Without the Pope there is no unity

[Cosmic Charlie]

I going to try this one more time:

The head of the pilgram Church on earth is the Pope. He is human, therefore falliable except for exception when when he speaks infallabily. To my knowledge infallibility has only been invoked twice, both times pertaining to Mary.

Now, the church (pilgram church on earth) has many doctines and has penned documents on economics and international markets. Most of these are highly critical of the trade and monetary practices of the US and Western Europe and of international capitalism generally. Many respected and learned economists (admittedly not all are Catholic) have serious issues with the way these documents and doctines are reasoned.

Assuming I am highly respected and learned economist (which, thankfully, I am not), and am also Catholic, do I have a duty to fall into line and begin teaching the Vatican line on economics because it is church dogma or can I have an intellectual and conscious disagreement and not except the doctrines ?

The Church takes stands on economic, social, political, and interpersonal/sexual matters all the time, am I to assume that every one of them comes directly from the Holy Spirit, through Rome to me directly ? That's a serious question and probably the first one I should have asked.

(Silly me)

 

[thereselittleflower]

I going to try this one more time:

The head of the pilgram Church on earth is the Pope. He is human, therefore falliable except for exception when when he speaks infallabily. To my knowledge infallibility has only been invoked twice, both times pertaining to Mary.

Now, the church (pilgram church on earth) has many doctines and has penned documents on economics and international markets. Most of these are highly critical of the trade and monetary practices of the US and Western Europe and of international capitalism generally. Many respected and learned economists (admittedly not all are Catholic) have serious issues with the way these documents and doctines are reasoned.

Assuming I am highly respected and learned economist (which, thankfully, I am not), and am also Catholic, do I have a duty to fall into line and begin teaching the Vatican line on economics because it is church dogma or can I have an intellectual and conscious disagreement and not except the doctrines ?

The Church takes stands on economic, social, political, and interpersonal/sexual matters all the time, am I to assume that every one of them comes directly from the Holy Spirit, through Rome to me directly ? That's a serious question and probably the first one I should have asked.

(Silly me)

Ahhh . . OK . . if this is really what you are asking and if this really represents the misunderstanding .

First, there are more infallible pronouncements than 2 . .but I can't give you their number right now . .

But I think THIS is what the issue really may be . . what are the dogmas of the Church and to what do they pertain?

you said above:

Assuming I am highly respected and learned economist (which, thankfully, I am not), and am also Catholic, do I have a duty to fall into line and begin teaching the Vatican line on economics because it is church dogma or can I have an intellectual and conscious disagreement and not except the doctrines ?

The Church does not teach dogmatically about issues like econimics . . I am not even sure you could rightly call any position of the Church on economics, doctrine . . the Church can teach on economics in light of its doctrines, etc . .but it would not formulate doctrines of economics, let alone dogma . .

So you would be free to disagree with the Church on its stance on ecomomics to the degree such disagreement did not violate any of the Church's formal teachings (ie holding that it is OK to be dishonest in your business dealings) . .

Does that help?

Peace in Him!

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I going to try this one more time:

The head of the pilgram Church on earth is the Pope. He is human, therefore falliable except for exception when when he speaks infallabily. To my knowledge infallibility has only been invoked twice, both times pertaining to Mary.

Now, the church (pilgram church on earth) has many doctines and has penned documents on economics and international markets. Most of these are highly critical of the trade and monetary practices of the US and Western Europe and of international capitalism generally. Many respected and learned economists (admittedly not all are Catholic) have serious issues with the way these documents and doctines are reasoned.

Assuming I am highly respected and learned economist (which, thankfully, I am not), and am also Catholic, do I have a duty to fall into line and begin teaching the Vatican line on economics because it is church dogma or can I have an intellectual and conscious disagreement and not except the doctrines ?

The Church takes stands on economic, social, political, and interpersonal/sexual matters all the time, am I to assume that every one of them comes directly from the Holy Spirit, through Rome to me directly ? That's a serious question and probably the first one I should have asked.

