What's wrong with trusting the Holy Father?

[consumedconvert]

I’ve read a number of posts–and indeed, received a few PM’s–stating that I and others are in a dangerous position because we choose “blind obedience” to the authorities of the Church.

Allow me to state where I stand. I believe that Holy Mother Church will never lead me astray, and that the human “feature” of our Catholic Faith that ensures the continuation and indomitability of our Catholic Faith on earth is the Papacy, the visible sign of unity within the Church.

I don’t know a whole lot. I’m a fairly recent convert, and I freely admit I need more cathechesis. But there if I had to choose only one reason that I converted to Catholicism just over a year ago, the Office of the Papacy would be that reason. I spent years looking for Truth, and finally I found someone who could give me that Truth, authoritatively.

I fully support the policies of the Papacy of Benedict XVI (may he live a hundred years!). I am very glad he allowed wider celebration of the TLM. At the same time, I myself prefer NO masses. But I say all that to let you know where I stand, and to help the thread not to get sidetracked. I am not opposed to the OF or the EF, nor do I oppose those who choose to prefer the EF. I know there are many brothers and sisters who prefer the EF but feel the same way about the Papacy that I do.

As for Liturgy, btw, I am no liturgist. I don’t know much about Liturgy. Someday I will learn more, and, Lord Willing, be able to think with the Church on liturgy. But in the mean time (and, I pray, afterward) I’ll trust HMC and the Pope to know what’s good for me, even in liturgy. It’s heady stuff; He is the head Shepherd one Earth; I’m just a Catholic laymen. I’ll let him tackle the big questions, and God Bless him for it.

The wider question I want to address is why should we, or why shouldn’t we, trust the Holy Father to guide us in matters of Faith and Morals? I understand the great value of learning to think with the Church. But until I am educated to the point at which I may fully understand the decisions the Holy Father makes, why not trust him?

I understand that Christ is the Corner Stone of our Faith. But I know of only one way to know His Will for sure. The knowledge of Christ, and of the will of Christ, comes to me through the Papacy, and through my Bishop who is in communion with the Pope–everything from the interpretation of the Word of God, to the way we worship God, to the way we are to live.

Agree or disagree, and why?

 

[Aquinas74]

Nothing, your loyalties should lie with Holy Mother Church and the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. I love the Tridentine Mass, it is an awesome thing and I am happy to see Latin being reintroduced into the liturgy. The Ordination mass yesterday was filled with Latin. Christ said that not even the gates of Hell will prevail against his Church. I place my obedience in Christ and trust him.

 

[Flopfoot]

Agreed, there’s nothing wrong with it. Sorry to hear you’re the target of PM’s, I guess they go after you because 1) they’re wrong, and 2) they think that you being relatively new, they can convince you their wrongness is right. Glad to hear you don’t fall for it.

 

[Cat]

I’ve read a number of posts–and indeed, received a few PM’s–stating that I and others are in a dangerous position because we choose “blind obedience” to the authorities of the Church.

Allow me to state where I stand. I believe that Holy Mother Church will never lead me astray, and that the human “feature” of our Catholic Faith that ensures the continuation and indomitability of our Catholic Faith on earth is the Papacy, the visible sign of unity within the Church.

I don’t know a whole lot. I’m a fairly recent convert, and I freely admit I need more cathechesis. But there if I had to choose only one reason that I converted to Catholicism just over a year ago, the Office of the Papacy would be that reason. I spent years looking for Truth, and finally I found someone who could give me that Truth, authoritatively.

I fully support the policies of the Papacy of Benedict XVI (may he live a hundred years!). I am very glad he allowed wider celebration of the TLM. At the same time, I myself prefer NO masses. But I say all that to let you know where I stand, and to help the thread not to get sidetracked. I am not opposed to the OF or the EF, nor do I oppose those who choose to prefer the EF. I know there are many brothers and sisters who prefer the EF but feel the same way about the Papacy that I do.

