What is binding on Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eddie18

Guest
I have noticed for a long time now that there are many Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe from Pope Francis. If it sounds good, they accept it and defend it. If it sounds controversial or erroneous, they will say things like, “it wasn’t a magisterial statement”, or “he said it off-the-cuff and therefore it can be ignored”. Maybe people don’t realize it, but nearly all of these same statements are also published on the Vatican website. The Vatican obviously takes ownership of the statements if they are publishing them. These Catholics who pick and choose what they want to accept may not realize these statements are not optional for the faithful to pick through.

Below are a few quotes from past popes confirming that the faithful must adhere to what popes declare regarding faith and morals, regardless of whether it is a magisterial declaration or just ordinary teaching:

Pope Pius IX, Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich, 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950:
“It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth me.” [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.”
 
The translation of Humani Generis on the Vatican’s website reads:

“But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

“Express an opinion” is a deceptive translation.
 
This notion that the Pope is some sort of oracle, whose every utterance must be adhered to with religious devotion, is false and harmful.

As Pius XII says, the Pope must “purposely pass judgment” on a matter for discussion to be closed. Simply expressing an opinion, making an exhortation, etc. does not mean that one must blindly follow if there are good reasons for disagreeing.
 
This website is that of a schismatic group and definitely not to be trusted when it comes to ecclesiology.

-Fr ACEGC
 
The following says it very well:
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. [Lumen Gentium, 25]
Click to expand...
 
I certainly agree with you that “every utterance” from a Pope does not need to be adhered to. But the point is if a Pope is clearly making a statement regarding faith and morals, and the Vatican places it on their website for all the faithful of the world to learn from, Catholics cannot simply discard it at their discretion. Doing so is no different than what the Protestants do…they make themselves the authority instead of the Church.
 
I agree that “papolatry’ is something to be avoided.
Also, I’m old enough to remember the many, many, MANY Catholics who were vehement and vociferous in their rejection of Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI), their rejection of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Pope St. John Paul II), their rejection of the Motu Proprio (Pope Benedict XVI); constantly criticizing Pope Paul VI, for not going far ENOUGH and allowing ‘responsible’ contraception OR for going ‘too far’ in his ‘push’ of the OF while de facto eliminating the EF; constantly criticizing Pope St. John Paul II for not being strong ENOUGH in his treatment of women because of his supposed ‘traditionalistic Eastern European paternalism’ and not allowing women priests and deacons, as well as going ‘too far’ with the capitulation to ‘altar girls’; constantly criticizing Pope Benedict XVI for being ‘God’s rottweiler’, so 'antagonistic, so rigid, so traditional, as well as going ‘too far’ with the 'allowing of that AWFUL EF”, not doing ENOUGH to bring about unity, etc. etc.

The point is that for every pious proponent of Pope Francis who is ‘calling out’ anybody who does not mark lockstep with every utterance, whether it’s a letter, an interview with somebody who doesn’t even take notes, a badly translated ‘off the cuff’ remark addressed to the 10 members of the Society for Really Obscure Studies of 10th century Benedictine soil husbandry, etc., that person has probably ‘picked out’ items taught by the other popes and rejected them on the basis of, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? That isn’t INFALLIBLE TEACHING, I can CERTAINLY support women priests and hope the Church ordains them… “. . . The Motu Proprio? Benedict only MEANT that for some elderly schismatics and it was a stupid idea. The EF should be junked and anybody who supports it is a hating rigid fool”. . . “Humanae Vitae? You have GOT to be kidding. How anybody can support it is crazy. What about the victim of rape? Incest? What about our planet, we can’t take care of more people. How DARE we try to force an outdated morality that 99% of Catholics DON’T AGREE ON, as opposed to the wise 'law of the land?”

See what I mean? It’s only a problem when people disagree with you, right? If Pope X appears to support what you like, then it’s a SIN to disagree with him. But if Pope X happens to support things you DON’T like, then it’s ‘prudential judgment’ to disagree and you’ll jump through HOOPS to prove that it’s perfectly acceptable.

