I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord please don't let me be misunderstood
The Animals 1965
I have begun to get the reputation of a pope defender of none renown. I don't have enough people reading my blogs to claim any renown. Even so there are a couple of people who have Googled me and have seen that I have defended the Pope on more than one occasion. Those who wish to challenge my position often resort to a question like "Oh, so you just (blindly) think everything the Pope does is just swell?" Not necessarily. But I do give him the benefit of the doubt when something controversial is reported and I investigate. More times than not I find that while it may be said that the Pope is possibly unorthodox in style he is not heterodox in what he has said or done. I try to discover what the Pope may have been intending to teach me. I also know, if he makes a mistake, that "all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose"(Rom 8:28). So when the Pope makes a mistake, even if he is out and out wrong, I am not afraid the Church will come crashing to the ground. I believe that the Holy Father loves God and has been called according to his purpose, that Jesus sanctifies his Bride the Church and that the Holy Spirit is active in guiding it. I do not expect perfection from the Pope, I know that he is human. The Church does not teach that everything that the Pope says and does will be perfect, that it will not be subject to human flaws. The Pope's intentions are good. I believe, however, that he is often deliberately misunderstood. Some may say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That may be so. But right back at ya. It could also be said that to justify turning others against the Vicar of Christ, through intentions that we might consider good, a grave matter as well.
The words of the Holy Father are often challenging. They require us to dig a little deeper and think a little harder. Knowledge and understanding are more easily retained when we have to seek it for ourselves rather than having it spoon feed to us. I think that we don't always want to put that much effort into it. We prefer to be spoon fed a pablum of Vatican clarifications of the Pope's words and intent. I wonder sometimes, is the Pope really that confusing? Because I am not confused by him. I wonder if it is truly a matter of ambiguity and lack of clarity or if many are confused by him plain and simply because they are being told that they are supposed to be? I do know that the Pope is often misunderstood. I also know with certainty that there are times that this is intentionally and deliberately so.
Recently such misunderstanding has surrounded the homily that Pope Francis gave on the Feast of the Holy Family. There are some that have determined that the Pope said that Jesus sinned or that he required forgiveness and mercy due to sin. I have read that homily and can say that even on the face of it, Pope Francis said no such thing. A couple of bloggers that I know have written some very good articles explaining things, both men far more astute and erudite than I in the areas of theology and apologetics. The first being Scott Eric Alt's article "Does the Pope Really Think Jesus Sinned" and a second piece by Dave Armstrong "Pope Francis Espoused a Sinning Jesus? Think Again".
My perspective comes from that of your common every day pew sitter. Speaking as an average Catholic I think you can give most of us a little credit as to having a certain amount of intelligence and at least an elementary knowledge of Church teaching. We also can handle a bad analogy from the Pope or something that might be misspoken without getting all shocked, shaken or jeopardizing our faith. Most of us do have the ability to interpret something that might be unclear through something that has been previously made clear. The Church teaches that Jesus was fully human in everything except sin. That has been made clear. The Pope has said it, as well, more than once as referenced in the two articles I have mentioned. The Pope does not then have to clarify that in every homily. He might be able to assume that would be the default understanding. Unless, of course, you are looking to find fault with something that he said.
Our Holy Father, in his homily, spoke of the family as being on pilgrimage together specifically in worshipping and praying together. He spoke as well of the importance of mercy in the family and that family is "a privileged place" of giving and receiving forgiveness and "experiencing the joy of forgiveness." He then used the gospel of that day, the finding of Jesus in the temple, and related it to the human experience within this context. Although I would recommend reading the entire homily in order to clearly understand the context of Pope Francis' words, the following is the portion that seems to have been the source of misunderstandings.
At the end of that pilgrimage, Jesus returned to Nazareth and was obedient to his parents (cf. Lk 2:51). This image also contains a beautiful teaching about our families. A pilgrimage does not end when we arrive at our destination, but when we return home and resume our everyday lives, putting into practice the spiritual fruits of our experience. We know what Jesus did on that occasion. Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph who were unable to find him. For this little “escapade”, Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents. The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it. Mary’s question, moreover, contains a certain reproach, revealing the concern and anguish which she and Joseph felt. Returning home, Jesus surely remained close to them, as a sign of his complete affection and obedience. Moments like these become part of the pilgrimage of each family; the Lord transforms the moments into opportunities to grow, to ask for and to receive forgiveness, to show love and obedience.
In the Year of Mercy, every Christian family can become a privileged place on this pilgrimage for experiencing the joy of forgiveness. Forgiveness is the essence of the love which can understand mistakes and mend them. How miserable we would be if God did not forgive us! Within the family we learn how to forgive, because we are certain that we are understood and supported, whatever the mistakes we make.
The word "sin" is not actually used within the homily, not once. The Holy Father does use the word "mistake". Within context, however, it seems that he is speaking about our experiences in families and not speaking of Jesus. Most of the objections seemed to arise from the use of the word "escapade" and the idea that Jesus may have asked for the forgiveness of his parents.
You may find the use of the word "escapade" to be a little cheeky. Then again, the word is enclosed in quotation marks indicating the Pope was probably being a little tongue in cheek and not literal. Lord help us, however, if our faith can be shaken on a cheeky reference from the Pope. Then again, have any of us been in a situation like that, where we couldn't find one of our children? Not through sin or fault but because of a miscommunication or misunderstanding? Then, after they are found safe and sound the story is told at family events as an "escapade"? I can relate a story from my own family. My sister and her son became separated at the mall. Often we tell our children to stay where they are when they become separated and wait for us to find them. My nephew, thinking the one place his mother would have to return to would be the car, went out to the parking lot, got in the car and waited patiently for his mother to find him. He was completely unaware of the furor going on inside of the mall as my sister searched frantically for him with the help of mall security. Did my nephew sin? Of course not. He did what he thought would be the right thing. Eventually he was found safe and sound. This "escapade" is now part of the lore related at family events.
In a similar way, Jesus thought that he was in a place where his parents could find him. He answered a call to be in his father's house. When Mary and Joseph found him they expressed that anxiety, without sin. Any parent who has lost a child for more than a minute understands the profound depth of that kind of distress, as well as the depth of relief when they are found. In answering his parents some have said that Jesus was challenging them with a higher calling to be in his father's house. I think, however, that it was possible that there was merely some surprise there. "I had no idea. I honestly believed that if you couldn't find me you would know that I would be in my father's house and would be safe there." Honoring your father and mother is a commandment. The Lord holds that commandment in high enough regard that the keeping of it will bring you long life and the answers to your prayers. So could Jesus have asked forgiveness because of his parents distress? To honor his father and mother? Jesus often did what was right because it was right. He did many things to demonstrate humility, obedience and because they were required by the commandments. So I find it completely credible that Jesus may have said "I'm sorry you were so worried." and his parents may have responded "We are sorry that we did not understand,"
Have you ever said you were sorry not because you were at fault due to sin, but because of a misunderstanding or miscommunication? Have you said your were sorry because it was the right thing to do? Have you said you were sorry because, even though you were not at fault, not to do so would have been a matter or pride? Have you ever said you were sorry because the other person might need to hear it? I have. Jesus who was perfect, and his parents who were of far greater virtue than me may have as well. Sometimes asking for forgiveness is an act of humility. And sometimes when we ask for forgiveness we are actually extending mercy rather than requiring it.
"Let us not lose confidence in the family! It is beautiful when we can always open our hearts to one another, and hide nothing. Where there is love, there is also understanding and forgiveness. To all of you, dear families, I entrust this most important mission - the domestic pilgrimage of daily family life - which the world and the Church need, now more than ever."
These are the final words of the Holy Father's homily. I believe we should take them to heart and extend them to the Pope as well. We should, through charity, first seek understanding regarding what the Pope says and does. Sometimes he may very well be wrong. In this case, I do not believe that he was, nor do I believe that his message was as confusing that some would have lead us to believe. His words did not put into question the teaching that Jesus was without sin. Nor did they cause me to doubt his divinity. The default position in reading this passage of scripture is that Jesus was without sin and that Marty did not sin as well. The default position with the Pope should be to seek orthodoxy first. Unless of course one chooses to be obstinate in misunderstanding him.
He's just a soul whose intentions are good.
Oh, Lord please don't let him be misunderstood.
For what it's worth.
You have it backwards. It's because your faith depends so much on the chair of Peter and its current occupant, instead of in Christ and his mystical body, that you are willing to bend over backwards to defend the indefensible. The pope is not the Church, we've had bad pope's before (Pope Honorius I was declared a heretic by the sixth general council in 680ad) and there's nothing to stop that from happening again. The Holy Spirit does not choose the pope, despite what Pooe Francis defendants claim. Even though we've got a real stinker right now, the Church will survive him. But many will fall into error if he is not publicly corrected, that is the danger. Claiming that Jesus had to beg the forgiveness of his parents is error, plain and simple (and not the first uttered from the mouth of this pope). God bless.
ReplyDelete"All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Pope Pius IX, "Nostis et Nobiscum ", 1849 17.
ReplyDelete41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it. Mystici corporis Christi Pope Pius XII 1943
This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], Pope Boniface VIII Una Sanctam 1302
These are but three of the many statements contained within the teaching documents of the Church regarding the attitude that we should have about the Pope. My faith is in Jesus Christ, therefore I have faith in the authority that he himself established.
Finally,
"Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Pope Pius XI, "Mortalium Animos", 1928)
"Attach yourselves with single-mindedness to the Holy See, for no one can be in the Church unless he be united to Us, its visible head, and be one with the chair of Peter." (Pope Pius VI)
May God bless you as well.
"....and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Pope Pius IX, "Nostis et Nobiscum ", 1849 17." So even P.Pius IX is telling us that a pope can be "unworthy". Do you understand, THE OFFICE does not fail, he cannot teach error from the Chair of Peter (ex-Cathedra). But the pope is not impeccable, and is just as capable of evil as any man. The Borgia popes proved that, but not even they attacked Church teaching the way Bergoglio is doing. Yes, we are to submit to the pontiff when he is speaking infallibly on matters of faith and morals, that is what it means to be loyal. Are you a Protestant convert like Alt, Armstrong or Shea by any chance? They seem to be having a difficult time accepting this concept. Thank you for at least allowing my comment, those guys would have just deleted and banned me.
ReplyDelete"Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will."
Robert Bellarmine, Saint and Doctor of the Church.
I will allow any comments as long as they are respectful and civil.
ReplyDeleteNo, I am a cradle catholic. It is interesting that you have made a couple of assumptions about me. Assuming what my faith depends on, wondering if I am a convert. My mother was a convert actually and I don't know many that are more devout than she. Daily Mass, frequent confession, frequent adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, daily rosaries and devotion to our Blessed Mother, the list goes on. My early catechetical formation up to my Confirmation was the Baltimore Catechism.
There have been many debates and discussions concerning the Pope throughout the history of the Church. Many Saints, Doctors of the Church and even Popes have been part of those discussions and debates. The opinions expressed in those debates and discussions must be regarded with the highest of esteem but we are not bound by them. Rather we are bound by the teachings of the Church as expressed in the teaching documents set forth by the Popes and the statements of councils that have been approved by Popes. Which is why I quoted mainly from teaching documents.
Our loyalty to the Pope is not limited or confined to infallibility. This is the concept that many do not understand. It is because of the authority of the office. It is a matter of authority and not confined to infallibility.
I believe I mentioned in the article that the Pope is not impeccable although I did not use that word. My problem is not that some may disagree with the Pope. My problem is all in the manner in which it is done. I do not believe that many of the criticisms are made with the "virtues of piety, veneration, and respect". These are due to the Pope because of his office whether he is worthy or not. And to engage in a deliberate campaign against the Pope from the very first day of his pontificate would be a grave matter. As well as criticism that is based on viewing the Pope only through a lens of obstinate hostility that causes one to seek to misunderstand and resist at every turn, rather than seek to understand and give him even the smallest benefit of doubt.
May we genuinely and continually pray for the Holy Father. May our Lord, look with love on our Pope, his appointed successor to St. Peter, on whom He built His Church. He is the visible center and foundation of our unity in faith and love. May the Lord be pleased to bless and protect him. Keep him safe in holiness of life and in wise fulfillment of his awesome responsibilities. I ask this through Christ, our Lord. Amen.
My apologies for the assumptions, but those men do tend to attract a certain crowd. The "Horror" you mentioned originated from an Argentinian Catholic that had many years of experience with AB Bergoglio. He warned us when P. Francis was elected that he would divide faithful Catholics against each other, and that is exactly what has happened. There was no deliberate campaign to malign this man, he has done it all by himself. No, we are not necessarily bound by certain teaching documents such as papal encyclicals. Catholics are to view every other papal pronouncement in context — the context of previous solemn church teaching on an issue. So if a pope reiterates some previous teaching, with roots in the Bible and the councils of the church, we defer to his interpretation. If he says something that seems new, we judge it against those previous teachings and are free to disagree — respectfully, of course. Popes have contradicted themselves on issues such as slavery, economics, usury, torture, religious freedom, etc. How are you to reconcile that, if as you claim we are also bound by fallible pronouncements? Yes, the papal office deserves a certain amount respect, and I've read some unfortunate things said about him that even make me cringe, and that's not right. But conservative Catholics are tired of Modernism and heresy in the Church, and you can't blame them entirely for their frustration. I know we'll never agree, but I believe this pope is a Modernist (and a jebbie to boot) that's been poorly formed in the seminary and must be resisted. The synod on the family was borderline heresy. By the way, the Holy Spirit does not appoint the pope, as you seem to be implying in your last paragraph. PBXVI made this pretty clear. But believe it or not, I do pray for the pope that He does the will of God.
ReplyDeleteSo far you are missing the concept of authority. When Peter was given the keys to the kingdom he was given authority. Infallibility is a charism of that authority. So far you have given me opinions based on other opinions.
ReplyDeleteEncyclicals
Believe or not the Pope considers the context when writing his encyclicals that's what all those footnotes are for. Although not all encyclicals are infallible they are still authoritative and are the exercise of the ordinary teaching magisterium. They do not require the assent of faith of infallible teaching but they do require the religious assent and submission. Here is what the teaching authority of the Church says about encyclicals.
"20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. 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" HUMANI GENERIS Pope Pius XII
"The authority of the Roman Pontiff prevails over the opinions of learned men" (Pope Pius XII, "Doctor Mellifluus", 1953)
By what authority do you pick and choose among Popes and pick and choose among encyclicals? The Chair of Peter is one. It is a mistake to perceive it within the segments and fragments of individual Popes.
"The Church, as St. Leo the Great teaches, in well-ordered love accepts Peter in the See of Peter, and sees and honors Peter in the person of his successor the Roman pontiff." Pope Leo XII, "Ubi Primum
.' Whence is it therefore that you strive to obtain for yourselves the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven - you who fight against the chair of Peter?' Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum",
As far as the Holy Spirit choosing the Pope. Pope Benedict XVI also said at his resignation. "I shall continue to be close to you with prayers, especially in these coming days, so that you may be completely docile to the action of the Holy Spirit in the election of the new pope. May the Lord show you the one whom he wants." If the cardinals are docile to the Holy Spirit then the right man is chosen. You are right however that they are not always docile. Even so, once a Pope is appointed by the authority of Christ in the Church he becomes an appointed successor in union with St. Peter.
As I said, you have given me opinion based on other opinion and based on discussion and debate. I have given you just a drop in the bucket of the wealth and treasure of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Consider as well that Jesus prayed for Peter alone that his faith not fail.
I believe that Our Lord's prayer that Peter's faith not fail is extended to his successors as well. Do you not believe in the power of Jesus, that his prayer concerning this would go unanswered?
When you pray for the Pope, do you pray in union and communion with him out of love? Or in resistance to him?
Except it's not opinion, it's the only way it could possibly be. Otherwise, you would not be able to reconcile the fact that popes have contradicted themselves in the past. Our faith is one based on reason (and prudence), we are not required to toss that out the window simply based on something a pope happens to fallibly declare. In your example from P. Pius XII, he even states that what is expounded in Encyclical letters does in itself not demand consent. Notice his use of the word "generally"? He then goes on to explain certain situations where we are required to consent, such as JPII's declaration in Ordinatio Sacredotilas (sp) that only men can be ordained to the priesthood.
ReplyDeleteOn October 28, 1965, P. Paul VI declared in Nostra Aetate that:
"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their desserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting."
Now go and read this article, and honestly tell me that you believe what P. Paul VI wrote requires our consent? No reasonable person could possibly think so:
https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-migrant-sex-assaults-uncovered-meat/?singlepage=true
I'm not sure what prayer of Jesus you're talking about, but I do recall Jesus rebuking Peter at one time by saying "Get behind me, Satan." I see now that you've changed the context in which you used "appointed", but no matter. Did you think Pope Honorius or the Borgia popes were acting in union with Peter?
I pray for this pope out of love for the Church and that no one do her harm.
Jesus prays for Peter in Lk 22:32
ReplyDeleteThe prayer I used was one I found on a Catholic site of prayers and the word appointed was in that prayer. I don't think the context changed, the mistake being in the way you interpreted it. The prayer does not say "The pope that you appointed" but "your appointed Pope".
I have acknowledged that Popes can be wrong so to continue to argue the bad popes is somewhat redundant.
Nostra Aetate is a Declaration of Second Vatican Council and is reflected in the Catechism approved by Pope John Paul II.
So far you have expressed that loyalty to the Pope is restricted to only that which is infallible. That an individual can pick and choose which Popes are worthy of that loyalty, that you can pick and choose which documents of the church you agree with and that you can pick and choose which council documents to follow. This picking and choosing would then be cafeteria Catholicism, a disposition that is the product of the very modernism that you so vehemently oppose. We are not going to defeat modernism by adopting its dispositions and tactics.
The Church does acknowledge, however there are times when one might in good conscience disagree. I suggest you read Instruction Donum Veritatis on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
Although one may not be a theologian it is helpful in understanding that the proper attitude when dissenting is not to resist the authority of the Pope and magisterium but first to acknowledge it. It speaks of following proper ecclesial channels in expressing our difficulty rather than resorting to mass media and public opinion to exert pressure. We cannot present our opinions as unarguable conclusions but be open to a greater and deeper understanding. And that "For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail."
None of us individually hold the deposit of faith and of divine revelation. None of us know and understand every word that Church tradition has passed down. We know fragments, segments and pieces. None of us have been given the authority, none of us possess nor can we exercise the charism of infallibility. Only the Church and the Pope as its head have been given these things. Which is why "The First See is judged by no one."
I may not be able to defend every word and action of the Pope. Sometimes his words and actions will be wrong. But I will defend the Pope from attack keeping in mind the Lord's words that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ. I do not feel at all comfortable in meeting our Lord at the end of my life with the thought that I may have even taken the chance of despising him by despising his Vicar.
May God be with you.
You write: "This picking and choosing would then be cafeteria Catholicism, a disposition that is the product of the very modernism that you so vehemently oppose. We are not going to defeat modernism by adopting its dispositions and tactics."
ReplyDeleteNo it's not, Cafeteria Catholicism is when you pick and choose which DOCTRINES or DOGMAS of the faith you choose to follow. This isn't the same thing, and you know it. Anyway, Vatican II was strictly a pastoral council, no new doctrines of the faith were declared.
You write: "I have acknowledged that Popes can be wrong so to continue to argue the bad popes is somewhat redundant."
No you haven't, until now. So if popes can be wrong, your arguments don't wash.
You write: "Nostra Aetate is a Declaration of Second Vatican Council and is reflected in the Catechism approved by JPII."
Yes, and so what? You didn't answer my question. But I understand, it's hard to face this fact.
You do make an interesting point about going through the proper channels in expressing our difficulty with this pope, but most Catholics know this would be an exercise in futility. The pope and the Modernists in the Church are now able to spread error rapidly do to mass media and the internet, times have changed. We have to fight back just as rapidly by the same means, or we'll have another Spirit of Vatican II situation on our hands. The synod on the family proved that. Yes, the Truth will ultimately prevail, but how many souls will be lost in the meantime? The Church is in a serious crisis mode, and now they're trying to honor the Protestant revolt...it's unbelievable. I do not want to stand on my judgement day and be held accountable for the sin of omission and commission, for standing by and not doing anything, it's part of our spiritual works of mercy.
I will not argue with you anymore, Vickie, but thank you for allowing me to comment. God bless.
PS. We're called the Church Militant for a reason. Sometimes sadly, we have to resist not only those outside the faith who wish to do it harm, but also our own Church hierarchy, just ask St. Athanasius. Always in charity of course.
ReplyDeleteSo then I will make my final rebuttal and closing statement and we will consider this debate to be closed.
ReplyDeleteThroughout this discussion you have enforced your own definitions that had very little to do with the truth or with authentic Church teaching. You began, while knowing absolutely nothing about me, to define my faith. You defined the context of the word appointed. You defined that our loyalty and obedience to the Pope was confined to only infallible teachings. You dismissed church documents and the authority of a council. You dismissed my assessment of Cafeteria Catholicism.
I did indeed admit that the Pope can be wrong in some matters. More than once. The reason my arguments hold up is that they have nothing to do with the worthiness of the Pope but instead I have been arguing authority all along. This is the one concept you have obstinately refused to grasp. The argument of authority is the one taught by the Church. Your argument that you can follow one Pope and resist another due to his worthiness is not consistent with Church teaching nor your declaration that we are only obligated to him in infallible teachings.
“Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law" AD TUENDAM FIDEM,
Pope Paul II. This teaching is repeated in several church documents as well as the catechism.
This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Una Sanctam 1302 Pope Boniface VIII
You site St. Robert Bellarmine as one of your sources. He was indeed a Doctor of the Church but his statements do not carry the weight of infallibility. Yet you required infallibility from the statements I quoted from Church documents. Btw, St. Robert Bellarmine was himself a Jesuit.
Several Popes have clarified what exactly was meant by the term "pastoral" in referring to Vatican II. This did not mean that Vatican II did not carry the same weight of authority of all the other councils. Here is what Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) said. [I]t must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him and that also in regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their text word for word in decisive texts...Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundations" To diminish or dismiss the authority of one Pope puts the authority of all Popes into question. To question, diminish or dismiss the authority of one council puts all councils into question as well.
It is also a teaching the Church that you cannot consider yourself in union with the Church if you are not in communion with the Pope. It is not reasonable to say that one is in communion with the Pope while at the same time resisting him.
DeleteSo yes, you are picking and choosing the doctrines that you want to follow concerning the Pope and the councils. So by your definition that would be Cafeteria Catholicism.
You justify your position because of the crisis in the Church. However, obedience and loyalty to the Church and adherence to her teachings is not conditional. Modernist believe that the conditions of the modern world justify their rejection of Church authority. You justify your rejection of Church authority by the condition of crisis. It is merely different sides of the same coin. As well as the modernist idea that individual judgement and conscience is of greater authority than the magisterium. You sited no authentic Church teachings as contained in the documents of the church to uphold your arguments but only the authority of your own reason, judgement and conscience.
As you said, we need argue this no further. Though I have been firm in my statements I offer them in charity as well.
May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to think in harmony with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus, that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Rom 15:5-6