great penance. Both emphasized how perfect obedience is an act of love.
We have to be very careful here. Modern man has a tendency to put great value on his freedom and his intellect. That is why the major religious orders of men are reforming themselves and returning to the ancient observances. Society has gone too far. What was once an act of love is now seen as a wrong, which is not the case at all. It is very liberating. The inner silence that comes from perfect obedience opens one up to hear the voice of God in prayer and in others.
If you observe, you will find communities like:
Franciscans of the Primitive Observance – who ordered two of their friars to walk from Boston to Cosa Rica on a mission.
Franciscan Friars of the Renewal – who do not allow their priests to serve in parishes any longer.
Franciscans of the Holy Family – who no longer serve the middle class in obedience to Francis
Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word – whose life of obedience is centered around the superior of the community and their foundress, Mo. Angelica
Capuchin Franciscans of the Ancient Observance – who do not go anywhere without permission and never stray too far from their house, because it is not allowed
Franciscans of the Immaculate – who may not speak, leave their house, or engage in any of the current issues in the Church, unless they have the blessing of obedience from their superior.
Then there are the reformation monasteries of Benedictines who follow the ancient rules of obedience written by Benedict.
The reformation communities being approved by the Holy See today are very much into absolute obedience in all things but sin and into silence. Silence is both being quiet for prayer and also reserving one’s opinion until it is requested by the superior or expressed only when the superior or the constitutions allow it.
The movement is back to an obedience that is loving and disciplined. This is not blind obedience, this is charitable obedience.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
ServantofMary
Guest
If the those in authority ask the faithful to believe teachings that the Church has always taught against, then they are asking them to sin. And the faithful have the right and obligation to hold firmly to what the Church has always taught from the beginning. As St. Vincent of Lérins wrote:
“What should the Catholic Christian therefore do if some part of the Church arrives at the point of detaching itself from the universal communion and the universal faith? What else can he do but prefer the general body which is healthy to the gangrenous and corrupted limb? And if some new contagion strives to poison, not just a small part of the Church but the whole Church at once, then again his great concern will be to attach himself to Antiquity which obviously cannot any more be seduced by any deceptive novelty.”
J
JReducation
Guest
St. Vincent is not speaking about the pope and the bishops in union with the pope. He was speaking about groups that were splintering different directions away from the pope and the bishops.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
surritter
Guest
We’re given Scripture and the 10 Commandments, but not to interpret on our own. Your mention of women in church is an excellent example, PV, because it actually illustrates that WE are not the interpreters of Scripture! Church authorities are. A Protestant would say that we are to follow what the Bible says, as he or she interprets it. A Catholic will humbly submit unless it’s sinful, as Br. JR explained.
S
Shin
Guest
The problem is, something does not have to be a sin directly to lead to sin.
You can send a soldier out onto the battle field with a rifle, body armor, a full equipment pack, and rations…
Or you can sent him out with a stick and his underwear.
You can send the soldier out to the right place to attack the enemy, and a good position for his own defense.
Or you can send him out to a place where the bullets fly like confetti at a wedding, and there’s no cover.
The soldier can ‘just follow orders’. The troop can ‘just follow orders’. But if the general is wrong, mad, subverted, and they just follow orders, they die.
So too in the Catholic Church with obedience, many things can be ordered which are not directly sins but which at the same time lead to complete disaster, disarmament, confusion, etc.
P
pnewton
Guest
Interesting. Yes, if the Church, as in the Holy Father or the Church in Council at Vatican II, did that, one should not follow. But then She wouldn’t be the Church then and Protestantism would be just as valid.
Another thing, if the problem was just the Church asking something to be believed, it would be a simple enough matter to obey in all things, but not believe until one has worked through this one point or that, even if it took one’s entire life.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Really? Didn’t St. Paul admonish St. Peter himself? Would you call that not submitting to authority?
S
surritter
Guest
Well, you mentioned that we are given Scripture and the decalogue. What was St. Paul given? The charism of being an Apostle. That’s something you and I don’t have, so I’ll follow the proper authority given to us.
P
pnewton
Guest
Then what part of the Mass does this happen?
I ask to point out that the passage of Paul dealing with the order of worship, even though they are in the Bible, are still a discipline given to the churches to which he wrote.
J
JReducation
Guest
Let’s not forget. Popes know the difference between dogma, doctrine and theology. They are not bound by theology. Even if a theologica position has been held for a long time, it is not binding on the pope. Therefore, he can restate it, ammend it, and suspend with it. This does not mean that the position was bad. The pope may have many reasons for making the change. They are usually pastoral The only teachings that popes cannot change are doctrines and dogmas. Even in the area of morals, there are some things that are not locked for eternity. There was a time when eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. That’s no longer the case. That’s a change in the moral law. That particular moral law was based on a discipline, not on dogma or doctrine. Recently the popes have decided to allow married ministers to become Catholic priests after they convert. In the past, this was a sin. Today it’s no longer the case. Again, it was based on a discipline.