(Silly me)

Charlie, I sense that you are growing impatient with the conversation, and was that a note of sarcasm at the end of your post hmm

I am trying to be humerous for two reasons. This is a complicated subject, and I am thankful that you have not put me on the ignore feature, or maybe you have , but I believe I better understand your position from your last post. Consider this excerpt from an article from the Canadian Catholic Bishops. You can find the full text here http://www.consciencelaws.org/Examining-Conscience-Issues/Ethical/Articles/Ethical40.html

40. Furthermore, even in matters which have not been defined ex cathedra, i.e., infallibly, the believer has the obligation to give full priority to the teaching of the Church in favour of a given position, to pray for the light of the Spirit, to refer to Scripture and tradition and to maintain a dialogue with the whole Church, which he can do only through the source of unity which is the collectivity of the bishops. The reality itself, for example, sex, marriage, economics, politics, war, must be studied in detail. In this study, he should make an effort to become aware of his own inevitable presuppositions as well as his cultural background which leads him to act for or react against any given position. If his ultimate practical judgement to do this or avoid that does not take into full account the teaching of the Church, an account based not only on reason but on the faith dimension, he is deceiving himself in pretending that he is acting as a true Catholic must.

41. For a Catholic "to follow one’s conscience" is not, then, simply to act as his unguided reason dictates. "To follow one’s conscience" and remain a Catholic, one must take into account first and foremost the teaching of the magisterium. When doubt arises due to a conflict of "my" views and those of the magisterium, the presumption of truth lies on the part of the magisterium. "In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra (Lumen Gentium, #25). And this must be carefully distinguished from the teaching of individual theologians or individual priests, however intelligent or persuasive.

Reproduced with permission of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. All rights reserved



I hope that you will read the whole article and let me know what you think. I hope that you see that this is a complicated subject and I can't give you pat answers, and I hope that I have not offended you.


Peace in Christ,

Jerome

 

[Michelina]

To my knowledge infallibility has only been invoked twice, both times pertaining to Mary

.

No, dear Charlie, all teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are infallible, as are all teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium, such as (dogmatic) teachings of Councils and formal declarations of the Pope, ex cathedra. Even the latter category contains more than the 2 Marian dogmas you mention.

Don't feel bad, Charlie, because there are many others who think what I quoted above.

The social encyclicals to which you refer are not infallible; so they are not an example you can use in explaining your very unCatholic understanding of the Church and your relationship to Her, esp. vis-a=vis the Magisterium.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

First and foremost:

I work very hard at never seeming to be sarcastic, caustic or dismissive in any post I put in the net. Once on the net it is there forever and I just don't like the idea of people thinking I'm being uppty. (I can be uppity, I just don't like the idea of people thinking I am). I also try very hard to be respectful and even toned (if humorous).

I have be on the net since '78 and have been disrespected, dismissed and shouted at too many times to deliver such posts to my discussion partners.
So, I apology for seeming sacractic.



Now:

I find it noteworthy that I have three responses to my question and have three different answers:

One says that the Church does not speak dogmatically on issues of Economics, monitary issues, etc.

One says that it does speak dogmaically on issues of Economics etc. and that I follow my own conscience, "at my own risk" , so to speak.

One says that the question is basically framed incorrectly, but that the encyclicals can't be used as an excuse to continue my misunderstanding of Catholicism.

Lets all take a deep, cleaning breath while I engage the clutch and change gears.

Flat statement of fact: I hate the label "cafetria catholic". (see post 22, my first on this thread) I hate the way conservatives apply it to liberals, I hate the way Americans (at least where I am) apply it to Hispanics, Hmoung and Vietmanese, I hate the implication of marginalization the label brings. I just don't like the way we hurl around this epithet as if we have a window with which to look into other's souls.

