What's wrong with trusting the Holy Father?

[Aquinas74]

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

Amen Deacon Ed, I will remember you and all the CAF members in my prayers before the Blessed sacrament.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

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?

The answer you’ll hear from most Catholics is that he’s guided by the Holy Spirit.

But, I can give you another answer in purely secular terms. The Pope and the Vatican have a bird’s eye view of the world. The Pope is lauded as one of the most eminent theologians of his time. The Vatican diplomatic service is the oldest in the world. During to the lead-up to the Iraq war, for example, western diplomats were in and out of the Vatican, because of the diplomatic influence it has. The US public was ready to just go into Iraq, but the Vatican tried hard to broker peace between the Americans and the Iraqis, helping the Muslims to understand this isn’t Christians’ war against Islam.

The other theologians who are at the Vatican are selected because they are the best at what they do. Same with the other departments.

This all just means that the Vatican knows what it’s doing.

Should we trust the Pope blindly? No. That’s insane. The Popes themselves don’t even demand that we do that.

But we should at least acknowledge that he’s someone who knows the field pretty darn well. In the US, a lot of people have distrust for the Papacy. They insist on making up their own decisions. That should be okay, except Americans make up decisions for selfish reasons and are convinced that the world revolves around them. They insist, also, that the Pope should revolve around them. It’s stupidity and arrogance. At least the Pope confers with other Bishops, Cardinals and even non-Catholic world leaders when he makes decisions. He doesn’t do it in the selfish, arrogant way that these loud-mouthed Americans tend to.

(Of course, I don’t mean all Americans are like that. But, you know what I mean – there are a lot of them that just won’t shut up. It’s funny that they complain that the Pope pontificates over things without knowing anything, yet those hypocrites are the ones who pontificate over everything with minimal mental work. Most Americans are okay, but these few bad ones ruin the reputation for the whole country.)

Furthermore, the Papacy is 2000 years old. It’s been around longer than the Roman Empire, the longest Empire in history. If it were as corrupt as people act like it is, I can tell you as a political scientist, it would have collapsed under its own weight long ago.

I congratulate you for trying to break out of the anti-Catholic culture you grew up in. The media is swamped with unfoundedly stupid accusations against the Catholic Church, and people here culturally come to instinctually reject whatever comes out of Rome. A book you should try to look at is All the Pope’s Men by John Allen. He explores some of the anti-Catholic biases from the western media and explains the Vatican’s point of view. It’s very good in balancing things out.

 

[consumedconvert]

The answer you’ll hear from most Catholics is that he’s guided by the Holy Spirit.

But, I can give you another answer in purely secular terms. The Pope and the Vatican have a bird’s eye view of the world. The Pope is lauded as one of the most eminent theologians of his time. The Vatican diplomatic service is the oldest in the world. During to the lead-up to the Iraq war, for example, western diplomats were in and out of the Vatican, because of the diplomatic influence it has. The US public was ready to just go into Iraq, but the Vatican tried hard to broker peace between the Americans and the Iraqis, helping the Muslims to understand this isn’t Christians’ war against Islam.

The other theologians who are at the Vatican are selected because they are the best at what they do. Same with the other departments.

This all just means that the Vatican knows what it’s doing.

Should we trust the Pope blindly? No. That’s insane. The Popes themselves don’t even demand that we do that.

But we should at least acknowledge that he’s someone who knows the field pretty darn well. In the US, a lot of people have distrust for the Papacy. They insist on making up their own decisions. That should be okay, except Americans make up decisions for selfish reasons and are convinced that the world revolves around them. They insist, also, that the Pope should revolve around them. It’s stupidity and arrogance. At least the Pope confers with other Bishops, Cardinals and even non-Catholic world leaders when he makes decisions. He doesn’t do it in the selfish, arrogant way that these loud-mouthed Americans tend to.

(Of course, I don’t mean all Americans are like that. But, you know what I mean – there are a lot of them that just won’t shut up. It’s funny that they complain that the Pope pontificates over things without knowing anything, yet those hypocrites are the ones who pontificate over everything with minimal mental work. Most Americans are okay, but these few bad ones ruin the reputation for the whole country.)

Furthermore, the Papacy is 2000 years old. It’s been around longer than the Roman Empire, the longest Empire in history. If it were as corrupt as people act like it is, I can tell you as a political scientist, it would have collapsed under its own weight long ago.

I congratulate you for trying to break out of the anti-Catholic culture you grew up in. The media is swamped with unfoundedly stupid accusations against the Catholic Church, and people here culturally come to instinctually reject whatever comes out of Rome. A book you should try to look at is All the Pope’s Men by John Allen. He explores some of the anti-Catholic biases from the western media and explains the Vatican’s point of view. It’s very good in balancing things out.

Thank you for that post. I read “All the Pope’s Men” a couple of weeks ago. Very informative book.

CC

 

[PrayforMallory]

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?

I’m talking about all the encyclicals and statements that condemn the vernacular, the interpretations of other religions after Vat II, etc.

Maybe there is no contradiction?

 

[Johndigger]

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

As you say it’s rather obvious that we shouldn’t obey the Pope if he commands something immoral even with the wonderful virtue of obedience that we owe to him.

This is exactly the position of the SSPX, though, they believe that the Pope has done something immoral by reforming the liturgy in such a way as to obscure the Catholicity of the liturgy.

The SSPX would absolutely agree with most of us here and say:

“We should obey the Pope except when he commands something immoral.”

The conscience of the SSPX holds firmly that the suppression of the Traditional Roman Liturgy was immoral, that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid, but the changes are immoral.

This is the problem. It’s all very well for us to say “Obey the Pope” and then “Except when he commands something immoral” but who exactly decides what constitutes “immoral”?

For the SSPX the boundary of immorality has been crossed, therefore, in some areas, they do not have to obey the Pope.

Primarily, what I’m saying is that the issue is not as simple as many people make out (I’m sure you, however, have a much better understanding of the SSPX situation than myself) and that the issues are pretty cloudy.

In short, to simply say “Obey the Pope” isn’t enough and over-simplifies matters.

(On a small side note, do you think that, in their historical and cultural context the burning of heretics was a morally acceptable action?)

In Jesus,

JD

 

[Aquinas74]

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

 

[consumedconvert]

I’m talking about all the encyclicals and statements that condemn the vernacular, the interpretations of other religions after Vat II, etc.

Maybe there is no contradiction?

Could you be more specific? What are the documents–the exact quotations? Is there a document that says “If any man says that Mass in the vernacular be not forever and for all eternity intrinsically immoral, even if he be pope, let him be accursed”?

And I am well aware of Jerome’s “There is no salvation outsite of the Church,” and also how that doctrine is applied (not contradicted) today.

Please, the documents, the quotations. Often these “conflicts” are no conflicts at all.

 

[consumedconvert]

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Thank you for that. I shall have to file that one away in my mental rolodex.

 

[Johndigger]

I’m talking about all the encyclicals and statements that condemn the vernacular, the interpretations of other religions after Vat II, etc.

Maybe there is no contradiction?

Disciplines may be legitimately reversed.

It’s not a contradiction because it’s not saying that the other practice was wrong absolutely, but rather than circumstances have changed and/or our understanding of the theology has become more developed and now we are evolving into a new practice.

For example, married men being ordained was practiced by the Early Church, but as an understanding of Priestly celibacy and circumstances changed (particularly in the Latin rite), the discipline of celibacy became more widely enforced.

However, although in a sense it could be said that celibacy and marriage are “opposites” there is no contradiction between them because both are legitimate practices, although one may be forbidden in certain places/circumstances.

In Christ,

JD

 

[SacredHeartFan]

Just read my signature!!!
We can and should agree with everything that the pope says “in cathedra” but not exactly everything he says “ex cathedra”.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

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.

This reminds me of a certain someone who has recently stopped harrasing consumedconvert and I.

 

[Fitswimmer]

One of the things that I love about the Catholic church is that she doesn’t assume or even want us to check our brains at the door. When documents come out of the Vatican, they are thoroughly researched and the footnotes are clearly provided. The documents don’t just tell us what to believe, they show us why and construct the foundations for their main argument.

When you read those documents, it’s very easy to see how the declarations were arrived at and therefore much easier to accept.

It’s not just “Believe this because the Pope says so”

I’ve been working my way through “Jesus of Nazareth” by Pope Benedict and it is a wonderful book. Reading some of this Pope’s writings will help you see how he doesn’t mean for us to just blindly trust what he says, he wants us to understand and believe with our intellect as well.

 

[Genesis315]

St. Francis de Sales has said some helpful things in this regard:

And again we must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err *extra cathedram, *outside the chair of Peter, that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.

But he cannot err when he is *in cathedra *, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church, and, as the Greek says and the Church seems to understand in a collect of Pentecost, conducts and directs his Church into all truth: *But when that Spirit of truth shall come, he will teach you all truth *or, will lead you into all truth (John xvi. 13). And how does the Holy Spirit lead the Church except by the ministry and office of preachers and pastors? But if the pastors have pastors they must also follow them, as all must follow him who is the supreme pastor, by whose ministry Our God wills to lead not only the lambs and little sheep, but the sheep and mothers of lambs; that is, not the people only but also the other pastors: he succeeds S. Peter, who received this charge: Feed my sheep. Thus it is that God leads his Church into the pastures of his Holy Word, and in the exposition of this he who seeks the truth under other leading loses it. The Holy Spirit is the leader of the Church, he leads it by its pastor, he therefore who follows not the pastor follows not the Holy Spirit.

I think this passage sums up some problems in the Church today:

Thus he never gives a general command to the whole Church in necessary things except with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who, as he is not wanting in necessary things even to second causes, because he has established them, will not be more wanting to Christianity in what is necessary for its life and perfection. And how would the Church be one and holy, as the Scriptures and .Creeds describe her? -for if she followed a pastor, and the pastor erred, how would she be holy; if she followed him not, how would she be one? And what confusion would be seen in Christendom, while the one party should consider a law good the others bad, and while the sheep, instead of feeding and fattening in the pasture of Scripture and the Holy Word, should occupy themselves in controlling the decision of their superior?

 

[consumedconvert]

St. Francis de Sales has said some helpful things in this regard:

I think this passage sums up some problems in the Church today:

Thank you very much for that.

CC

 

[Aquinas74]

Thank you for that. I shall have to file that one away in my mental rolodex.

No problem my friend.

 

[Genesis315]

Thank you very much for that.

CC

You’re welcome. Another way of thinking about the papacy that I have found helpful is seeing an OT parallel. In the desert, Israel followed the pillar of fire, led by Moses and a hierarchy that followed him (cf. Exo. 18:21). In this world, the Church, the new Israel, follows the Holy Spirit led by the Vicar of Christ and a hierarchy that is to follow him (even if he himself does not necessarily enter the Promised Land.)

Similarly, Korah (or Core) and his companions were an example of those who thought they could do so without respecting the authority of Moses–so the earth opened up and swallowed them (Numbers, chapter 16).

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

(On a small side note, do you think that, in their historical and cultural context the burning of heretics was a morally acceptable action?)

In Jesus,

JD

Their burning a heretic was not an infallible teaching on faith and morals. Separate the action of the pope which may have been immoral, from the condemnation of the teaching of the heretic. These are two separate actions. Don’t combine the two to make one judgment. This is the wrong approach.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[elts1956]

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

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.

Cathars, Manichaeans and Ariens were not Protesteant but heretics in that they held different interpretations of certain doctrines which the Catholic Church claimed heretical ie. Gnostics (Cathars) did not believe that Christ had a human body, but only a spiritual one, not really familiar with he Manichaeans, but the Ariens claimed Christ was human, but not God.

Papal encyclicals do not contradict one another. I believe Pope Paul II and perhaps others stated that through the centuries, the Pope and Magesterium may understand more fully or perhaps look at a doctrine from a different view and thereby a different or enlightened interpretation of a doctrine may come about, but there is nothing that is contradicted.

If you look at Pope John Paul II’s Et Unim Sint regarding ecumenism, you will note that the Catholic Churche’s stance on no salvation for those outside the Catholic Church has been amended to another understanding. He says we must look again at what is meant by church. If we look at the meaning of Church, we will see that Protestant denominations have at least a part of the Catholic Church truth. In this way, they are then a part of the mystical body of Christ, ie. the Catholic Church and salvation is available. As for the non- Christian sects he states there is a means of salvation for them of which we don’t know. I certainly like this better than, “No salvation outside the Church” don’t you? Gives me hope for all.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Cathars, Manichaeans and Ariens were not Protesteant but heretics in that they held different interpretations of certain doctrines which the Catholic Church claimed heretical ie. Gnostics (Cathars) did not believe that Christ had a human body, but only a spiritual one, not really familiar with he Manichaeans, but the Ariens claimed Christ was human, but not God.

Papal encyclicals do not contradict one another. I believe Pope Paul II and perhaps others stated that through the centuries, the Pope and Magesterium may understand more fully or perhaps look at a doctrine from a different view and thereby a different or enlightened interpretation of a doctrine may come about, but there is nothing that is contradicted.

If you look at Pope John Paul II’s Et Unim Sint regarding ecumenism, you will note that the Catholic Churche’s stance on no salvation for those outside the Catholic Church has been amended to another understanding. He says we must look again at what is meant by church. If we look at the meaning of Church, we will see that Protestant denominations have at least a part of the Catholic Church truth. In this way, they are then a part of the mystical body of Christ, ie. the Catholic Church and salvation is available. As for the non- Christian sects he states there is a means of salvation for them of which we don’t know. I certainly like this better than, “No salvation outside the Church” don’t you? Gives me hope for all.

I agree with you and found some interesting things written by St. John of the Cross, reiterating the ***understanding of revelation ***as time and necessity warrant. Note especially saying number one.

1. The Lord has always revealed to men the treasures of His wisdom and His spirit, but now that the face of evil more and more bares itself, so does the Lord bare His treasures the more.

He also speaks to trusting our masters and guides and learning obedience, which is more pleasing to God than any other service we can presume to render without it, as follows.

1. He who wants to stand alone without the support of a master and guide, will be like the tree that stands alone in a field without a proprietor. No matter now much the tree bears, passers-by will pick the fruit before it ripens.
2. The virtuous soul that is alone and without a master is like a lone burning coal; it will grow colder rather than hotter.
3. God desires the least degree of obedience and submissiveness more than all those services you think of rendering Him.

St. John of the Cross
Sayings of Light and Love

Blessings,
Jeanette

 

[Nickkname]

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?

I agree, we must trust the judgments of the Church and the authorities of the Church, for God is our guide and protector. However, believing the Church will never lead one astray is not enough; one must also learn the Faith and the history of the Church, so that no false prophet can ever lead one astray. It is one thing to say “I believe!” and it is quite another to proclaim “I believe!”

Those who attack the Holy Father ultimately attack the Church, for it is on Peter that Christ built his Church.