Some urgent questions

[Eufrosnia]

Hello,

After seeing different things on different threads on this forum, I would like to ask the following questions and I would appreciate it if anyone can give me a firm answer, preferably with reference to a Church document.​

1. Can the Pope contradict a Council on doctrine?

Here, I do not mean a seeming inconsistency later to be reconciled. I am asking of a case where hypothetically, something is actually contradictory.

1. Are there Ecumenical Councils in our history that have been rejected as invalid or validity-to-be-determined status?
2. What constitutes an approval of a council by a Pope?

Here I understand that maybe another council can approve the first but it would seem to be useless if that council itself is unapproved then…

1. If all Catholics believed something to be doctrinally true at a time and was taught in the church, can it be claimed later to be wrong?

I am specifically referring to doctrine here rather than laws.

---

Any help is appreciated!

P.S. I understand that my request for a Church document is rather unthoughtful considering most of my questions above are asking what I can trust. Only thing that seems to be trustworthy is a direct declaration by the Pope. If that is the case, I think that is good too.

 

[1AugustSon7]

---

1. Can the Pope contradict a Council on doctrine?

Yes and no!

It depends on what you mean: the Pope does not cease being human. He has free-will. He can, strictly speaking, choose to wilfully or deliberately contradict a council. Some believe that the Holy Spirit would strike him dead before doing so if he was doing it while trying to exercise his full authority as Pope.

The problem is that someone can easily -from a purely or strictly technical point of view- actually contradict something without it actually being their intent or meaning. Here we are talking about what is usually called semantics: i.e., the context makes it clear that the ultra-strict meaning of their words is not what the person actually means.

As Catholics, we do not believe that the Pope can ever actually exercise the fullness of his teaching authority on faith, morals or discipline and really contradict anything the Church teaches - teaches, not “taught”, because the Church is ever and always transmitting the deposit of faith - it’s not like she stopped at some point and needs to remind the Church of some truth she knew in the 12th century but since forgot.

Here, I do not mean a seeming inconsistency later to be reconciled. I am asking of a case where hypothetically, something is actually contradictory.

It is technically possible, but not* really*; again, semantically a Pope might contradict some earlier formulation of the Church’s faith, but never really or actually: it’s always the same sense; exactly so, the truth (or Spirit) dominates the letter and not the other way around.

1. Are there Ecumenical Councils in our history that have been rejected as invalid or validity-to-be-determined status?

Possibly but generally speaking no: it’s a contradiction in terms (for a Catholic): an ecumenical Council is a Catholic one by definition and cannot be rejected or invalid. To argue otherwise is to claim the Holy Spirit Himself has been rejected by the Church or is invalid.

1. What constitutes an approval of a council by a Pope?

Vatican I gives the definition of Papal infallibility.

Certainly the Pope must exercise his authority freely and voluntarily (i.e., not under duress): the same truth holds good for any human being, e.g. in marriage (even if someone secretly threatened to murder me or my friends or relatives if I didn’t marry this or that woman, it renders my vows invalid — unless, of course, I wanted to marry her anyways!). It would seem that even if I later accepted the marriage it would, as it were, retroacively make valid the marriage (and make the children legitimate, too).

1. If all Catholics believed something to be doctrinally true at a time and was taught in the church, can it be claimed later to be wrong?

No. It’s impossible; however, remember the semantical argument above.

Referencing any single Church document for any of these would be tough. IMO (i.e., subjectively for me) Church history might be the best or most evident proof for what I have said.

Hope this helps!

God bless you.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes and no!

It depends on what you mean: the Pope does not cease being human. He has free-will. He can, strictly speaking, choose to wilfully or deliberately contradict a council. Some believe that the Holy Spirit would strike him dead before doing so if he was doing it while trying to exercise his full authority as Pope.

The problem is that someone can easily -from a purely or strictly technical point of view- actually contradict something without it actually being their intent or meaning. Here we are talking about what is usually called semantics: i.e., the context makes it clear that the ultra-strict meaning of their words is not what the person actually means.

As Catholics, we do not believe that the Pope can ever actually exercise the fulness of his teaching authority on faith, morals or discipline and really contradict anything the Church teaches - teaches, not “taught”, because the Church is ever and always transmitting the deposit of faith - it’s not like she stopped at some point and needs to remind the Church of some truth she knew in the 12th century but since forgot.

It is technically possible, but not* really*; again, semantically a Pope might contradict some earlier formulation of the Church’s faith, but never really or actually: it’s always the same sense; exactly so, the truth (or Spirit) dominates the letter and not the other way around.

Possibly but generally speaking no: it’s a contradiction in terms (for a Catholic): an ecumenical Council is a Catholic one by definition and cannot be rejected or invalid. To argue otherwise is to claim the Holy Spirit Himself has been rejected by the Church or is invalid.

Vatican I gives the definition of Papal infallibility.

Certainly the Pope must exercise his authority freely and voluntarily (i.e., not under duress): the same truth holds good for any human being, e.g. in marriage (even if someone secretly threatened to murder me or my friends or relatives if I didn’t marry this or that woman, it renders my vows invalid — unless, of course, I wanted to marry her anyways!). It would seem that even if I later accepted the marriage it would, as it were, retroacively make valid the marriage (and make the children legitimate, too).

No. It’s impossible; however, remember the semantical argument above.

Referencing any single Church document for any of these would be tough. IMO (i.e., subjectively for me) Church history might be the best or most evident proof for what I have said.

Hope this helps!

God bless you.

Thank you so much! It was most helpful.

About the 3rd question, does a council need to be approved by a Pope to get its full ecumenical council status? Because ConstantineTG in a different thread cited the Robber council which was later declared as null. That is what really lead me to this confusion.

 

[1AugustSon7]

A Pope might get the strict letter of something and -regarding his reading or understanding of it- determine it acceptable or orthodox; however, it might later be found to be wanting, and the letter of the text was perhaps deliberately formulated to permit a possibly heretical interpretation: e.g., by appealing to an extremely sophistical understanding of certain (again, only for example) Greek words in their contemporary context or understanding; whereas, the Latin translation did not carry over such peculiar controversies; and the Pope approves of the Latin translation he received.

