The "Do I have to" as opposed to "Should I" Argument

[LilyM]

Ram: I completely disagree with your premise that we need follow the Pope ONLY in De Fide Matters.

Good, because that’s NOT my premise at all. He is not the be-all and end-all is what I said. We should listen to him with all the due respect that a Pope NOT teaching infallibly, NOT speaking ex-cathedra from the See of Peter, deserves. Which in some cases, such as that of Pope Honorius, is none whatsoever, otherwise we’d all be Arians!

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

cont…

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

What this shows is that the Pope has binding authority over three areas:

a) faith and morals - but not except when speaking ex cathedra or reiterating apostolic teaching. NOT every encyclical is binding ‘MUST’ teaching - after all, St Pius X recommended daily communion for all, but we don’t take that as a binding commandment or in any fashion describe it as a ‘must’, John Paul II highly praised St Joseph and almost certainly recommended praying to him, if memory serves, and similarly we don’t consider that binding or a ‘must’. How many of us assiduously do these ‘musts’? Are we in any way bad Catholics for not doing them?

b) discipline - this means things like Canon Law, the form of the Mass and other liturgies, Papal acts such as the excommunication of the SSPX priests.

c) goverment of the Church - which also includes the SSPX situation above, as well as things like appointing new bishops and cardinals, establishing new bishoprics, changing the requirements for canonisation etc etc.

The Rosary, recommended as it is, doesn’t fall into any of these areas.

That seems to fly in the face of what you wrote and in addition was defined quite a few years AFTER “Honorious” which weakens that aspect of your argument since this in an Ecumenical Council , the very council that Defined Papal Infallibility.

So Popes only became infallible and authoritative *after *Vatican 1, did they? I suppose Mary was assumed into heaven in the 1950s too, then, since that is when THAT belief became dogma!

Either every teaching of every Pope EVER has been authoritative in the way you describe, including Honorius, or it has not and I am correct. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

As for Galileo - He was never condemned for his Science

Doesn’t matter - he was condemned for teaching it. By the Pope.

And with all due respect to St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and St Catherine of Siena None of them were guided by the Holy Ghost while Teaching Ex Cathedra from the Chair of St Peter.

NEITHER were the Popes who wrote encyclicals about the Rosary - otherwise the teaching that we should pray it daily would have become a binding obligation on pain of mortal sin as belief in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption is. But no Pope or Catechism, no simple priest, has said so.

 

[Cecilianus]

Good, because that’s NOT my premise at all. He is not the be-all and end-all is what I said. We should listen to him with all the due respect that a Pope NOT teaching infallibly, NOT speaking ex-cathedra from the See of Peter, deserves. Which in some cases, such as that of Pope Honorius, is none whatsoever, otherwise we’d all be Arians!

Honorius was condemned for his failure to condemn the Monothelite heresy (since he saw the opposite expression as having Nestorian implications, since it was worded in such a way as to imply that the humanity of Christ could be in conflict with His divinity - and since they couldn’t be, to speak of Christ as having one energy does seem Orthodox provided we take a much less narrow, external, and less ontological view of the concept of energy). The following article gives a much more balanced view of Honorius which it would be only fair to his memory to read:

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

What this shows is that the Pope has binding authority over three areas:

a) faith and morals - but not except when speaking ex cathedra or reiterating apostolic teaching. NOT every encyclical is binding ‘MUST’ teaching - after all, St Pius X recommended daily communion for all, but we don’t take that as a binding commandment or in any fashion describe it as a ‘must’, John Paul II highly praised St Joseph and almost certainly recommended praying to him, if memory serves, and similarly we don’t consider that binding or a ‘must’. How many of us assiduously do these ‘musts’? Are we in any way bad Catholics for not doing them?

b) discipline - this means things like Canon Law, the form of the Mass and other liturgies, Papal acts such as the excommunication of the SSPX priests.

c) goverment of the Church - which also includes the SSPX situation above, as well as things like appointing new bishops and cardinals, establishing new bishoprics, changing the requirements for canonisation etc etc.

The Rosary, recommended as it is, doesn’t fall into any of these areas.

The Rosary falls under the category of daily Communion.

Doesn’t matter - he was condemned for teaching it. By the Pope.

Actually he was condemned for teaching that his theory contradicted Scripture.