The same thing happens with many theological positions. I’ll give you an example. It was taught that only the consecrated hands of the priest could touch the Eucharist. Aquinas wrote a pretty strong statement on this. Catholics followed this teaching. Today we have deacons and EMHC. Why? Because what Aquinas taught was never the official teaching of the Church. The Church followed it, yes, but never said it was part of the deposit of revelation.
The key is whether something is part of the deposit of revealed truths. If it is not, then the pope alone or the bishops in union with the pope can move away from this belief.
For a belief to be binding on a pope, it has to be part of revealed truth. The faithful are bound to obey all revealed truths that are identified as such by the Church and all teachings of the pope, even if these are new to us. The provision is that the pope cannot teach sin. It does not say that he cannot move away from something that has been held, but was never part of revelation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The same thing happens with many theological positions. I’ll give you an example. It was taught that only the consecrated hands of the priest could touch the Eucharist. Aquinas wrote a pretty strong statement on this. Catholics followed this teaching. Today we have deacons and EMHC. Why? Because what Aquinas taught was never the official teaching of the Church. The Church followed it, yes, but never said it was part of the deposit of revelation.
The key is whether something is part of the deposit of revealed truths. If it is not, then the pope alone or the bishops in union with the pope can move away from this belief.
For a belief to be binding on a pope, it has to be part of revealed truth. The faithful are bound to obey all revealed truths that are identified as such by the Church and all teachings of the pope, even if these are new to us. The provision is that the pope cannot teach sin. It does not say that he cannot move away from something that has been held, but was never part of revelation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, St. Paul did submit to authority. He did not change the law on his own. He took his case before Peter. He was given the opportunity to argue his case and Peter relented. If Paul did not believe in legitimate authority, he would not have gone before Peter at the Council of Jerusalem. He would have erected his Gentile Churches on his own. But it was very important to him to ensure that his churches were in communion with Peter.
The question is an academic one, because we don’t know the answer. But let’s for the sake of argument, let’s say that Peter had not accepted Paul’s argument, would Paul have disobeyed? If he had, wouldn’t his Churches have been schismatic?
You see how Paul is really submitting to authority? Arguing your case before Peter, with Peter’s permission to present your case is not failure to submit to authority. On the contrary, it is showing deep respect for authority.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
But St. Peter was the Pope and one to which we all have to obey, right? Or are you saying that St. Andrew was St. Peter’s equal as well? Who is Christ’s rock upon which He built His Church? Or did Vatican II, concerning collegiality, teach otherwise?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. One could make the similar case for Archbishop Lefebvre too, couldn’t he?
S
surritter
Guest
I’m saying that the case of Paul is neither here nor there as it relates to our discussion, because we are considering the case of us laypersons who are to be submissive to authority. And you seemed to imply that there are times when we don’t need to submit.
If you are ordained a bishop and called to an ecumenical council, then you are free to debate these points within the collegial community.
I
ibkc
Guest
And currently, Bp. Fellay. Finally, the conversation gets back around to the matter at hand.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is no question as to whether or not the Archbishop could present his case before the pope. The point is that the pope has to be willing to hear the case. If the pope hears the case and rejects your position, the case is closed. If the pope refuses to hear your case, then it is also closed.
Let’s imagine that Peter had refused to hear Paul’s case. It would have been the end of that. Paul would have had to go back to his Churches and require circumsicion. In Paul’s case, we see that this is something that was God’s will. Therefore, the Holy Spirit moves Peter to listen and to concede the point.
In the Archbishop’s case, there was not this same activity of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not move Pope John Paul to approve the ordination of our bishops. The rule is very clear. The ordiantion of bishops must be approved by Peter. Peter approves this by a movement of grace. To assume that you can ordain, because you have the sacramental power to do so, is to take a very serious risk. Paul, was not willing to take a risk. He wanted Peter’s approval. It would have been a schismatic act on Paul’s part to proceed without Peter’s approval.
We must be charitable to the Archbishop and try to understand his feelings. But we must be obedient to the pope. That’s the great balancing act.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I
ibkc
Guest
In another attempt to wrench this back on topic, I’ll take a point I made earlier, and re-word it as a question. If it is indeed as cut-and-dried as some of you are making it out to be: that one either obeys or does not obey: then why are these doctrinal talks going on? If it is egregiously disobedient to even question anything at all that is put forth by the Church, then why were the excommunications lifted? And more to the point, why aren’t the hordes of leftist public dissenters not excommunicated in the same humiliating way, but are instead allowed to keep spreading their poison ideas that are very clearly to the contrary of Church teaching?
- Status