Consider, e.g., the Apostles’ Creed: just because the Nicene Creed was later formulated as a sort of specification or determination of the meaning of the Apostles’ Creed, it does not render the Apostles’ Creed invalid or -God forbid!- heretical.

Thank you so much! It was most helpful.

About the 3rd question, does a council need to be approved by a Pope to get its full ecumenical council status? Because ConstantineTG in a different thread cited the Robber council which was later declared as null. That is what really lead me to this confusion.

You’re welcome; and thank you too.

 

[Chuck1]

Yes and no!

It depends on what you mean: the Pope does not cease being human. He has free-will. He can, strictly speaking, choose to wilfully or deliberately contradict a council. Some believe that the Holy Spirit would strike him dead before doing so if he was doing it while trying to exercise his full authority as Pope.

The problem is that someone can easily -from a purely or strictly technical point of view- actually contradict something without it actually being their intent or meaning. Here we are talking about what is usually called semantics: i.e., the context makes it clear that the ultra-strict meaning of their words is not what the person actually means.

As Catholics, we do not believe that the Pope can ever actually exercise the fullness of his teaching authority on faith, morals or discipline and really contradict anything the Church teaches - teaches, not “taught”, because the Church is ever and always transmitting the deposit of faith - it’s not like she stopped at some point and needs to remind the Church of some truth she knew in the 12th century but since forgot.

It is technically possible, but not* really*; again, semantically a Pope might contradict some earlier formulation of the Church’s faith, but never really or actually: it’s always the same sense; exactly so, the truth (or Spirit) dominates the letter and not the other way around.

Possibly but generally speaking no: it’s a contradiction in terms (for a Catholic): an ecumenical Council is a Catholic one by definition and cannot be rejected or invalid. To argue otherwise is to claim the Holy Spirit Himself has been rejected by the Church or is invalid.

Vatican I gives the definition of Papal infallibility.

Certainly the Pope must exercise his authority freely and voluntarily (i.e., not under duress): the same truth holds good for any human being, e.g. in marriage (even if someone secretly threatened to murder me or my friends or relatives if I didn’t marry this or that woman, it renders my vows invalid — unless, of course, I wanted to marry her anyways!). It would seem that even if I later accepted the marriage it would, as it were, retroacively make valid the marriage (and make the children legitimate, too).

No. It’s impossible; however, remember the semantical argument above.

Referencing any single Church document for any of these would be tough. IMO (i.e., subjectively for me) Church history might be the best or most evident proof for what I have said.

Hope this helps!

God bless you.

What about the limo doctrine ? That was beloved to be true and then all of a sudden with the popes signature it wasn’t so how can you go from believing one thing to not believing it at all does this not contradict Papal infablity ?

 

[JerryZ]

What about the limo doctrine ? That was beloved to be true and then all of a sudden with the popes signature it wasn’t so how can you go from believing one thing to not believing it at all does this not contradict Papal infablity ?

Limo? Are you referring to the Limbo?

It was never a “Doctrine of faith” therefore subject to revision as we come to better understand other related teachings.

Look at the wording they use:

“We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge,” it added.

The Church is carefull when Dogma is concerned only declaring what she can declare with total confidence whereas when there is not that certainty she does not say that that particular teaching is Dogma.

 

[JerryZ]

Thank you so much! It was most helpful.

About the 3rd question, does a council need to be approved by a Pope to get its full ecumenical council status? Because ConstantineTG in a different thread cited the Robber council which was later declared as null. That is what really lead me to this confusion.

Perhaps you are referring to this:

Second Council of Ephesus (449) declared Eutyches orthodox and attacked his opponents. Though originally convened as an ecumenical council, this council is not recognized as ecumenical and denounced as a Robber Council by the Chalcedonians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants).

Seems it was a “local council” possibly that is why it was not accepted.

Definition of ECUMENICAL
1
: worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application
2
a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
b : promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation

 

[JReducation]

Hello,

After seeing different things on different threads on this forum, I would like to ask the following questions and I would appreciate it if anyone can give me a firm answer, preferably with reference to a Church document.​

1. Can the Pope contradict a Council on doctrine?

No pope can contradict revealed doctrine or morals. Any comment that a council makes about a doctrine is not the doctrine itself. The pope is not bound by it. For example, if the dogma is "the Immaculate Conception is . . . . " and the council says that "this means . . . . " The pope can overrule the council’s statement, but not the dogma.

Here, I do not mean a seeming inconsistency later to be reconciled. I am asking of a case where hypothetically, something is actually contradictory.

1. Are there Ecumenical Councils in our history that have been rejected as invalid or validity-to-be-determined status?

Not in the Catholic Church. There are councils that the Eastern Christians do not recognize.

1. What constitutes an approval of a council by a Pope?

A pope does not have to approve a council. Only a pope can invoke a council.

Here I understand that maybe another council can approve the first but it would seem to be useless if that council itself is unapproved then…

That can’t happen, if the pope opens the council.

1. If all Catholics believed something to be doctrinally true at a time and was taught in the church, can it be claimed later to be wrong?

Yes, if the belief is incorrect. There are many things that people believe to be doctrine that are disciplines, theological statements, or commentaries on a doctrine. Often, people think that everything that a pope writes or a council writes is a doctrine or that everything that is in an encyclical is infallible. Very often, these writings are about an infallible belief, but what is being said about the belief can be a development of the thought, not necessarily another infallible statement. Cardinal Levada was able to prove this when he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Humanae Vitae. He pointed out how the the mandate again artificial means of birth control are in line with infallibly revealed moral law. However, everything that Pope Paul VI said about the issue were his attempt to explain and elaborate for the sake of clarity and understanding. His explanations and clarifications are not covered by infallibility. However, these explanation cannot contract the doctrine. They can simply be insufficient or unclear.