And both ‘sides’ will consider the other side as hypocrites.

Well, as I said, I remember (because the people who disagreed with the Popes I mentioned prior to Pope Francis are still out there) when disagreeing with the Pope was a matter of conscience and ‘thinking for yourself’ was the mantra.

Suddenly for the same people, disagreeing with THIS Pope is deliberate malicious disobedience and ‘trusting in the wisdom of the Vicar of Christ’ is the purported goal.

So excuse me if I metaphorically roll my eyes at the current Papal supporters and ask, "Where were you when Benedict was Pope? Where were you when Pope St. John Paul II was Pope? Where were you when Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae?
 
Eddie18 said:
I certainly agree with you that “every utterance” from a Pope does not need to be adhered to. But the point is if a Pope is clearly making a statement regarding faith and morals, and the Vatican places it on their website for all the faithful of the world to learn from, Catholics cannot simply discard it at their discretion. Doing so is no different than what the Protestants do…they make themselves the authority instead of the Church.
Click to expand...
If the Pope makes a clear ruling on a matter of faith and morals, and publishes it in his Acta as Pope Pius XII says, then all are bound to adhere to it. I’m not aware of any such rulings made by Pope Francis that have been controversial.
 
I think my point may have been missed on this subject. The reason why Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII could say with such certainty that Catholics must believe Popes even when they teach in a non-magisterial way is because the ordinary magisterium (the continuous, non-changing teaching from Pope to Pope) is infallible by definition. A solemn declaration is not required by a Pope to make a teaching of the Church infallible because the very fact that a doctrine has been taught continuously Pope to Pope (ordinary magisterium) makes the doctrine infallible already by that very fact alone.

So if a Catholic believes a man is Pope, he must accept everything he says regarding faith and morals because the Church guarantees Popes cannot err when it comes to teaching on faith and morals (magisterial or not). But for those Catholics who are sternly rejecting statements from Pope Francis, they need to ask themselves why they are rejecting the statements. The statements are either contiguous with the ordinary magisterium (infallible and to be followed) or they are not (which would mean heresy).
 
Can you give an example of what Catholics are ‘sternly rejecting’ from Pope Francis, please?
 
Eddie18 said:
[Pope Francis’] statements are either contiguous with the ordinary magisterium (infallible and to be followed) or they are not (which would mean heresy).
Click to expand...
OP, you have been asked twice for examples. You seem to be claiming here that everything a pope says is either infallible or heresy.
 
Here is one example that comes to mind. The Catholic Church has taught that cohabitation/concubinage is not a real marriage, and that people must either marry or separate. Some declarations from Canon Law:

“The scandal of concubinage is removed by marriage, which should be made known to those who were scandalized, either by the pastor or by the parties themselves.” Canon Law 1043
_ _
“Hence if both parties intended and expressed the intention in some way or other to enter upon a mere Concubinage, there would be no marriage.” Canon Law 1082
_ _
“If a marriage is found invalid, as, for instance, among the Gallas, where slaves contract a contubernium or legalized concubinage, the parties must be separated until they are lawfully married” Canon Law 1084

In 2016, Pope Francis made the following comments on cohabitation in a public address in Rome which was later posted to the Vatican website:

“They prefer to cohabitate, and this is a challenge, a task. Not to ask ‘why don’t you marry?’ No, to accompany, to wait, and to help them to mature, help fidelity to mature.”… “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity.”

Many Catholics went through the roof and sternly rejected this because Pope Francis appears to be saying the opposite; that cohabitations are real marriage and that separation is not needed. Whether or not these Catholics are correct in their interpretation of Pope Francis is not the point of this thread. The point is this directive on Catholic morality is either in line with the magisterium (in which case Catholics cannot reject it) or it is not. It’s one or the other - Catholics cannot believe something is from the magisterium and at the same time reject it.
 
Last edited:
Eddie18 said:
I certainly agree with you that “every utterance” from a Pope does not need to be adhered to
Click to expand...
Just think of the effects that, “I’d like pizza tonight” could have on the US stock market 🤣

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top