As for Liturgy, btw, I am no liturgist. I don’t know much about Liturgy. Someday I will learn more, and, Lord Willing, be able to think with the Church on liturgy. But in the mean time (and, I pray, afterward) I’ll trust HMC and the Pope to know what’s good for me, even in liturgy. It’s heady stuff; He is the head Shepherd one Earth; I’m just a Catholic laymen. I’ll let him tackle the big questions, and God Bless him for it.

The wider question I want to address is why should we, or why shouldn’t we, trust the Holy Father to guide us in matters of Faith and Morals? I understand the great value of learning to think with the Church. But until I am educated to the point at which I may fully understand the decisions the Holy Father makes, why not trust him?

I understand that Christ is the Corner Stone of our Faith. But I know of only one way to know His Will for sure. The knowledge of Christ, and of the will of Christ, comes to me through the Papacy, and through my Bishop who is in communion with the Pope–everything from the interpretation of the Word of God, to the way we worship God, to the way we are to live.

Agree or disagree, and why?

This is exactly the way I think. Thanks for expressing it well.

For me, the Authority Issue was probably one of the Top Three reasons for my conversion to Catholicism. I was tired of being my own “pope,” and yet taking flack from all the other “popes” in my Christian fellowships because my interpretations of Scripture didn’t gel with their interpretations of Scripture.

There were even fights about whether it was “Christian” to own a TV, subscribe to a newspaper, drink Coke…the list went on endlessly. And heaven help you if you didn’t have a regular “Quiet Time!” Why, that meant you probably weren’t even a Christian, because real Christians crave time with the Word of God!

And evangelical Protestantism is supposed to be “easy” Christianity compared to all the “rules and rituals” of the Catholic Church! It sure didn’t seem that way at the time. As I got older in the evangelical church, I felt like my burden was getting heavier and heavier, and Jesus was less a “Person” and more a “Rulebook” every day.

It was so wonderful to discover that Jesus actually established an organized Church here on this earth and actually gave the Authority to run this Church to a man, a “pope.” Wow! I didn’t have to figure it all out myself now, and I didn’t have to trust people who had proved themselves untrustworthy! I could trust the men that Jesus Himself chose!

The burden fell off! I was free to follow Jesus and let my Church guide me to heaven.

It all makes so much sense to me. When I hear Catholics suggest that we need to study the rubrics so that we can catch the clergy introducing “abuses” into the Mass, and so that we won’t be “led astray” by clergy, including popes, who are teaching “modernist doctrines of man,” I just get so tired and burdened down again.

I think that perhaps some of these people should try being evangelical Protestant for a while, and then they will see how good they have it in the Catholic Church, even when there is hand-holding in the Mass or the music is all from the OCP hymnals or the Pope doesn’t ban the OF.

 

[consumedconvert]

This is exactly the way I think. Thanks for expressing it well.

For me, the Authority Issue was probably one of the Top Three reasons for my conversion to Catholicism. I was tired of being my own “pope,” and yet taking flack from all the other “popes” in my Christian fellowships because my interpretations of Scripture didn’t gel with their interpretations of Scripture.

There were even fights about whether it was “Christian” to own a TV, subscribe to a newspaper, drink Coke…the list went on endlessly. And heaven help you if you didn’t have a regular “Quiet Time!” Why, that meant you probably weren’t even a Christian, because real Christians crave time with the Word of God!

And evangelical Protestantism is supposed to be “easy” Christianity compared to all the “rules and rituals” of the Catholic Church! It sure didn’t seem that way at the time. As I got older in the evangelical church, I felt like my burden was getting heavier and heavier, and Jesus was less a “Person” and more a “Rulebook” every day.

It was so wonderful to discover that Jesus actually established an organized Church here on this earth and actually gave the Authority to run this Church to a man, a “pope.” Wow! I didn’t have to figure it all out myself now, and I didn’t have to trust people who had proved themselves untrustworthy! I could trust the men that Jesus Himself chose!

The burden fell off! I was free to follow Jesus and let my Church guide me to heaven.

It all makes so much sense to me. When I hear Catholics suggest that we need to study the rubrics so that we can catch the clergy introducing “abuses” into the Mass, and so that we won’t be “led astray” by clergy, including popes, who are teaching “modernist doctrines of man,” I just get so tired and burdened down again.

I think that perhaps some of these people should try being evangelical Protestant for a while, and then they will see how good they have it in the Catholic Church, even when there is hand-holding in the Mass or the music is all from the OCP hymnals or the Pope doesn’t ban the OF.

Excellent post, Cat.

As an aside, we did have a dear lady in our Church who gently rebuked me for drinkin…coffee.

God bless her and lead her to a fuller understanding of the Truth.

I agree with your post 100%. Well put!

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Amen to the first 4 posters from a cradle Catholic!

 

[Dauphin]

Catholics aren’t bound to agree with everything the Pope does. In fact, the activities of many past Popes were sometimes gravely sinful, and the faithful would have been bound to oppose them.

The idea that says “whatever the Pope’s opinion, it must be right” is highly dangerous. It subjects the entire deposit of faith - all the holy Traditions of the Church - entirely to the fallible will of a single individual. It’s an attitude which has no support in Catholic theology. The faith, and the liturgical expressions in which it finds its source, cannot be subject to anyone’s whims.

The issue of obedience - which is a virtue - is entirely different. This is a matter of identifying the will of the Pope with the will of God. It’s a very dangerous attitude in serious conflict with the Catholic faith. The Pope’s behavior and decisions cannot conflict with the faith and the sacred Traditions he has been tasked to uphold.

 

[maurin]

I’ve read a number of posts–and indeed, received a few PM’s–stating that I and others are in a dangerous position because we choose “blind obedience” to the authorities of the Church.

?

to whom do they want you to give your obedience? to them? have they personally received Christ’s promise of guidance by the Holy Spirit, of binding and loosing on earth and in heaven as did Peter and the Apostles?

It seems there way is much more dangerous–look where it’s got them, thousands of denominations.

"In apostolic work there is no such thing as trifling disobedience. The enemy [says]: ‘Will ou obey, even in this ridiculous little detail?’ You with God’s Grace [responds]: ‘I will obey even in this heroic little detail!’ " St. Josemaria Escriva’

 

[da_nolo]

There is nothing wrong with Trust in God,
and so doing so, trust ( in a way) in the Holy Father, though there is a bit of difference right…
Cheers to you for your happy choice, and your search for understanding. it is a timely thing that many may not have, but consistancy will only provide us with the start of things. Cheers!

And God Bless.

 

[Johndigger]

One thing that bugs me about the Authority issue is that what happens if the Pope orders something we would consider immoral, for example, the execution of heretics by the state?

For example, Pope Leo X in his Papal bull “Exurge Domine” condemns firmly the opinion:

1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

Would then some kind of “Primacy of conscience” take over in saying that we don’t have to obey or believe the Pope here?

Now, if indeed, we do not have to obey the Pope when our conscience believes that he commands something immoral then surely the SSPX are justified in following their consciences against the “immoral” changes in the Mass?

Once the principle has been established that the conscience is indeed* superior *to the non-infallible rulings of the Pope, then where does that leave us with (for example) the SSPX?

In Christ,

JD

 

[Brazzy]

I’m a convert too and from what I understand you can question statements made by the Pope unless they are infallible statements (which we know are rare)

with that being said, I have not found anything to disagree with Pope Benedict on

 

[consumedconvert]

One thing that bugs me about the Authority issue is that what happens if the Pope orders something we would consider immoral, for example, the execution of heretics by the state?

For example, Pope Leo X in his Papal bull “Exurge Domine” condemns firmly the opinion:

Would then some kind of “Primacy of conscience” take over in saying that we don’t have to obey or believe the Pope here?

Now, if indeed, we do not have to obey the Pope when our conscience believes that he commands something immoral then surely the SSPX are justified in following their consciences against the “immoral” changes in the Mass?

Once the principle has been established that the conscience is indeed* superior *to the non-infallible rulings of the Pope, then where does that leave us with (for example) the SSPX?