You may want to read the works of St. Boniface. He speaks very clearly on the authority of the pope over councils, even those of the pas and over previous popes. To paraphrase him, no pope is bound by any decree of any council or any previous pope unless that which is decreed is explicitly contained in divine revelation. No pope is bound by any doctor of the church, any saint or any miracle or an private apparition. Hence the argument about Fatima is settled before it even happened. All revelation comes from Christ. All law comes from Christ and it is written in the heart of the pope. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s a very long statement, which you may be able to find online.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

Yes, if the belief is incorrect. There are many things that people believe to be doctrine that are disciplines, theological statements, or commentaries on a doctrine. Often, people think that everything that a pope writes or a council writes is a doctrine or that everything that is in an encyclical is infallible. Very often, these writings are about an infallible belief, but what is being said about the belief can be a development of the thought, not necessarily another infallible statement. Cardinal Levada was able to prove this when he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Humanae Vitae. He pointed out how the the mandate again artificial means of birth control are in line with infallibly revealed moral law. However, everything that Pope Paul VI said about the issue were his attempt to explain and elaborate for the sake of clarity and understanding. His explanations and clarifications are not covered by infallibility. However, these explanation cannot contract the doctrine. They can simply be insufficient or unclear.

You may want to read the works of St. Boniface. He speaks very clearly on the authority of the pope over councils, even those of the pas and over previous popes. To paraphrase him, no pope is bound by any decree of any council or any previous pope unless that which is decreed is explicitly contained in divine revelation. No pope is bound by any doctor of the church, any saint or any miracle or an private apparition. Hence the argument about Fatima is settled before it even happened. All revelation comes from Christ. All law comes from Christ and it is written in the heart of the pope. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s a very long statement, which you may be able to find online.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother, perhaps you could chime in with some thoughts on how the above relates to another thread involving if unborn children go to Heaven and Baptism of Desire (since apparently earlier Councils said something different to what later folks, and some theologians said)?

 

[JReducation]

Brother, perhaps you could chime in with some thoughts on how the above relates to another thread involving if unborn children go to Heaven and Baptism of Desire (since apparently earlier Councils said something different to what later folks, and some theologians said)?

Again, nothing that was said by earlier councils on this issue is dogmatically binding. For this reason, the Church is free to commend the souls of these children to the Mercy of God. Even Archbishop Levebre wrote on the Baptism of Desire. In one of his letters remembering his days as a missionary in Africa, he writes about the desire to be baptized and efficacy of the desire if the person dies before the desire is fulfilled.

Only God knows what the soul truly wants. We have to remember that what dies is the child, not the child’s soul. Souls are neither infants or adults. They are souls. The communication between the soul and God is not impaired by the age of the deceased.

Additionally, it is important to remember that many heretics had said that it was contrary to Scripture to baptize infants. The Church tries to make a case for infant baptism. In each of these statements, the council fathers were building a case for a situation that existed at the time or a question that was on the table at the time. When the Church today speaks about baptism of desire, she’s speaking to a similar situation, but with more information.

The truth of the matter is that the Church herself admits that she cannot say who is not in heaven. She can only say who is in heaven. She has the power and authority to canonize. She does not have the power and authority to deny salvation, nor does the Church know what happens between the soul and God at the moment of death. We can speculate, but until we die we won’t know for certain.

The dogma is that one must be baptized to enter heaven. There is nothing in dogma contrary to Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood. Limbo has never been a dogma. Some doctors of the Church have subscribed to it.

Here is the glitch. Doctors of the Church have been known to be wrong on many things. Secondly, Doctors of the Church do not run the Church, popes and bishops do. The Magisterium has always chosen from among the doctors what it finds useful and what it does not find useful, it leaves alone.

The most positive proof is the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas. Only the Latin Church subscribes to St. Thomas. There are 23 Catholic Churches. In the other 22 Churches St. Thomas is respected, but he is not the guiding light of their theological studies. In some Eastern Catholic Churches, Limbo does not exist and never existed. Even their explanation of Purgatory is offered without using the word “purgatory”. We know that we’re talking about the same thing, because of the description.

As the world keeps shrinking, as Eastern and Western theologians continue talking more to each other, as more Eastern bishops become Cardinals, we’re going to see many things coming from the East and their going to see many things coming from the West that neither side ever thought about or ever knew existed.

The dogmas will always be the same, but it will become more obvious that many things that both sides assumed were written in stone wee not. If they had been written in stone, all 23 Churches would subscribe to said ideas.

All 23 Catholic Churches agree on what is revealed truth and revealed moral law. They do not agree on the explanations. Often, the explanations are not wrong. It’s the angle that is different. Again, the best example that I can think of is purgatory. Latin Catholics like the term “purgatory”. Some Eastern Catholics hate it. They never teach it in their seminaries. If you ask a Catholic theologian, form any of these Churches was happens to the soul between earth and heaven, they tell you that it goes through a state of transition where there is a final atonement and reparation before entering heaven. There is the dogma. The word purgatory is missing.

Another example is the Anaphora without the words of consecration. There is one Eastern tradition that does not have the words of consecration. However, the Church accepts that transubstantiation does take place, because the wording of the anaphora says the same thing as the words of consecration, but in a different way.

Wording can change without changing truth. In this case, baptism is needed to enter heaven. Does everyone have to undergo baptism of water? The Magisterium says “No.” it’s not in conflict with former Magisteriums. It is actually part of tradition to see the Magisterium of one papacy build on what a previous Magisterium said to help clarify or to insert something that no one had thought about before, sometimes it’s just to answer a question that’s been on the table for several hundred years.

We have to be very careful how we tread when it comes to passing judgment on what popes and councils of bishops say. Let’s remember that the pope knows everything you and i know about this subject and more. We should be gentle and not try to get one up on the popes. We’ve had very holy popes and very intelligent popes during the last 150 years. They’re not heretics. If they have said something differently, it’s because it can be said.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Eufrosnia]

No pope can contradict revealed doctrine or morals. Any comment that a council makes about a doctrine is not the doctrine itself. The pope is not bound by it. For example, if the dogma is "the Immaculate Conception is . . . . " and the council says that "this means . . . . " The pope can overrule the council’s statement, but not the dogma.

Not in the Catholic Church. There are councils that the Eastern Christians do not recognize.

A pope does not have to approve a council. Only a pope can invoke a council.

That can’t happen, if the pope opens the council.