I've thought about it long time and I am convinced that this questioning of others orthodoxy, the desire to "out Catholic" other people, is the dark of having a unified thelogy (I'm on record, like, 5 times on this thread as saying unity is good thing and the it makes the Chruch what it is so don't come after me on this, ok ? We are a sinful race and we can twist any good thing). But . . .

If people of good will and faithfulness can have disagreements about a large, and ancient body of thelogical work (2000 year counts and ancient by me) and still be members of the same chruch, this begs a questions: Just how much leaway does a person have in decerning God's truth ?

After, what, 80 posts and two weeks of discussion I got three different answers. And those are from people who, presumably, think about think kind of thing more then the average Catholic.

This is a harder subject that it looked. And it looked pretty tough.

But if was are going to let each up, to stop questioning each other's Catholicity, we have to have some comfort with just how much slack we can cut each on which doctrine and documents and I don't think we have that comfort level right now.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

First and foremost:


I work very hard at never seeming to be sarcastic, caustic or dismissive in any post I put in the net. Once on the net it is there forever and I just don't like the idea of people thinking I'm being uppty. (I can be uppity, I just don't like the idea of people thinking I am). I also try very hard to be respectful and even toned (if humorous).

I have be on the net since '78 and have been disrespected, dismissed and shouted at too many times to deliver such posts to my discussion partners.
So, I apology for seeming sacractic.

I sense your frustration; I did not try to accuse you of sarcasm, but I questoned it. When you post in the third person and end a post with the words "silly me", that brings an image of someone rolling their eyes to my mind. Sorry if I misinterpreted.
I, too, tried hard to not be disrespectful. I don't know you Charlie, and what I saw was a person posting a topic which questions whether we should believe the Magisterium or not. I merely questioned your intentions about the Catholic church, as I would expect to be questioned if making similar claims. Now that you have made yourself clear, hopefully we can move on.

Now:

I find it noteworthy that I have three responses to my question and have three different answers:

One says that the Church does not speak dogmatically on issues of Economics, monitary issues, etc.

One says that it does speak dogmaically on issues of Economics etc. and that I follow my own conscience, "at my own risk" , so to speak.

One says that the question is basically framed incorrectly, but that the encyclicals can't be used as an excuse to continue my misunderstanding of Catholicism.

Lets all take a deep, cleaning breath while I engage the clutch and change gears.

I did say that it was a complicated subject I am trying to learn while I talk with you and not speak dogmaticly to you. Sorry if you have that impression

Flat statement of fact: I hate the label "cafetria catholic". (see post 22, my first on this thread) I hate the way conservatives apply it to liberals, I hate the way Americans (at least where I am) apply it to Hispanics, Hmoung and Vietmanese, I hate the implication of marginalization the label brings. I just don't like the way we hurl around this epithet as if we have a window with which to look into other's souls.

I've thought about it long time and I am convinced that this questioning of others orthodoxy, the desire to "out Catholic" other people, is the dark of having a unified thelogy (I'm on record, like, 5 times on this thread as saying unity is good thing and the it makes the Chruch what it is so don't come after me on this, ok ? We are a sinful race and we can twist any good thing). But . . .

If people of good will and faithfulness can have disagreements about a large, and ancient body of thelogical work (2000 year counts and ancient by me) and still be members of the same chruch, this begs a questions: Just how much leaway does a person have in decerning God's truth ?

Charlie, I am sorry that I have offended you. Like I said, I don't know you. You could have been a troll for all I know. I was trying to discern where you were coming from. I believe that it is necessary to do that in order to have a meaningful conversation. I was not trying to "out Catholic" you, just discerning your intentions.

After, what, 80 posts and two weeks of discussion I got three different answers. And those are from people who, presumably, think about think kind of thing more then the average Catholic.

This is a harder subject that it looked. And it looked pretty tough.