In Christ,

JD

Hold on a second.

The infallibility of the Pope does not extend to his example. Everyone knows that Pope Alexander VI was a notorious libertine, and there were some others. But he never issued a proclamation of error. The Holy Spirit protects us against this.

The obedience I was speaking of was the “assent of the faithful.” Maybe if you were Swiss Guard the Pope’s order to burn a heretic at the stake might be an issue, but I doubt it.

Now if the Pope said in an official teaching document, like an Encyclical, that the burning of heretics is a permissible course of action in some circumstances, then all the faithful would have to assent to his assertion.

As to whether the SSPX is right or not: Bishop Lefebvre’s justification for his action is that he was taking that action because there was a state of emergency in the Church, and that Canon Law makes special allowances for states of emergencies. Good so far.

The problem is that the reigning Pope is the supreme Executor, Legislator, and Judge of Canon Law. In Canon law itself (Is it Canon 17?) it states that the authoritative interpreter of Canon Law is the Legislator–that would be the Holy Father or the apropriate dicasteries under his authority. Bishop Lefebvre attempted to justify his actions by Canon Law, but his argument falls apart when taking into account the preliminary cannons. The central issue concerning the SSPX contraversey is not the Latin Mass–especially now that the Latin Mass is made available to any priest. The central issue is disobedience. There are plenty of Latin Masses for faithful Catholics to attend. Probably not yet enough, it is true; but I would wager there are more EF Masses than SSPX Masses. Especially now, there is no reason for the SSPX to continue to embrace excommunicated Bishops.

As for following one’s conscience, one’s conscience may be poorly formed or even deceived. How else could we explain the existence of Protestants who sincerely love Christ but hate what they think Catholicism is?

CC

 

[rwoehmke]

As an aside, we did have a dear lady in our Church who gently rebuked me for drinkin…coffee. God bless her and lead her to a fuller understanding of the Truth.

Maybe that is why she is an “old” lady. She just wanted you to have a long life. Mormons don’t drink coffee, tea, alcohol, or smoke or chew. On average they are healthier and live longer.
Just a smart remark. Don’t let it hijack the thread.:

 

[PrayforMallory]

Hold on a second.

The infallibility of the Pope does not extend to his example. Everyone knows that Pope Alexander VI was a notorious libertine, and there were some others. But he never issued a proclamation of error. The Holy Spirit protects us against this.

The obedience I was speaking of was the “assent of the faithful.” Maybe if you were Swiss Guard the Pope’s order to burn a heretic at the stake might be an issue, but I doubt it.

Now if the Pope said in an official teaching document, like an Encyclical, that the burning of heretics is a permissible course of action in some circumstances, then all the faithful would have to assent to his assertion.

As to whether the SSPX is right or not: Bishop Lefebvre’s justification for his action is that he was taking that action because there was a state of emergency in the Church, and that Canon Law makes special allowances for states of emergencies. Good so far.

The problem is that the reigning Pope is the supreme Executor, Legislator, and Judge of Canon Law. In Canon law itself (Is it Canon 17?) it states that the authoritative interpreter of Canon Law is the Legislator–that would be the Holy Father or the apropriate dicasteries under his authority. Bishop Lefebvre attempted to justify his actions by Canon Law, but his argument falls apart when taking into account the preliminary cannons. The central issue concerning the SSPX contraversey is not the Latin Mass–especially now that the Latin Mass is made available to any priest. The central issue is disobedience. There are plenty of Latin Masses for faithful Catholics to attend. Probably not yet enough, it is true; but I would wager there are more EF Masses than SSPX Masses. Especially now, there is no reason for the SSPX to continue to embrace excommunicated Bishops.

As for following one’s conscience, one’s conscience may be poorly formed or even deceived. How else could we explain the existence of Protestants who sincerely love Christ but hate what they think Catholicism is?

CC

Then how do we explain the papal encyclicals that contradict each other? If every encyclical, every written document, is automatically infallible, we are definitely going to have to make some pretty severe changes, no?

The definition of protestant on this site has become skewed. Protestants are a type of heretic. Every heretic or schismatic (not saying the SSPX are schismatics) is not automatically a protestant.

Protestants are schismatics that belong to a certain historical context and have certain common beliefs.

The Cathars, Manichaeans, Arians, were not in any sense Protestant. Heretics yes, protestants no.

If we acceded to the definition of Protestant on this forum, every Orthodox Christian on Earth would be Protestant.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I’ve read a number of posts–and indeed, received a few PM’s–stating that I and others are in a dangerous position because we choose “blind obedience” to the authorities of the Church.

Allow me to state where I stand. I believe that Holy Mother Church will never lead me astray, and that the human “feature” of our Catholic Faith that ensures the continuation and indomitably of our Catholic Faith on earth is the Papacy, the visible sign of unity within the Church.

I don’t know a whole lot. I’m a fairly recent convert, and I freely admit I need more catechesis. But there if I had to choose only one reason that I converted to Catholicism just over a year ago, the Office of the Papacy would be that reason. I spent years looking for Truth, and finally I found someone who could give me that Truth, authoritatively.

I fully support the policies of the Papacy of Benedict XVI (may he live a hundred years!). I am very glad he allowed wider celebration of the TLM. At the same time, I myself prefer NO masses. But I say all that to let you know where I stand, and to help the thread not to get sidetracked. I am not opposed to the OF or the EF, nor do I oppose those who choose to prefer the EF. I know there are many brothers and sisters who prefer the EF but feel the same way about the Papacy that I do.

As for Liturgy, btw, I am no liturgist. I don’t know much about Liturgy. Someday I will learn more, and, Lord Willing, be able to think with the Church on liturgy. But in the mean time (and, I pray, afterward) I’ll trust HMC and the Pope to know what’s good for me, even in liturgy. It’s heady stuff; He is the head Shepherd one Earth; I’m just a Catholic laymen. I’ll let him tackle the big questions, and God Bless him for it.

The wider question I want to address is why should we, or why shouldn’t we, trust the Holy Father to guide us in matters of Faith and Morals? I understand the great value of learning to think with the Church. But until I am educated to the point at which I may fully understand the decisions the Holy Father makes, why not trust him?

I understand that Christ is the Corner Stone of our Faith. But I know of only one way to know His Will for sure. The knowledge of Christ, and of the will of Christ, comes to me through the Papacy, and through my Bishop who is in communion with the Pope–everything from the interpretation of the Word of God, to the way we worship God, to the way we are to live.

Agree or disagree, and why?

Do not ever change from this position. You, by stating your innermost beliefs, are the example and model of what a faithful Catholic should be. Do not ever let anyone tell you otherwise. I pray for those who think they know more than the Magisterium and comment about the pope being in error in guiding us in matters of faith and morals. I pray for them because they need prayers whether they believe it or not. The great sin in posturing ones self up in questioning the Magisterium and saying they are wrong, is the sin of Pride. This always goes before the fall. I ask that you also keep them in prayer.
Do not be surprised if you see many objections and posturing about what I have just posted.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[consumedconvert]

Then how do we explain the papal encyclicals that contradict each other? If every encyclical, every written document, is automatically infallible, we are definitely going to have to make some pretty severe changes, no?

The definition of protestant on this site has become skewed. Protestants are a type of heretic. Every heretic or schismatic (not saying the SSPX are schismatics) is not automatically a protestant.

Protestants are schismatics that belong to a certain historical context and have certain common beliefs.

The Cathars, Manichaeans, Arians, were not in any sense Protestant. Heretics yes, protestants no.

If we acceded to the definition of Protestant on this forum, every Orthodox Christian on Earth would be Protestant.

Which encyclicals, in matters of faith and/or morals, contradict each other? I’m not talking about a certain Pope encouraging women to wear hats in Church, or an encyclical on the Papal States. Can you, for example, point out where an encyclical contradicted Humanae Vitae?

 

[consumedconvert]

Do not ever change from this position. You, by stating your innermost beliefs, are the example and model of what a faithful Catholic should be. Do not ever let anyone tell you otherwise. I pray for those who think they know more than the Magisterium and comment about the pope being in error in guiding us in matters of faith and morals. I pray for them because they need prayers whether they believe it or not. The great sin in posturing ones self up in questioning the Magisterium and saying they are wrong, is the sin of Pride. This always goes before the fall. I ask that you also keep them in prayer.
Do not be surprised if you see many objections and posturing about what I have just posted.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Thank you Deacon, I always find your posts encouraging.

 

[Johndigger]

Do not ever change from this position. You, by stating your innermost beliefs, are the example and model of what a faithful Catholic should be. Do not ever let anyone tell you otherwise. I pray for those who think they know more than the Magisterium and comment about the pope being in error in guiding us in matters of faith and morals. I pray for them because they need prayers whether they believe it or not. The great sin in posturing ones self up in questioning the Magisterium and saying they are wrong, is the sin of Pride. This always goes before the fall. I ask that you also keep them in prayer.
Do not be surprised if you see many objections and posturing about what I have just posted.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

This view definitely appeals to me, but I’m not entirely sure how it works in practice.

For example, (going back to a previous post) with the burning of heretics, the Pope commanded that it was an error to say that the “Burning of heretics is against the will of the Spirit.”

This, it would seem, leaves us with two options.

Either, they had to give assent to the Magisterium of the Church in this matter of faith and morals (even though it was not infallible) even against their conscience and believe it was God’s will that heretics should die.

Or they were legitimate in their denial that burning heretics was the will of God committing (seemingly) the sin of pride?

Conscience bounded by the infallible teachings of the Pope but only guided by the non-infallible teachings of the Pope is really the final authority of morality.

What exactly happens when the Pope commands something immoral? Must we still obey?

JD

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What exactly happens when the Pope commands something immoral? Must we still obey?JD

I think the answer to this is rather obvious. In addition, we are talking about a total different time in history. If we follow this thinking, even St. Paul in scripture would be said to be incorrect when he told those who were slaves to obey their masters. We look at and judge in light of culture and standards of today, not that which took place centuries ago.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

This is exactly the way I think. Thanks for expressing it well.

For me, the Authority Issue was probably one of the Top Three reasons for my conversion to Catholicism. I was tired of being my own “pope,” and yet taking flack from all the other “popes” in my Christian fellowships because my interpretations of Scripture didn’t gel with their interpretations of Scripture.

There were even fights about whether it was “Christian” to own a TV, subscribe to a newspaper, drink Coke…the list went on endlessly. And heaven help you if you didn’t have a regular “Quiet Time!” Why, that meant you probably weren’t even a Christian, because real Christians crave time with the Word of God!

And evangelical Protestantism is supposed to be “easy” Christianity compared to all the “rules and rituals” of the Catholic Church! It sure didn’t seem that way at the time. As I got older in the evangelical church, I felt like my burden was getting heavier and heavier, and Jesus was less a “Person” and more a “Rulebook” every day.

It was so wonderful to discover that Jesus actually established an organized Church here on this earth and actually gave the Authority to run this Church to a man, a “pope.” Wow! I didn’t have to figure it all out myself now, and I didn’t have to trust people who had proved themselves untrustworthy! I could trust the men that Jesus Himself chose!

The burden fell off! I was free to follow Jesus and let my Church guide me to heaven.

It all makes so much sense to me. When I hear Catholics suggest that we need to study the rubrics so that we can catch the clergy introducing “abuses” into the Mass, and so that we won’t be “led astray” by clergy, including popes, who are teaching “modernist doctrines of man,” I just get so tired and burdened down again.

I think that perhaps some of these people should try being evangelical Protestant for a while, and then they will see how good they have it in the Catholic Church, even when there is hand-holding in the Mass or the music is all from the OCP hymnals or the Pope doesn’t ban the OF.

That is very well put and I agree with you.