Yes, if the belief is incorrect. There are many things that people believe to be doctrine that are disciplines, theological statements, or commentaries on a doctrine. Often, people think that everything that a pope writes or a council writes is a doctrine or that everything that is in an encyclical is infallible. Very often, these writings are about an infallible belief, but what is being said about the belief can be a development of the thought, not necessarily another infallible statement. Cardinal Levada was able to prove this when he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Humanae Vitae. He pointed out how the the mandate again artificial means of birth control are in line with infallibly revealed moral law. However, everything that Pope Paul VI said about the issue were his attempt to explain and elaborate for the sake of clarity and understanding. His explanations and clarifications are not covered by infallibility. However, these explanation cannot contract the doctrine. They can simply be insufficient or unclear.

You may want to read the works of St. Boniface. He speaks very clearly on the authority of the pope over councils, even those of the pas and over previous popes. To paraphrase him, no pope is bound by any decree of any council or any previous pope unless that which is decreed is explicitly contained in divine revelation. No pope is bound by any doctor of the church, any saint or any miracle or an private apparition. Hence the argument about Fatima is settled before it even happened. All revelation comes from Christ. All law comes from Christ and it is written in the heart of the pope. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s a very long statement, which you may be able to find online.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thank you good Brother! This was most certainly helpful and clarified a lot of issues.

To ask a follow up question, can a statement on faith and morals itself be considered fallible when it is part of an Encyclical? Here by a statement, I mean one that says “x,y,z, is an immoral act” rather than theological explanations. Or is it such that all such statements made by the Pope in a teaching capacity (Encyclical or otherwise) to the entire Church is always binding? Because that is the view I was brought up with.

This is also where I am bit confused about what you say regarding “people might have thought it was doctrine but it was theological statement etc.”. Wouldn’t this be almost a tautology? Couldn’t one hypothetically argue 100 years in the future that entire Humanae Vitae was a theological statement and therefore Vatican III perhaps is defining it?

To me, it seems more reasonable to assume that all doctrinal statements on faith and morals stated by a Pope, must be binding if directed at the entire Church with intent to teach. Lumen Gentium seems to indicate something as such, no?

So what I am essentially saying is, if an encyclical was written to teach something, that truth itself can never be wrong. But the discussion of it and the proofs provided for it can indeed be wrong. Perhaps this is what you meant too but I just want to clarify.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you good Brother! This was most certainly helpful and clarified a lot of issues.

To ask a follow up question, can a statement on faith and morals itself be considered fallible when it is part of an Encyclical? Here by a statement, I mean one that says “x,y,z, is an immoral act” rather than theological explanations. Or is it such that all such statements made by the Pope in a teaching capacity (Encyclical or otherwise) to the entire Church is always binding? Because that is the view I was brought up with.

Popes cannot teach moral or doctrinal error. They don’t have to call upon the Ex Cathedra umbrella for a pronouncement on morality or doctrine to be error free.

Here is where moral law gets very interesting. There are two kinds of moral law. There is moral law that is divinely revealed in natural law and in scripture. “Thou shall not kill”. That’s pretty easy to understand.

However, the pope can explain the nuance behind the commandment. He can say that killing is always objectively grave sin, no exceptions. HOWEVER, a person may commit an act that is objectively grave and not be culpable or less culpable. For example, someone who kills to protect his life or that of an innocent is being forced to commit a gravely sinful act. He has no choice. Therefore, he’s not culpable of sin. He’s culpable of the act, but not the moral effects. A drunk driver who kills is culpable of the act. He is culpable of grave sin, but is he as culpable as a murderer? No. He did not set out with the intent to kill. He is culpable to the degree that his irresponsible behavior and choice contributed to the accident.

There is another situation. There are times when the Church decrees that something is a mortal sin. This is not a sin because it’s divinely revealed law. It’s a sin, because the Church has the authority to bind and unbind. An excellent example of this is meat on Fridays. The law for Friday abstinence is not the same for all Catholics. In some of the Eastern Churches, it is a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. In some religious orders it is also a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. In some dioceses in Spain they never had Friday abstinence. They were exempt from that law by the pope, because of favors that they had done for the Church.

When a pope commands that something must or must not be done under pain of sin, it is binding on the target person or target population. Infallibility does not come into play here. This is about the power to bind. The Church shares this power to bind with bishops and religious superiors of men. As a superior can I command a brother under pain of mortal sin. It has to be something serious. I can’t command him to take out the garbage under pain of mortal sin. That is not a grave matter. It won’t stick. Sending him to a mission in Siberia is a grave matter and it will stick

Whenever a pope or a bishop commands on a grave matter, we are bound to obey or be guilty of grave sin. The more serious the matter the more serious the sin.

Such commands can be withdrawn at any time, because they do not come from Revelation. They come from authority and authority has its rights and privileges. The part that comes from Revelation is the authority to bind and unbind. This was revealed by Christ.

This is also where I am bit confused about what you say regarding “people might have thought it was doctrine but it was theological statement etc.”. Wouldn’t this be almost a tautology? Couldn’t one hypothetically argue 100 years in the future that entire Humanae Vitae was a theological statement and therefore Vatican III perhaps is defining it?

Let’s take Humanae Vitae. HV is based on what has been revealed about conjugal love, which is the union and sanctification of the spouses and procreation. In the past, the wording was inverted with procreation being first. Pope Paul VI changed the order to be more logical. Procreation follows the union. If you have procreation without union, there is still something lacking in the marriage. You can certainly have a marriage without procreation, because of a legitimate medical condition or simply age. This part of the document is absolute truth. The pope did not create it. He is simply restating it.

Then we come to the next part. Since the ends of marriage have been revealed to us by God, there is no way on this earth that a pope can change those ends. Again, we have another infallible concept in this document.

The third part is where you get into the pope’s personal thoughts. He attempts a catechesis to explain why marriage has these ends and the benefit to humanity. His explanation may be clunky, too abstract, too brief, too long or as time passes the language that he uses sounds so archaic that people no longer read it and another pope has to write again on ABC. But the heart of the matter, which is the ends of marriage does not change. No one can change this

 

[JReducation]

To me, it seems more reasonable to assume that all doctrinal statements on faith and morals stated by a Pope, must be binding if directed at the entire Church with intent to teach. Lumen Gentium seems to indicate something as such, no?