But if was are going to let each up, to stop questioning each other's Catholicity, we have to have some comfort with just how much slack we can cut each on which doctrine and documents and I don't think we have that comfort level right now.

I'll cut you some slack. Which doctrine and documents do you wish to discuss? I promise to be as respectful and open minded as possible.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

... And the Jews think they do guilt well. Oy.

Let yourself up a little. I don't offend easily and when offended I usually don't respond to the offender (it is usually pointless).

I don't really want to discuss doctrine on this thread, my question is how much leaway should we have to determine God's will on our own and be able to keep our credentials as Catholics ?

As an aside, let me tell you some stuff that happened in the past six or so weeks in my archdiocise. I consider this all out of line, BTW.

1) A group of parishioners went over to a deacons house one night to perform an "spiritual intervention". The deacon's wife was taking birth control pills as a treatment for inoperatable overian tumors and the parishioners felt that the deacon should either stop the treatment or resign his deacon-ship since he was in violation of the churchs stand on artifical birth control.

2) A worshipper bad-mouthed a priest, during mass, for daring to give a sermon evils of capitalism and the consolidation of wealth.

3) An usher (an USHER for God's sake), on his own inititive, pulled a women out the communion line and informed here that the Euchrist was for Catholics only and she didn't fit the bill. This is a woman who was in her own parish church (actually the Cathederial) and is the principle of the local Catholic school.

That's just the last six weeks in a nothing archdiocse in the American Midwest.

This isn't about you and me or this forum. I think there's a problem out there and while I don't really think I can fix it, I would like to know what is behind it. So...

How many liberities can we take with doctrine without breaking the unity of thelogy too badly ?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

...

As an aside, let me tell you some stuff that happened in the past six or so weeks in my archdiocise. I consider this all out of line, BTW.

1) A group of parishioners went over to a deacons house one night to perform an "spiritual intervention". The deacon's wife was taking birth control pills as a treatment for inoperatable overian tumors and the parishioners felt that the deacon should either stop the treatment or resign his deacon-ship since he was in violation of the churchs stand on artifical birth control.

2) A worshipper bad-mouthed a priest, during mass, for daring to give a sermon evils of capitalism and the consolidation of wealth.

3) An usher (an USHER for God's sake), on his own inititive, pulled a women out the communion line and informed here that the Euchrist was for Catholics only and she didn't fit the bill. This is a woman who was in her own parish church (actually the Cathederial) and is the principle of the local Catholic school.

That's just the last six weeks in a nothing archdiocse in the American Midwest.

This isn't about you and me or this forum. I think there's a problem out there and while I don't really think I can fix it, I would like to know what is behind it. So...

How many liberities can we take with doctrine without breaking the unity of thelogy too badly ?

I see what you are saying. It seems that some people once again are trying to live by the letter of the law and not truly upholding the spirit of the magesteriums directives. This reminds me of the pharisees when they criticised Jesus for healing on the sabbath, and criticised the disciples for picking grain on the sabbath and not washing their hands before they ate. This kind of stuff has been going on for thousands of years, and you're right, probably neither I nor you can fix it.
My personal solution is to stay in dialogue with my priest and others in my parish. Ironically the parish that I attend is fairly liberal. My priest's area of interest is ecumenism. His goal is to preach Christ to as many people as possible, and he is very pro Vatican II. He gives advice along the lines of what would do the greatest good. I could just about guarantee that he would not allow the things you mentioned in his parish.
I think that we should first uphold the spirit of the magesterium's directives.
If someone asked me if artificial birth control was ok, I would say no based on the encyclical Humana Vitae, but if they use the pills to aleviate suffering from ovarian tumors, then they are not using it for birth control, and it should be permitted.
I believe that the liberties that we can take with doctrine should be directed by conscience, but we should stay in dialogue with our parish priest, and if he won't talk, find someone else. We should never go it alone, as our conscience can sometimes deceive us if we use it as a sole reference.

 

[KennySe]

Hi, all.
Poking into this thread to add my remarks on these situations.

1) A group of parishioners went over to a deacons house one night to perform an "spiritual intervention". The deacon's wife was taking birth control pills as a treatment for inoperatable overian tumors and the parishioners felt that the deacon should either stop the treatment or resign his deacon-ship since he was in violation of the churchs stand on artifical birth control.

The deacon should speak with the Priest first, about "the mob who arrived with pitchforks and burning torches". The deacon should make it clear that his wife is taking a medicine for health reasons, which is within the teaching of the Church.
if the deacon gets no "satisfaction" from the Priest, the deacon has every right to speak with the Bishop on this issue.

It could be a real blessing for the entire Diocese, if the Bishop were to write a letter to all parishes explaining the Church's position on birth control.. and on medicine.
if such a letter were read by all Diocene priests to their congregations, this may ease the worries of others in the situation as your deacon's wife.

2) A worshipper bad-mouthed a priest, during mass, for daring to give a sermon evils of capitalism and the consolidation of wealth.

This person may have a real mental illness. I hope his family (if he was not alone at that Mass) or friends who werre there, will have a talk with him.

3) An usher (an USHER for God's sake), on his own inititive, pulled a women out the communion line and informed here that the Euchrist was for Catholics only and she didn't fit the bill. This is a woman who was in her own parish church (actually the Cathederial) and is the principle of the local Catholic school.

It is not the usher's job, nor is his authorized, to pull people out of communion line. I hope someone spoke to him on this.

That's just the last six weeks in a nothing archdiocse in the American Midwest.

This isn't about you and me or this forum. I think there's a problem out there and while I don't really think I can fix it, I would like to know what is behind it.

SATAN is behind it.
No ifs and or buts about it.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Why can't you have a council, and it makes pronouncements (as the Pope does now) by majority vote? Not everyone would agree, just as everyone doesn't agree with the Pope today. But you would still have an authority at the top. The authority wouldn't need to be an individual.

Wasn't the church able to have unity without a Pope or authoritaty at the top of the Church?

 

[RhetorTheo]

.

No, dear Charlie, all teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are infallible, as are all teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium, such as (dogmatic) teachings of Councils and formal declarations of the Pope, ex cathedra. Even the latter category contains more than the 2 Marian dogmas you mention.

Don't feel bad, Charlie, because there are many others who think what I quoted above.

The social encyclicals to which you refer are not infallible; so they are not an example you can use in explaining your very unCatholic understanding of the Church and your relationship to Her, esp. vis-a=vis the Magisterium.

What Charlie said is what I was told by a local priest. I don't recall if he said it was only invoked twice, but it was a small number like that.

 

[Benedicta00]

Why can't you have a council, and it makes pronouncements (as the Pope does now) by majority vote? Not everyone would agree, just as everyone doesn't agree with the Pope today. But you would still have an authority at the top. The authority wouldn't need to be an individual.

Wasn't the church able to have unity without a Pope or authoritaty at the top of the Church?

I don’t know, we always had a pope who had authority.

Christianity is not a democracy, truth is not dependant on popular vote.

I think the better question is, is the Holy Spirit p[powerful enough to ensure that the one individual who has authority does not teach us something incorrect pertaining to the truth that has already been given us with the death of the last apostle?

I think what those fail to understand is that this Church belongs to Christ, not the pope OR the eastern patriarchs and the Church is always in God’s control, not the Popes OR the eastern patriarchs. You want to take authority away from God by giving it to a council of bishops? God chooses one to have the infallibility to never pass on to us a error about the deposit of faith, why should that change or rather why is this so terribly wrong?

 

[RhetorTheo]

I don’t know, we always had a pope who had authority.

If there always was a pope, then there had never been a split between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox.

 

[Benedicta00]

If there always was a pope, then there had never been a split between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox.

The Pope has always been the bishop of Rome. The east broke communion with the bishop of Rome.