 

[LilyM]

Honorius was condemned for his failure to condemn the Monothelite heresy (since he saw the opposite expression as having Nestorian implications, since it was worded in such a way as to imply that the humanity of Christ could be in conflict with His divinity - and since they couldn’t be, to speak of Christ as having one energy does seem Orthodox provided we take a much less narrow, external, and less ontological view of the concept of energy). The following article gives a much more balanced view of Honorius which it would be only fair to his memory to read:

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Yes, and Honorius’ failure to condemn the Monothelite heresy is teaching too - teaching by example, it is true, non-binding non-infallible teaching, it is also true, but teaching nonetheless. And we’d all be in enormous trouble if subsequent Popes had followed Honorius’ example and taught as he taught!

The Rosary falls under the category of daily Communion.

The Rosary has nothing to do with the sacrament of the Eucharist. Please do not insult the sacrament by saying the Rosary is on its level or anywhere near.

Besides which, the encouragement of St Pius X to daily reception of the Eucharist doesn’t make IT binding teaching any more than the Papal encouragement to regular praying of the Rosary.

Actually he was condemned for teaching that his theory contradicted Scripture.

And subsequent Popes (or at least John Paul II) have completely recanted the Church’s condemnation of him. So which Popes do we believe - the ones who have taught that he was wrong or the ones who have taught that he wasn’t?

 

[Cecilianus]

Yes, and Honorius’ failure to condemn the Monothelite heresy is teaching too - teaching by example, it is true, non-binding non-infallible teaching, it is also true, but teaching nonetheless. And we’d all be in enormous trouble if subsequent Popes had followed Honorius’ example and taught as he taught!

I don’t think we’d be in complete trouble - more recent evaluations of the Monothelite controversy have been more favorable to it. As I said, so long as we take a narrower meaning of the word “energy”, the Christology of [St.] Severus of Antioch was quite Orthodox, just as the Miaphysitism of St. Cyril of Alexandria becomes quite Orthodox once we adopt a different use of the term “Nature”. When the Church’s dogma was being formulated, terms like energy and nature were used analogically from their uses in secular contexts long before they ossified into technical terms, and when they are used differently than in the Church’s final formulation of dogmas they should be understood according to the meaning the author intended at the time, which might not necessarily be the same way as the Church would later use those terms.

The Rosary has nothing to do with the sacrament of the Eucharist. Please do not insult the sacrament by saying the Rosary is on its level or anywhere near.

I wasn’t. I was saying that the Papal encouragement of the Rosary has the same status as the Papal encouragement of daily Communion. There’s no obligation to receive Communion daily - though I have seen some Catholics grow absolutely indignant and furious at those such as myself who “refuse” to receive Communion daily - and neither is it a mortal sin to omit the Rosary.

Besides which, the encouragement of St Pius X to daily reception of the Eucharist doesn’t make IT binding teaching any more than the Papal encouragement to regular praying of the Rosary.

My point was the converse - the Papal encouragement to regular Rosaries doesn’t make it any more binding than the encouragement of St. Pius X to daily reception of the Eucharist. Both are good and holy things, but it is not a sin to omit them. We’re on the same page here.

 

[Cecilianus]

And subsequent Popes (or at least John Paul II) have completely recanted the Church’s condemnation of him. So which Popes do we believe - the ones who have taught that he was wrong or the ones who have taught that he wasn’t?

Both. You have to look at what the Popes intended. The Roman Inquisition intended to condemn the idea that Scripture contradicts science and to stifle the imprudent preaching of a dangerous idea while the literalistic fanaticism of Protestant exegesis was at a height. John Paul II and the earlier Pope who pardoned Galileo (Leo XIII? or an earlier Pope?) intended to emphasize the autonomy of science and the harmony between science and faith, and to acknowledge that the scientific account of the Solar System should be taken as the correct one.

 

[LilyM]

Both. You have to look at what the Popes intended. The Roman Inquisition intended to condemn the idea that Scripture contradicts science and to stifle the imprudent preaching of a dangerous idea while the literalistic fanaticism of Protestant exegesis was at a height. John Paul II and the earlier Pope who pardoned Galileo (Leo XIII? or an earlier Pope?) intended to emphasize the autonomy of science and the harmony between science and faith, and to acknowledge that the scientific account of the Solar System should be taken as the correct one.

Remember we do not only need to reconcile Papal pronouncements with each other. We need also to reconcile Papal pronouncements with other Magisterial teaching such as the pronouncements of Councils, which are also binding and authoritative.

That is why, while Paul VI expressed Humanae Vitae as not being in itself ex-cathedra, its teaching on contraception, being consistent with what has been authoritatively taught since Apostolic times, IS nonetheless generally accepted as nfallible teaching.

So the question is not what has this or that Pope or Saint said about the Rosary. The question is what has the Magisterium in toto - Popes, Councils, Catechisms, said about it. THAT is consistent - that it is a private devotion, and like all private devotions admirable and laudable but not a ‘must’, not a matter of necessity.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Good, because that’s NOT my premise at all. He is not the be-all and end-all is what I said. We should listen to him with all the due respect that a Pope NOT teaching infallibly, NOT speaking ex-cathedra from the See of Peter, deserves. Which in some cases, such as that of Pope Honorius, is none whatsoever, otherwise we’d all be Arians!

Perhaps a refesher on Pope Honorius is in order

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

 

[Robert_Burns]

Both. You have to look at what the Popes intended. The Roman Inquisition intended to condemn the idea that Scripture contradicts science and to stifle the imprudent preaching of a dangerous idea while the literalistic fanaticism of Protestant exegesis was at a height. John Paul II and the earlier Pope who pardoned Galileo (Leo XIII? or an earlier Pope?) intended to emphasize the autonomy of science and the harmony between science and faith, and to acknowledge that the scientific account of the Solar System should be taken as the correct one.

Robert: Once again , thats nonsense. The Church is one of the biggest supporters of Science throughout history. Copernicus was from Childhood , raised by a Bishop and attended the finest Schools and never once was his love for Science disallowed. This false belief today largely is the product of Protestantism and Atheism making false charges against the Church. The case of Galileo is a prime example. Galileo despite his brilliance in Science was a cantankerous curmudgeon and a bully. This is what got him into trouble , not his science. In fact , he was extremely lucky that St Robert Bellarmine was one of his friends or it could have gone much worse for him.

 

[Cecilianus]

LilyM;7436246:

Good, because that’s NOT my premise at all. He is not the be-all and end-all is what I said. We should listen to him with all the due respect that a Pope NOT teaching infallibly, NOT speaking ex-cathedra from the See of Peter, deserves. Which in some cases, such as that of Pope Honorius, is none whatsoever, otherwise we’d all be Arians!

Perhaps a refesher on Pope Honorius is in order

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

Did you even read the article you posted about Honorius?

He had NOTHING to do with Arianism, which had longed since reached its peak and was dying out by his time! He was accused of being sympathetic to the opposite heresy, Monothelitism, which impugned from Christ’s full humanity (rather than from His divinity as the Arians did). Secondly, he never taught monothelitism, ex cathedra or otherwise - he just refused to condemn it.

And I don’t think we’d all be monothelites, because that heresy only took root in one group of people which never left communion with the Pope of Rome. They also never repudiated their mistake in the process of converting to Catholicism - they just forgot about it over the centuries. Today they are called the Maronites.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Robert Burns;7447768:

Did you even read the article you posted about Honorius?

He had NOTHING to do with Arianism, which had longed since reached its peak and was dying out by his time! He was accused of being sympathetic to the opposite heresy, Monothelitism, which impugned from Christ’s full humanity (rather than from His divinity as the Arians did). Secondly, he never taught

monothelitism, ex cathedra or otherwise - he just refused to condemn it.

And I don’t think we’d all be monothelites, because that heresy only took root in one group of people which never left communion with the Pope of Rome. They also never repudiated their mistake in the process of converting to Catholicism - they just forgot about it over the centuries. Today they are called the Maronites.

I agree with you - It was I who posted the Article on Honorius because I disagree with her as well.

 

[Cecilianus]

Sorry - I’m a little confused as to who’s saying what and quoting whom.

 

[white_sheep]

Without regard to the term “Cafeteria Catholicism”, I see the various devotions as a buffet line in a cafeteria. You don’t have to take one of everything, you take what you want. There’s something for everybody.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Sorry - I’m a little confused as to who’s saying what and quoting whom.

I think it was my fault in the format of my post :crying

 

[LilyM]

Did you even read the article you posted about Honorius?

He had NOTHING to do with Arianism, which had longed since reached its peak and was dying out by his time! He was accused of being sympathetic to the opposite heresy, Monothelitism, which impugned from Christ’s full humanity (rather than from His divinity as the Arians did). Secondly, he never taught monothelitism, ex cathedra or otherwise - he just refused to condemn it.

And I don’t think we’d all be monothelites, because that heresy only took root in one group of people which never left communion with the Pope of Rome. They also never repudiated their mistake in the process of converting to Catholicism - they just forgot about it over the centuries. Today they are called the Maronites.

My apologies people - wrong Pope

I was thinking of Liberius, not Honorius - Liberius, according to St Jerome, while exiled caved in to the Arians, and denounced the orthodox St Athanasius (source: newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm)

Mind you, given that he later recanted his OWN position he’s a real tricky case for those who think ALL papal teaching, no matter what the circumstances, is authoritative.

After all, how can we possibly BOTH follow Liberius’ teachings (non-authoritative and heretical) from when he was in his semi-Arian heretical phase, AND at the same time follow his teachings from when he changed his mind later on?

 

[GaryTaylor]

You clearly misunderstand the Scriptures on this one but that is a topic for another thread.

So you can not understand how one private devotion and message may speak to a person’s soul more so than another?

Some how Fatima is at the top and the rest are beneath it? That is hardly what the Church Teaches.

You can never understand the why unless a person opens up to you personally and tells you (that is if they even understand their motivations) or if you are a mind reader. Regardless you are not to judge what is in someone’s mind nor the state of their soul (this is what the Scriptures are talking about). You can judge their actions, as you are called to do when you are called to jury duty.

Scripture also talks about this when it tells you to talk the person first, then take it to another, then to the Church.

(I know I said this was a topic for another thread but the grave misunderstanding required some sort of response.)

As for my saying that something is not required. Again (I do not know how many times I have to say it here before it sinks in, I am guessing that you guys only skim our posts and reply on what you want to rather than what we are actually saying) I only say that something is not required when someone else comes around and says that it is required (Fatima and the Rosary seem to be the two favorites of devotees trying to say that they are required, just read this thread).

Nobody is skimming anything Byzcath, and I am a retired Behavior Analyst. If I had a dime for everytime I explained this it would pay for my daughters education.

The result of your action/words are a direct result of your, feelings, thinking and attitude. All of which can be confronted. Matter of fact, if you don’t confront them, you can never change the initial attitude thus the end result.

And when you say, Noboby can read minds? Well you just confirmed what I am suggesting and proved your theory incorrect. That is exactly why you confront a persons thinking. Because we cannot presume to know what it is.

Your actions/words are the END result. And the Bible states.“let he with no sin cast the first stone” What does that mean to you about judging others? A courtroom and being on a Jury is required by law as a duty of being a Citizen. It has nothing to do with how we as Christians should view a behavior in public. Should we say an addict is no good and comdemn them on the spot? Our place in not to judge people. If you see a crime, its not for us to judge it, just report it or stop it. Who am I do judge anyone? I find it facinating you would continue to hold that side of the debate in light of your status.

Nowhere ever have I stated one veneration of Our Lady is more important than another. As a matter of fact I stated just the opposite in regard to the Seven Sorrows above? What happens in reality, and what does receive more attention in a completely different matter.

Listen if you feel the need to bounce this ball back and forth, why not PM me and we can debate human behavior till the cows come home.

Otherwise I am done with the Psychology 101 class. This is just a classic case of arriving with a closed mind with an assumption you are correct. I suggested to you many posts back to “think” what you saying through. Its wrong in its conclusion.

Listen if we do not play an active role in our own lifes then really who is responsible? If I allow someone to suggest something I do not believe, or to behave in a way I do not believe is appropriate, then why in the world would I not speak up? Here I would not be judging them, just questioning a thinking or behavior I do not agree with. This is how we as humans function together in the world.

So if someone kicks dirt on your shoes everyday, your just going to judge them and not question the behavior? Your not going to humbly say “Sir, why are you kicking dirt on my shoes”

“Do I have to” implys a thinking an attitude behind it? Its just that simple

You know what I’m just gonna go with I am misunderstanding you here and give you the benifit of the doubt.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Listen if you feel the need to bounce this ball back and forth, why not PM me and we can debate human behavior till the cows come home.

No need to debate you at all, as you have said nothing new. You have just shown a bias for a single school of psychology.

You can not just what is in a person’s mind, which is what the Bible is talking about.

As I tried to show you but enough of Scripture 101 as well.

No need to PM me either on trying to debate that as there is no debate. I know how the Church interprets the Scriptures on this matter and have no need to go further.

Thanks and God Bless but it is now time to move on.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I never said anything about “just”, I am talking about “understanding” through confrontation. Let us not twist words now. In fact “you” continue to uphold the thinking that we may “judge” an individuals actions. When in fact even in the Courtroom who ultimately does this? The Judge, no? The jury of peers takes on a totally different meaning.

The bone of contention is “Do I have to”. Which immediately begs for a response, and sends up a red-flag which screams for attention. If we don’t confront the “why”. We open the door for men who actually believe they are beyond confrontation like Hitler and other dictators.

I fail to see the logic. But heres BIble since you feel more comfortable on that ground, then lets go there by all means.

Matthew 7:1-5
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

How about Luke?

“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven

Romans?

excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself.

 

[LilyM]

Nowhere ever have I stated one veneration of Our Lady is more important than another.

Yes you have. You (more than once if memory serves) called the Rosary a ‘must’. Not just for yourself, but for everyone

This word ‘must’ is a word you very pointedly have NOT said about any other practice or devotion, including the Seven Sorrows.

In calling the Rosary, alone among the Marian devotions, a ‘must’, you are very clearly showing that you DO consider it to be much more important than any other.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Personally I do consider it important. As would many of the hundreds of thousands who also chose to use the devotion.

I don’t consider it “more” important than any other devotion though including other devotions aside from Marion. And I have stated this. And if thats the impression I gave its not intended. And I am sorry if you feel I was misleading.

 

[Cecilianus]

Nobody is skimming anything Byzcath, and I am a retired Behavior Analyst. If I had a dime for everytime I explained this it would pay for my daughters education.

The result of your action/words are a direct result of your, feelings, thinking and attitude. All of which can be confronted. Matter of fact, if you don’t confront them, you can never change the initial attitude thus the end result.

And when you say, Noboby can read minds? Well you just confirmed what I am suggesting and proved your theory incorrect. That is exactly why you confront a persons thinking. Because we cannot presume to know what it is.

Your actions/words are the END result. And the Bible states.“let he with no sin cast the first stone” What does that mean to you about judging others? A courtroom and being on a Jury is required by law as a duty of being a Citizen. It has nothing to do with how we as Christians should view a behavior in public. Should we say an addict is no good and comdemn them on the spot? Our place in not to judge people. If you see a crime, its not for us to judge it, just report it or stop it. Who am I do judge anyone? I find it facinating you would continue to hold that side of the debate in light of your status.

Nowhere ever have I stated one veneration of Our Lady is more important than another. As a matter of fact I stated just the opposite in regard to the Seven Sorrows above? What happens in reality, and what does receive more attention in a completely different matter.

Listen if you feel the need to bounce this ball back and forth, why not PM me and we can debate human behavior till the cows come home.

Otherwise I am done with the Psychology 101 class. This is just a classic case of arriving with a closed mind with an assumption you are correct. I suggested to you many posts back to “think” what you saying through. Its wrong in its conclusion.

Listen if we do not play an active role in our own lifes then really who is responsible? If I allow someone to suggest something I do not believe, or to behave in a way I do not believe is appropriate, then why in the world would I not speak up? Here I would not be judging them, just questioning a thinking or behavior I do not agree with. This is how we as humans function together in the world.

So if someone kicks dirt on your shoes everyday, your just going to judge them and not question the behavior? Your not going to humbly say “Sir, why are you kicking dirt on my shoes”

“Do I have to” implys a thinking an attitude behind it? Its just that simple

You know what I’m just gonna go with I am misunderstanding you here and give you the benifit of the doubt.

God Bless, Gary

Might I suggest that you radically don’t understand the Eastern mindset?

I don’t necessarily disagree with your school of psychology - and it would be incredibly arrogant for me to do so, my only knowledge of psychology being Psychology 101 - but I repeat that your own words look to us like they imply an identity in your mind between Catholicism and Roman Catholicism. Our faith simply is not Roman Catholic.