This is what I said above about the Friday abstinence. If the pope or the bishop decrees something with the intent to bind, it is binding until the law changes. It does not even have to be on faith and morals. It can be on anything. A good example is the current rule to clergy, religious and catechists. “Do not proselytize to the Jews or the Muslims.” This is binding. It’s not a divinely revealed law. However, the pope has the authority to demand that we take another approach and we have a duty to comply. This is what Lumen Gentium is speaking about. This also brings in collegiality. The pope governs in union with the bishops. Put another way, the bishops have the authority to bind and unbind in their own jurisdiction, because Peter shares this authority with them.

So what I am essentially saying is, if an encyclical was written to teach something, that truth itself can never be wrong. But the discussion of it and the proofs provided for it can indeed be wrong. Perhaps this is what you meant too but I just want to clarify.

The truth does not change. Truth does not contradict itself. However, the explanation can be way off. What the explanation cannot be is contrary to the truth.

Think of mathematics. A teacher of algebra teaches the quadratic equation. He writes the equation on the board. It’s perfectly correct. He explains the equation and nothing in his explanation of the equation is contrary to the rules of the equation. However, the students get it all wrong. Why?

a. They’re dumb as a door knob.

b. The explanation was very poorly executed.

c. The students are in kindergarten

Did the teacher contradict the truth? No. Was his explanation enough? B and C suggest that it was not.

This often happens in social encyclicals. For example, when Pope Paul VI called for a new world order and lately Pope Benedict said the same thing, people went bonkers. They read into this all kinds of things that are not in it. What happened? The language has one meaning for the pope and another for the politically conservative.

The pope is thinking about a world order that is grounded in the Gospel and in God’s justice. That would certainly be new. Heck, it would be the first time in history, if we could accomplish it.

The execution or the how to do this is not the pope’s area of expertise. He may ask some scholars to help him. Every scholar has an opinion. He chooses the one that sounds the best to him and he includes it in the encyclical. Someone else reads the encyclical and shouts, “WHAT WAS HE THINKING?”

That’s when people like me come in and say, “Slow down. He wants you to focus on bringing about a more Christian and more just world order. How you do it is only a suggestion. He’s not saying that it must be done this way.”

This is another good reason that one should have some feedback when reading such documents, just to make sure that one understood.

This is happening a lot with Pope Benedict and the Traditionalist world. Traddom holds on to older statements as if they were the 10 Commandments etched in stone. Pope Benedict comes in and attends a prayer service at a Synagogue and another at Westminster. Pope John Paul prays in a mosque. These folks are upset because document A, B and C said that this could not be done.

However, they don’t know what the popes know. Documents A, B and C do not bind the pope. No Church law can bind the pope. What is in those documents were rules created by the Church, not handed down by Christ.

Another part of this is that the pope, who is not bound by these documents and the rules in them, can also modify the rules. What was a good rule for a given period and a given population is not a good rule for today. It needs to be tweaked. However, if that previous situation ever resurfaces, then that old rule will kick in again.

When it comes to Church documents it is best to go by what the Church is saying today, always trusting that what she is saying is because tradition allows her to say it. In this case, tradition says that no pope, no council, no doctor of the Church, no saint, no miracle and no apparition can bind the pope, only divinely revealed faith and morals. Tradition also says that the pope can bind some people and not others. That explains why we have different rules in the different Catholic Churches on things like celibacy, fasting, abstinence, the sacraments and even how we pray.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Eufrosnia]

The truth does not change. Truth does not contradict itself. However, the explanation can be way off. What the explanation cannot be is contrary to the truth.

Think of mathematics. A teacher of algebra teaches the quadratic equation. He writes the equation on the board. It’s perfectly correct. He explains the equation and nothing in his explanation of the equation is contrary to the rules of the equation. However, the students get it all wrong. Why?

a. They’re dumb as a door knob.

b. The explanation was very poorly executed.

c. The students are in kindergarten

Did the teacher contradict the truth? No. Was his explanation enough? B and C suggest that it was not.

This often happens in social encyclicals. For example, when Pope Paul VI called for a new world order and lately Pope Benedict said the same thing, people went bonkers. They read into this all kinds of things that are not in it. What happened? The language has one meaning for the pope and another for the politically conservative.

The pope is thinking about a world order that is grounded in the Gospel and in God’s justice. That would certainly be new. Heck, it would be the first time in history, if we could accomplish it.

The execution or the how to do this is not the pope’s area of expertise. He may ask some scholars to help him. Every scholar has an opinion. He chooses the one that sounds the best to him and he includes it in the encyclical. Someone else reads the encyclical and shouts, “WHAT WAS HE THINKING?”

That’s when people like me come in and say, “Slow down. He wants you to focus on bringing about a more Christian and more just world order. How you do it is only a suggestion. He’s not saying that it must be done this way.”

This is another good reason that one should have some feedback when reading such documents, just to make sure that one understood.

This is happening a lot with Pope Benedict and the Traditionalist world. Traddom holds on to older statements as if they were the 10 Commandments etched in stone. Pope Benedict comes in and attends a prayer service at a Synagogue and another at Westminster. Pope John Paul prays in a mosque. These folks are upset because document A, B and C said that this could not be done.

However, they don’t know what the popes know. Documents A, B and C do not bind the pope. No Church law can bind the pope. What is in those documents were rules created by the Church, not handed down by Christ.

Another part of this is that the pope, who is not bound by these documents and the rules in them, can also modify the rules. What was a good rule for a given period and a given population is not a good rule for today. It needs to be tweaked. However, if that previous situation ever resurfaces, then that old rule will kick in again.

When it comes to Church documents it is best to go by what the Church is saying today, always trusting that what she is saying is because tradition allows her to say it. In this case, tradition says that no pope, no council, no doctor of the Church, no saint, no miracle and no apparition can bind the pope, only divinely revealed faith and morals. Tradition also says that the pope can bind some people and not others. That explains why we have different rules in the different Catholic Churches on things like celibacy, fasting, abstinence, the sacraments and even how we pray.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thank you once more Good Brother! This settled the above questions for good I think.

Something different that I noticed when reading that I wanted to ask though was regarding proselytizing Muslims and Jews. There is an actual ban on the clergy from proselytizing Jews and Muslims? Is this binding on the faithful as well? Because I have tried several times to convert some Muslim friends

I also thought worth mentioning. I am not a someone who falls in to the category of strict Traditional Catholic ( I have never attended a EF mass). But I do sympathize with most of their concerns, not from a doctrinal point of view, but rather from a prudential point of view.

