Vatican tells schismatics to respect Jews

[Lief_Erikson]

Oh, just one other thing I wanted to ask here, for the sake of clarification.

JReducation:

But if the Church says that its position is not in conflict with the tradition, it is not our job to tell the Church that she has to change her position, because we believe that it is in conflict.

But if we do believe it is in conflict with Church tradition in a matter of social justice teaching, even if it’s not our job, are we not allowed to recommend, publicly or privately, that the Church change her position?

I’m sorry if I’m being boring, trying to nail this down again and again. I just want to make absolutely sure I’m understanding correctly.

 

[JReducation]

Oh, just one other thing I wanted to ask here, for the sake of clarification.

But if we do believe it is in conflict with Church tradition in a matter of social justice teaching, even if it’s not our job, are we not allowed to recommend, publicly or privately, that the Church change her position?

I’m sorry if I’m being boring, trying to nail this down again and again. I just want to make absolutely sure I’m understanding correctly.

We cannot tell the Church what to do or what to say. We can express to the Church our understanding and ask for clarification. Once that has been given, we have to obey.

We can certainly make suggestions of clearer ways of saying things. Let’s face it, not everything that the Church says is crystal clear, especially for the person who is not well trained in theology and sometimes even theologians are not too sure what is being said. So, once you ask and you get an answer, you can always make a proposal for a rewording. This had done many times. But one must always remember, the Church has the last word. If the leadership of the Church believes that no rewording is necessary and that its statements are consistent with tradition, then the argument is over. In other words, just like any parent, the Church always has the last word. The child does not run the hosue. The parent does. Imagine the chaos, if every Catholic were allowed to influence what the Church says and how she says it. We woudl become another dysfunctional family. This is why the Church often appears to be stubborn. She’s being a stubborn mother who is trying to keep order in her house.

This takes us back to this thread. When the Vatican tells people to respect Jews, she means what she says. She is not willing to negotiate this with the faithful. She can’t. Because 2 billion Catholics can have 2 billion opinions about the Jews.

In addition, what the Church may have said about the Jews once upon a time, may not be applicable today. They may have been a threat to the Church once upon a time and the Church took a very hard line to protect the faithful. They are not a threat today. No one is imposing Judaism on Catholics. Therefore, the hard line is no longer needed. This does not change the religious faith of Catholics or Jews. It just changes how we deal with each other. You don’t need the same hard line, if the circumstances are no longer present.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

We cannot tell the Church what to do or what to say.

I did not say “tell,” I said “recommend.”

We can certainly make suggestions of clearer ways of saying things. Let’s face it, not everything that the Church says is crystal clear, especially for the person who is not well trained in theology and sometimes even theologians are not too sure what is being said. So, once you ask and you get an answer, you can always make a proposal for a rewording. This had done many times. But one must always remember, the Church has the last word. If the leadership of the Church believes that no rewording is necessary and that its statements are consistent with tradition, then the argument is over. In other words, just like any parent, the Church always has the last word. The child does not run the hosue. The parent does. Imagine the chaos, if every Catholic were allowed to influence what the Church says and how she says it. We woudl become another dysfunctional family. This is why the Church often appears to be stubborn. She’s being a stubborn mother who is trying to keep order in her house.

Definitely, by all means, I’m completely in favor of the Church being stubborn and having the last word in laying down the rules. I am profoundly grateful that she is an authority that we must obey. It’s only the limits of what is allowed in permissible disagreement, and the expression of such disagreement, that I’m trying to understand. Disobedience is wrong, we agree. Disagreement on a social justice teaching apparently can be wrong, or it can be right, but both wrong and right disagreeing opinions are permitted provided they are obedient to all commands or exhortations the Church delivers toward believers. And disagreement must not transition into disobedience.

I fully agree with this.

I think, from your posts, that this is what you are saying.

This has been my understanding of the explanation you’re making about these limits:
Lief Erikson:

Voicing disagreement with social justice teaching is valid, unless the Church actually commands that no one voice it. Convincing others to disagree as well is also valid (else how could positive reform ever take place?). Voicing (or enacting, obviously) disobedience is not valid, though, and convincing others to disobey is also not valid.

Is this assessment of what you’re saying accurate?

I feel like I’m being horribly redundant, going over the same soil repeatedly. I just need to be sure, I’m sure you understand .

 

[JReducation]

I did not say “tell,” I said “recommend.”

Definitely, by all means, I’m completely in favor of the Church being stubborn and having the last word in laying down the rules. I am profoundly grateful that she is an authority that we must obey. It’s only the limits of what is allowed in permissible disagreement, and the expression of such disagreement, that I’m trying to understand. Disobedience is wrong, we agree. Disagreement on a social justice teaching apparently can be wrong, or it can be right, but both wrong and right disagreeing opinions are permitted provided they are obedient to all commands or exhortations the Church delivers toward believers. And disagreement must not transition into disobedience.

I fully agree with this.

I think, from your posts, that this is what you are saying.

This has been my understanding of the explanation you’re making about these limits:

Is this assessment of what you’re saying accurate?

I feel like I’m being horribly redundant, going over the same soil repeatedly. I just need to be sure, I’m sure you understand .

We can disagree. We can express our disagreement. We can even express our disappointment. The Church does not outlaw any of this, as long as it does not do harm to the unity of the Church. Once the unity of the Church is threatened, whether it be your parish, your diocese or the universal Church, then the Church will pull out her boxing gloves and give you the knockout punch (just a metaphor). But I use this metaphor to explain how seriously the Church takes any threat to Church unity. That’s why the SSPX bishops were excommunicated.

They were not excommunicated because they were the devil incarnate, but the action of ordaining bishops without permission is a serious threat to Church unity. Up to that point, the SSPX had expressed its concerns and disappointments without excommunications or threats of any.

The unity of the Church is a very serious matter that the Church protects like a lioness protects her kittens.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Great, that sounds very good and wise.

 

[Holly3278]

Good!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Maybe I’m reading the Church wrong, but I thought it is an inherent right.

From Vatican II

1. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

A distinction has to be made here between different types of religious liberty.

The freedom to choose one’s religion is not under dispute. The SSPX does not believe that it is ever right to force people to become Catholic, in fact it is impossible to force someone to adopt the Catholic faith, since a forced action is not faith at all.

The disagreement is mainly over public practice of other religions including the right of other religions to proselytize. For example, whether newspapers have an inherent right to publish stories attacking the Catholic faith. This isn’t what is described as a right in the quotes you gave.

Another very subtle distinction is between the right to be free of coercion to join the Church, and the right to practice another faith. Both sides agree that everyone has a right not to be coerced to join the Catholic faith. But the SSPX objects to the notion that there is a right to believe in a false belief. To them, this isn’t really a natural “right to be wrong”, but its just a consequence of the fact that it would be wrong to forcibly ‘convert’ them. Again, the quotes you gave say that people have a right to be free from coercion, not that they have a right to believe in false things… although the distinction is purely theoretical, not practical, since the first right guarantees the second.