People come to conclusions through their prudential judgment. This is the way it has always been and the way it will always be. The Church affirms this method in her affirmation of conscience. Everyone agrees that non-infallible teachings are not infallible, and that the less a teaching represents the college of bishops, the less credence it need be given. These arguments and rhetorical lines you take do not seem to be principled. You are just throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks. I spent a long time trying to untwist the lines in our conversation about what a couple is, but at this point it seems futile.
It's very easy to nitpick without giving your own position, as you have consistently done in this thread. In truth I think you are biased. I think you are attempting to support a preconceived conclusion, and that preconceived conclusion is just, "Pope Francis must be right." I could try to untwist all of the biased lines you continually take. I could fall into the black-and-white thinking that characterizes your criticisms.* I could offer the rejoinder that your position seems to amount to the idea that all teachings are infallible, or erect a counter-strawman of "substantive totalitarianism." But I don't have time or, to be honest, interest in such an undertaking. If someone were able to admit that the pope and the Roman magisterium share authority with the college of bishops--as Catholicism has held for 2,000 years and which Vatican II especially emphasized--then that person would take a moderate stance and they would not engage in the strange tactics you engage in, which are apparently a form of gish gallop. That is the sort of person I would be more interested in talking with, although even then my time would run short.
If you are interested in understanding my position then you could watch the video
here, where Ybarra does an admirable job of elucidating the problems with FS and the two interlocutors delve into this question of obedience. Chapp gets a bit strong and rhetorical towards the end, but given your approach this would seem to be nothing more than a salutary counterbalance.
* The inability to hold the two poles of pope and college in tension, and to instead have the papal authority occlude the authority of the college, is an unCatholic approach. This ability to mediate tensions is integral to Catholicism, as Erich Przywara convincingly argues in his
Analogia Entis.
Your view appears to be consistent with certain aspects of Febronianism, refuted at Vatican I.
en.wikipedia.org
The main propositions defended by Febronius were as follows. The constitution of the Church is not, by Christ's institution, monarchical, and the pope, though entitled to a certain primacy, is subordinate to the universal Church. Though as the "centre of unity" he may be regarded as the guardian and champion of the ecclesiastical law, and though he may propose laws, and send legates on the affairs of his primacy, his sovereignty (principatus) over the Church is not one of jurisdiction, but of order and collaboration (ordinis et consociationis).
Your view of the papal power directly contradicts the magisterial teachings of the Church (Vatican I in particular). In particular, your view that “the pope and the Roman magisterium
share authority with the college of bishops” directly contradicts dogma: The Pope possesses
full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church (
De fide).
And the practical result of your view has been schism.
You disagree with that, of course, but that is fine. I wanted to understand what your view was, and thank you for explaining it to me.
You also wrote that I did not give my position. My position is set forth below. I am sure that you will recognize the source.
Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. 1955, pages 285 – 286:
§ 7. The Nature of the Papal Primacy
1. Dogma
The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. (De fide).
Against the various forms of Episcopalism, which limited the jurisdictive power of the Pope in favor of the bishops (Conciliar Theory, Gallicanism, Febronianism), the Vatican Council declared: “If any one shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection and direction and not a full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread through the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part (potiores partes) and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful: let him be anathema” D 1831. Cf. D1827, CIC 218.
In consonance with this declaration, the Primatial power is:
a) A true power of jurisdiction that is, a true governing power, not merely a warrant of supervision or direction, such as, for example, belongs to the president of a political party, or a society, or of a conference. As a governmental power, it embraces the full power of legislation, administration of justice (disputed and voluntary jurisdiction) and of its execution. Corresponding to it on the part of its subjects is the duty of subordination and obedience.
b) A universal power, that is, it extends personally to the pastors (bishops) and to the faithful, totally and individually, of the whole Church. Materially it refers, not merely to matters of faith and morals (teaching office), but also to Church discipline and government (pastoral office).
c) Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power. The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also of all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal or superior to the Pope.
d) A full power, that is, the Pope possesses of himself alone, the whole fullness of the Church power of jurisdiction and not merely a greater share than the other bishops taken individually or conjointly. Thus the Pope can rule independently on any matter which comes under the sphere of the Church’s jurisdiction without the concurrence of the other bishops or of the rest of the Church.
e) An ordinary power, that is, it is connected with the office, by virtue of divine ordinance, and is not delegated from a higher possessor of jurisdiction. Thus it can be exercised at any time, i.e., not merely in exceptional cases, e.g. where the bishops neglect their pastoral duties in their territories (Febronius, Eybel). D 1500
f) A truly episcopal power, that is, the Pope is just as much a “universal bishop” of the whole Church as he is bishop of his diocese of Rome (“Episcopus Urbis et Orbis”; Jacob of Viterbo). Thus, the Papal power, like any other episcopal power, embraces the legislative, the juridical, and the punitive power. Cf. CIC 218, Par. 2 and 355.
g) An immediate power, that is, the Pope can exercise his power, without the intervention of an intermediary, over the bishops and the faithful of the whole Church.
The biblical and patristic foundation is seen in the texts cited in Pars. 5 and 6. The doctrine therein has attained full development in the dogma promulgated by the Vatican Council.
www.ewtn.com