So while I do not think that any of the Pope will break any laws by attending/participating in non-Catholic church services, I do think that they can be scandalizing to the faithful if its not made very clear why he is doing it. This obligation to clarify that I mention is not out of submission or a need to explain ones actions to the faithful but rather out of duty to not scandalize the faithful. I have met many who still refer back to a certain event known as Assisi by Bl. John Paul II to justify their positions on religious indifferentism.

While Bl. John Paul II certainly was not thinking that all religions are the same, many Catholics, young, old, laity, clergy seem to have gotten that message. I have witnessed Clergy who stated that Eucharistic communion will be soon approved for all religions. Now its true that Church teaching are clear that such a position of indifferentism is false. BUT, actions do speak louder than words and they do resonate more.

In this sense, I do not personally think that all the non-Catholic events that the Popes have attended were a prudent choice. I also believe that my concern is justified, not from a doctrinal point of view as most Traditionalist try to argue, but from a conscience point of view.

I am not exactly sure why I went in to detail about this but I just felt it worth explaining since it was mentioned

 

[JReducation]

Thank you once more Good Brother! This settled the above questions for good I think.

Something different that I noticed when reading that I wanted to ask though was regarding proselytizing Muslims and Jews. There is an actual ban on the clergy from proselytizing Jews and Muslims? Is this binding on the faithful as well? Because I have tried several times to convert some Muslim friends

I also thought worth mentioning. I am not a someone who falls in to the category of strict Traditional Catholic ( I have never attended a EF mass). But I do sympathize with most of their concerns, not from a doctrinal point of view, but rather from a prudential point of view.

So while I do not think that any of the Pope will break any laws by attending/participating in non-Catholic church services, I do think that they can be scandalizing to the faithful if its not made very clear why he is doing it. This obligation to clarify that I mention is not out of submission or a need to explain ones actions to the faithful but rather out of duty to not scandalize the faithful. I have met many who still refer back to a certain event known as Assisi by Bl. John Paul II to justify their positions on religious indifferentism.

While Bl. John Paul II certainly was not thinking that all religions are the same, many Catholics, young, old, laity, clergy seem to have gotten that message. I have witnessed Clergy who stated that Eucharistic communion will be soon approved for all religions. Now its true that Church teaching are clear that such a position of indifferentism is false. BUT, actions do speak louder than words and they do resonate more.

In this sense, I do not personally think that all the non-Catholic events that the Popes have attended were a prudent choice. I also believe that my concern is justified, not from a doctrinal point of view as most Traditionalist try to argue, but from a conscience point of view.

I am not exactly sure why I went in to detail about this but I just felt it worth explaining since it was mentioned

There are a number of things happening at the same time here.

1. Popes are human beings. They have rather hectic lives. When a pope says that he wants to do A, B, and C, it is not he who organizes it. There are hundreds of people involved. If you notice, when the pope is in a public setting, there is always his secretary or another bishop cuing him on what to do next or slipping a piece of paper in front of him with the right words. Of course, he knows all of this in advance. But he is not responsible for setting it up. He orders that it be set up and then people come back to him and tell him what they have arranged.

Here is where the communication breaks down between the papacy and the rest of the faithful. The people charged with setting things up are not charged with public opinion. That’s not their job and they don’t have the time to dwell on that. The pope wants something and they have to make sure that it happens, that it’s safe, and that it goes like a well oiled machine. Time is precious. That’s stressful enough.

1. Until very recently, I would say Pope Paul’s papacy, popes did not leave Vatican City except to go into Rome to celebrate mass at the Lateran or some public function at one of the basilicas. This kind of trip went unnoticed by the press. No one filmed it or wrote about it.

When Pope Paul VI came to the United Nations, that was a major event. The pope flying across the Atlantic! The press was all over it, as was TV. However, that was a one day trip. He arrived in NY in the morning and left late that night. I wouldn’t want to make that trip, but that’s another thread. Although the world saw, there was not much to see, because of the brevity of the trip.

1. As papal trips become longer and more interesting, there is more to show and to see. This is where some fragile souls can get scandalized. To the pope and those planning the events, the last thing on their minds is the TV cameras, reporters, Internet, and other forms of media. It has never occurred to them to set up some kind of “educational team” to explain what’s happening and why. It was not until EWTN came around that we had simultaneous commentaries by Catholic experts. How many people watch it? More people get their Catholic information from the Internet than from a good Catholic commentator on TV, radio or podcast.

I know this to be true, because Pope Benedict said so when the Williamson scandal occurred. The bishops asked him, rather angrily, if he had not seen what Bishop Williamson had said about Jews. The pope admitted that he had not. When it was pointed out to him, he publicly admitted that his office never paid attention to the Internet, but he now realized that this was a means of information that they could no longer neglect.

In part, it’s a matter of catching up with the time. Pope Benedict is the first pope ever to use a computer to write. That’s because he was a university professor and then an administrator at the CDF. He was exposed to word processing. From the sound of things, it seems that a computer was nothing but a very sophisticated and fast typewriter to him. There is very popular picture of him learning to use a laptop. Imagine a man with two doctorate degrees, who speaks 7 languages, has been a professor and an administrator never having touched a laptop until two years ago.

 

[JReducation]

Where am I going with this? I’m saying that we know more about what the pope does or does not do than he knows about what we see, because he does not use the technology that we use and until the Williamson affair, he admitted that his office had no interest in using it. In the meantime, other departments in the Vatican were using modern technology and were knowledgeable of what was going on outside of Vatican City, but not His Holiness. He always found things out when the cardinals asked him, “What were you thinking? or Didn’t you know?” This same thing happened with his comment on the use of condoms by male prostitutes. He was thinking aloud. In his mind, he’s having a conversation with someone who’s interviewing him for a book. It never occurred to him that millions of people would read the book and that there would be misunderstanding. Why not? In his mind, he’s just the pope and who reads books about Joseph Ratzinger? That’s the way they think.

We see them as bigger than life. They don’t see themselves that way. They don’t anticipate the reactions to the things they do or say. When they don’t anticipate it, no one is there to explain it.

I find it very sad that Catholics often give everyone a pass, except the pope and the bishops. Presidents, kings, prime ministers and other leaders get a pass or are forgiven in a week or two. Popes and bishops are crucified by their own people.

I know the whole thing that people hold them to a higher standard and maybe that’s the problem. People want to set their standards higher than God’s.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

PS. The direction from the Holy See on the Muslims and Jews is to refrain from proselytizing. There is nothing wrong with inviting, answering questions, sharing information, or defending the Catholic faith.

When one sets out to tell Muslims and Jews that their faith is evil, that it’s false, that they are not going to heaven because they’re Muslims or Jews, that’s where the Holy See draws the line. No one, clergy, religious or lay is allowed to do this. The Holy See considers this

a. antiproductive

b. it sabotages the work of Pope Benedict on behalf of Jewish-Catholic and Muslim-Catholic relations

c. It can place many Catholics in the Middle East in greater danger than they already are, because there are some very violent people everywhere.

d. It’s not how the Church views Muslims and Jews. There is a difference between faith and the individual. While the Islamic and Jewish faith are incomplete, the Islamic and Jewish people are still very much loved by God and God has a plan for them that is far better than any plan that we can muster.

e. Finally, proselytizing is not something that Catholics have ever done. Even missionaries to foreign lands have usually been very kind, respectful, shown interest in the people and their beliefs and material needs first and drawn them in by kindness and assistance. The heavy handed Catholic catechism in your face approach is very rare among Catholic missionaries.

There is the wonderful example of people like St. Maximilian Kolbe, Bl. Mother Teresa, St. Damien of Malokai, and others who went among pagans and did a great deal of evangelizing by doing a great deal of good works.

Just this Sunday, I was godfather to a child born to Hindu converts. We’ve known each other for a long time. I never told them to become Catholic. I was simply a Franciscan living in the house next door. They saw the two brothers in the house come and go and we befriended each other. They asked questions and we asked questions. They invited us to their home and we accepted their charity, and so on and so on. The parents were received into the Church last Easter and the child this Sunday. Evangelization of certain groups is much more effective when the faith is visible.

I remember the father of this family once asking me why I never got angry. I told him that we do get angry. He said that we never show it. I explained that getting angry is very human, showing it is not necessary. It is necessary to respond, not to react… He was amazed at such a simple thing.

When I was growing up as a Jewish boy, I was always amazed by the Capuchin Franciscan friars. They were always so happy. They spoke a great deal about St. Francis. I wondered who this Francis was. I picked up a book and read it. I was 10 years old at the time. I fell in love with Francis of Assisi. I kept reading everything that I could find on him. By the time I was 15 I waned to be like Francis. Then I found out I had to become Catholic first. That did the trick. At 18 I was baptized.

We must allow the Holy Spirit to work through us, rather than try to force him to work for us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Eufrosnia]

Where am I going with this? I’m saying that we know more about what the pope does or does not do than he knows about what we see, because he does not use the technology that we use and until the Williamson affair, he admitted that his office had no interest in using it. In the meantime, other departments in the Vatican were using modern technology and were knowledgeable of what was going on outside of Vatican City, but not His Holiness. He always found things out when the cardinals asked him, “What were you thinking? or Didn’t you know?” This same thing happened with his comment on the use of condoms by male prostitutes. He was thinking aloud. In his mind, he’s having a conversation with someone who’s interviewing him for a book. It never occurred to him that millions of people would read the book and that there would be misunderstanding. Why not? In his mind, he’s just the pope and who reads books about Joseph Ratzinger? That’s the way they think.

We see them as bigger than life. They don’t see themselves that way. They don’t anticipate the reactions to the things they do or say. When they don’t anticipate it, no one is there to explain it.

I find it very sad that Catholics often give everyone a pass, except the pope and the bishops. Presidents, kings, prime ministers and other leaders get a pass or are forgiven in a week or two. Popes and bishops are crucified by their own people.

I know the whole thing that people hold them to a higher standard and maybe that’s the problem. People want to set their standards higher than God’s.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

This actually brought out something great that now I am thinking how I could have been ignorant too. It never occurred to me till you mentioned it about the fact that most past Popes hadn’t left the Vatican and the issue of media.

I can see the side of the Pope on these controversial issues now with your reply. What used to be outside of the eyes of the average faithful back in the day is now not. So the level of preparing that is necessary to avoid issues is possibly incomparable. There is also the issue of those who want to promote an agenda being able to use things to their ends.

Even with the condom scandal, I remember several major news companies twisted it out of context to further the secular position. While it is scandalizing to the faithful, I can now see how difficult it is for the Pope to adapt and protect against his words being used this way by the media. It’s not like he has centuries of tradition to draw from on how to tackle the media or internet.

I always saw the media issue as something the Vatican has to take advantage of in terms of evangelizing. But your post made me aware to the other side of it. The Vatican has to find a way to deal with the media as well.

You are also right about not giving it a pass. That is a bit unfair. Its just that we have grown up hearing about the old Pope’s in such an impeccable light. Even Bl. JP II, I grew up in a place where you never heard of Assisi and we did not have much internet or media access. So it was not till recently when someone brought it up when I challenged them on being indifferent that I realized it had happened. I have to admit that I was confused for awhile as to what had happened and if the Church had perhaps taught differently all along. It caused me so much distress during that time that I never thought much from the side of the Pope.

So my part of the world where I am originally from does hold the Pope in very high esteem. We also see him as a person worthy of such esteem. Its just that when you see a slip, then you tend to get the feeling similar to a child seeing their personal hero is human. The salt is added to the injury because there are those who are then willing to use the slip for their own agenda and say things like “Pope said, Pope did, so its good” etc. We just see him as worthy of imitation, which is sometimes blind like a child who think his/her parents are the best. I haven’t thought of this enough to say whether this is ok but I can truly sympathize with the Pope now.

Certainly an interesting issue and till you mentioned it, I was totally oblivious to it. Thanks again Brother for a most informative and enlightening post!

 

[Eufrosnia]

PS. The direction from the Holy See on the Muslims and Jews is to refrain from proselytizing. There is nothing wrong with inviting, answering questions, sharing information, or defending the Catholic faith.

When one sets out to tell Muslims and Jews that their faith is evil, that it’s false, that they are not going to heaven because they’re Muslims or Jews, that’s where the Holy See draws the line. No one, clergy, religious or lay is allowed to do this. The Holy See considers this

a. antiproductive

b. it sabotages the work of Pope Benedict on behalf of Jewish-Catholic and Muslim-Catholic relations

c. It can place many Catholics in the Middle East in greater danger than they already are, because there are some very violent people everywhere.

d. It’s not how the Church views Muslims and Jews. There is a difference between faith and the individual. While the Islamic and Jewish faith are incomplete, the Islamic and Jewish people are still very much loved by God and God has a plan for them that is far better than any plan that we can muster.

e. Finally, proselytizing is not something that Catholics have ever done. Even missionaries to foreign lands have usually been very kind, respectful, shown interest in the people and their beliefs and material needs first and drawn them in by kindness and assistance. The heavy handed Catholic catechism in your face approach is very rare among Catholic missionaries.

There is the wonderful example of people like St. Maximilian Kolbe, Bl. Mother Teresa, St. Damien of Malokai, and others who went among pagans and did a great deal of evangelizing by doing a great deal of good works.

Just this Sunday, I was godfather to a child born to Hindu converts. We’ve known each other for a long time. I never told them to become Catholic. I was simply a Franciscan living in the house next door. They saw the two brothers in the house come and go and we befriended each other. They asked questions and we asked questions. They invited us to their home and we accepted their charity, and so on and so on. The parents were received into the Church last Easter and the child this Sunday. Evangelization of certain groups is much more effective when the faith is visible.

I remember the father of this family once asking me why I never got angry. I told him that we do get angry. He said that we never show it. I explained that getting angry is very human, showing it is not necessary. It is necessary to respond, not to react… He was amazed at such a simple thing.

When I was growing up as a Jewish boy, I was always amazed by the Capuchin Franciscan friars. They were always so happy. They spoke a great deal about St. Francis. I wondered who this Francis was. I picked up a book and read it. I was 10 years old at the time. I fell in love with Francis of Assisi. I kept reading everything that I could find on him. By the time I was 15 I waned to be like Francis. Then I found out I had to become Catholic first. That did the trick. At 18 I was baptized.

We must allow the Holy Spirit to work through us, rather than try to force him to work for us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I think this seems like a very reasonable position indeed. If we anger them or have distrust, it can lead to no discussion.

But with respect to Muslims, isn’t there an issue with Muhammad and the Koran? How would the church tackle the issue? Or basically someone like me tackle the issue without saying he is indeed a false prophet?

My usual attempts at discussions on faith with a Muslim (or any other) have usually centered around asking what reasons to think the Koran is the word of God and in turn what authority has Mohammed shown to be able to reveal something of the Transcendent.

In this sense I do feel a bit of difference with the Jewish faith too. With the Jewish faithful, I just appeal to the authority of Christ shown through the resurrection. So I do not need to attack anything Jewish this way but get them to accept something new, or the next step. But with Islam, it seems like I would have to touch on the issue of the status of Muhammad, wouldn’t I? Or is such a procedure to be avoided?

 

[JReducation]

I think this seems like a very reasonable position indeed. If we anger them or have distrust, it can lead to no discussion.

But with respect to Muslims, isn’t there an issue with Muhammad and the Koran? How would the church tackle the issue? Or basically someone like me tackle the issue without saying he is indeed a false prophet?

My usual attempts at discussions on faith with a Muslim (or any other) have usually centered around asking what reasons to think the Koran is the word of God and in turn what authority has Mohammed shown to be able to reveal something of the Transcendent.

In this sense I do feel a bit of difference with the Jewish faith too. With the Jewish faithful, I just appeal to the authority of Christ shown through the resurrection. So I do not need to attack anything Jewish this way but get them to accept something new, or the next step. But with Islam, it seems like I would have to touch on the issue of the status of Muhammad, wouldn’t I? Or is such a procedure to be avoided?

This is going to sound silly, but it may help. I’m a widower and father of two, daughter and son. They’re adults now. When my wife died they were 4 and 9. If any woman I dated had said to me that I had ugly children, I would never have dated her again.

This is the same reaction that you will get from a Muslim if you discredit Mohammed. When discussing Islam and Christianity, what I do with my Muslim friends is as them as much as I can about their faith. I ask questions that are pertinent to a Catholic.

I ask them about the Blessed Mother, because I know that they have great reverence for Miriam of Nazareth. There is an entire book in the Q’uran about her. They really like to talk about her. There is an opportunity for me to share our Marian culture. That’s when I can throw in some things that they may not know about Mary. They don’t get offended, because it’s a figure whom the venerate.

I’ll ask them about Mohammed, his life and work. I have read a great deal about him. He’s actually a very interesting figure in history. One of the most influential men in the Christian Era. It’s unfortunate that in American schools our children do not get to read some good biographies about these individuals who influenced the world, just as pure secular history. Of course, when the Catholic child becomes a Catholic adult, he knows nothing about Mohammed except what some bath mouth Christian or Jew has said. The man was not a saint, but he was not Hitler either. He was interesting.

I tell them what I find interesting about him and I ask about the things that he said that I don’t understand or with which I disagree. It’s always a question. When they respond, I always respond with another question, "Have you ever thought about . . . ? " or “Would Mohammed have meant this . . . ?” The one thing that I know about Islam is that they have as many problems with interpretation and exegesis as Christians do. That’s the reason for so many Islamic sects. They don’t all know what Mohammed actually meant either. There are some passages in the Q’uran on which they disagree. It’s not foreign to them to ask, could Mohammed have meant [insert a Catholic thought].

The approach is not confrontational and it does not tell them that their child is ugly. It simply encourages them to think about what they think they know. Most Muslims are very cultured people. They enjoy a very scholarly conversation about Islam and Christianity. It’s been my experience that if they respect you as being intelligent, they will trust you and not feel offended when you disagree.

Disagreeing is not the same as dismantling Mohammed piece by piece. That’s the death knoll. Once we do that, they shut down. Just as a parent shuts down when someone says, “I like you very much; but God your kids are as ugly as mustard.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV