If The Pope Doesn't Speak Infalliablly, Do You Still Follow What H

[havok579257]

please post comments on disagreeing with the Pope.

example: Pope said Iraq War was immoral but it seems some people disagree.

[Spem in alium]

The Pope is infallible only in certain circumstances. He can still say the wrong thing and be disagreed with.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337403663' post='2432537']
please post comments on disagreeing with the Pope.

example: Pope said Iraq War was immoral but it seems some people disagree.
[/quote]I have to say it depends on the situation. In matters of faith and morals I agree with him because I'm called to do so as a Catholic and because I cannot find a reason to disagree. This is part of the teaching of the First and Second Vatican Councils. Obviously when the Holy Father speaks infallibly we must listen and believe; however, when he uses his office, even when not speaking infallibly, we must assent with mind and will.

Now if the Holy Father says that blue is the best color ever, I'm not going to agree. If he says that German is the best country ever, again I can't agree. These aren't matters of faith or morals and are not a part of his office as Holy Father.

Now in the application of morals (since it's harder to speak about the application of matters of faith), it depends on the situation. I will never disagree in general with the Holy Father. He says that abortion is intrinsically evil and so I agree in word and thought. Now in the application of morals we have a bit of leeway, with certain topics. In the case of war, the Holy Father (and really the Church in general) has given certain criteria that we must follow. However, the application of that can vary a bit. That's why the Holy Father can come out and say a war in immoral, but Catholics may disagree from time to time. Sometimes a war might be obviously immoral (think of Germany invading Poland), and in those cases we're just deceiving ourselves about the criteria if we say otherwise. Thus, it's more silly to disagree with the Holy Father in certain cases, though we don't necessarily have to agree with him.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Spem in alium' timestamp='1337404134' post='2432542']
The Pope is infallible only in certain circumstances. He can still say the wrong thing and be disagreed with.
[/quote]

do you feel comfortable enough saying the Pope is wrong in a given situation given his immense knowledge of catholisim and you would know better in a given situation?

[Vincent Vega]

The closer the matter that he's giving his opinion on is to faith and morals, the more weight I am likely to give his opinion.

[havok579257]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337404420' post='2432545']
I have to say it depends on the situation. In matters of faith and morals I agree with him because I'm called to do so as a Catholic and because I cannot find a reason to disagree. This is part of the teaching of the First and Second Vatican Councils. Obviously when the Holy Father speaks infallibly we must listen and believe; however, when he uses his office, even when not speaking infallibly, we must assent with mind and will.

Now if the Holy Father says that blue is the best color ever, I'm not going to agree. If he says that German is the best country ever, again I can't agree. These aren't matters of faith or morals and are not a part of his office as Holy Father.

Now in the application of morals (since it's harder to speak about the application of matters of faith), it depends on the situation. I will never disagree in general with the Holy Father. He says that abortion is intrinsically evil and so I agree in word and thought. Now in the application of morals we have a bit of leeway, with certain topics. In the case of war, the Holy Father (and really the Church in general) has given certain criteria that we must follow. However, the application of that can vary a bit. That's why the Holy Father can come out and say a war in immoral, but Catholics may disagree from time to time. Sometimes a war might be obviously immoral (think of Germany invading Poland), and in those cases we're just deceiving ourselves about the criteria if we say otherwise. Thus, it's more silly to disagree with the Holy Father in certain cases, though we don't necessarily have to agree with him.
[/quote]

i guess look at it as if her says a war is immoral who i am to say he is wrong. the Pope has so much knowledge of catholicism while ihave only a fraction of knowledge. so for me, i don't honestly see how someone can think they know more or better on a given situation like war than the Pope considering his immense knowledge of catholicism compared to the average lay person.

[Spem in alium]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337407490' post='2432553']
do you feel comfortable enough saying the Pope is wrong in a given situation given his immense knowledge of catholisim and you would know better in a given situation?
[/quote]

What is the "given situation"?

Knowledge of Catholicism does not apply in every situation in which a view or opinion is required. This is essentially my view on the matter:

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337407671' post='2432556']
The closer the matter that he's giving his opinion on is to faith and morals, the more weight I am likely to give his opinion.
[/quote]

[cappie]

The three pillars of the teaching of the Church are Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. The Magisterium is a gift given to the whole Church, including all the faithful. The Magisterium proper is an ability and authority to understand and teach the truths found explicitly and implicitly in Tradition and Scripture. This ability and authority is a charism which can only be exercised by the Pope and the Bishops. But the Magisterium does not belong to the Pope and the Bishops; it is not their possession. The Magisterium is the possession of all the faithful. However, only persons ordained as Bishops, and the Roman Pontiff, who is both a Bishop and the leader of the Bishops, can exercise this charism.

This charism discerns and teaches truth by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not correct to say that the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium, for this particular type of guidance by the Holy Spirit is itself the Magisterium. Although the Holy Spirit cannot err, He does not give this gift to such an extent that the Magisterium would be as infallible as God, for He does not want the faithful to worship the Magisterium. Therefore, the Holy Spirit only gives His guidance within the gift of the Magisterium to the extent of infallibility in certain cases, that is, when certain criteria have been met. Thus the gift of the Holy Spirit provides two ways to exercise the Magisterium:

I. Infallibly under the Sacred Magisterium

II. Non-infallibly under the Ordinary Magisterium.

The criteria for Papal Infallibility were defined infallibly by the First Vatican Council in Pastor Aeternus, chapter four, as quoted below (with my numbering added). There are five criteria which must be met for a Papal teaching to be infallible:
1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”

Therefore, whenever the Pope teaches by his own authority, yet without meeting all the criteria for an infallible Papal teaching, his teaching is non-infallible and it falls under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, not the infallible Sacred Magisterium. Historically, the Popes have only occasionally taught under Papal Infallibility; they have most often taught under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium.

The Church has the authority to require the faithful to believe even the non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium because those teachings have the charism of certain salvation. These non-infallible teachings can contain errors, but no single error, nor set of errors, nor even all the errors put together, can ever reach to such an extent as to lead the faithful away from salvation. The Church has the responsibility and authority to require the faithful to believe and to do those things that are necessary to their eternal salvation. This is the reason that the Church can require the faithful to believe a set of non-infallible teachings, which may contain some errors on particular points.

On the other hand, the possibility of error is the reason that the faithful can occasionally disagree with the Ordinary Magisterium, on points that are not essential to salvation. But the basis for dissent must be a more authoritative teaching in Tradition, or Scripture, or Magisterium.

There are three levels to the Magisterium: Sacred, Ordinary, general. So there must be three levels of assent. The assent to the infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium is called sacred assent (or theological assent, or the assent of faith). The assent to the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium is called ordinary assent (or the religious submission of will and intellect).

The third type of assent is a general assent to truths that the individual member of the faithful understands to be a part of Tradition or Scripture, but which is not yet a teaching of the Church. The Magisterium general seeks truth in the Deposit of Faith, even truths not yet taught by the Magisterium proper. And when such truths are found, the faithful have a limited obligation to adhere to such truths, in so far as they are not contradicted by a teaching of greater certainty. For all the faithful are required to seek, to love, and to believe all that is true. The requirement to give a general assent to truths that a member of the faithful understands either on his/her own, or through discussion with other members of the faithful, or by studying speculative theology, is a requirement out of love for all truth. Now this assent is necessary for salvation only in so far as all the faithful are required to love truth; anyone who rejects truth in general, rejects Christ who is the Truth. But if ever an insight from personal ideas, or from discussions, or from speculative theology, is loved and believed as truth by a member of the faithful, and it later turns out that the Magisterium proper corrects this idea, the faithful should usually accept the correction of the Magisterium proper, which has the charisms of certain truth for its infallible teachings and of certain salvation for its non-infallible teachings. Faithful dissent applies on matters which are not essential to salvation, which have not been infallibly taught, and when the dissent is based on a more certain teaching of Tradition, Scripture, or Magisterium.

An example of a such a teaching of speculative theology is the proposed doctrine of the Virgin Mary's role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix. There is one particular widespread view of this proposed doctrine, which, in my understanding, has numerous serious theological errors and which is nevertheless very widely promoted to millions of Catholics. When the Church eventually defines this doctrine in its proper form, many of the adherents to the erroneous form of the doctrine will be left with a decision, whether to abandon their long-held errors, or to retain them. If they are faithful, they will abandon the erroneous version of this doctrine, but inevitably in such cases some persons will refuse. Persons who adhere to a proposed doctrine, because they believe that it is a truth implicit in Tradition and Scripture, are exercising general assent in accord with an insight proposed under the Magisterium general. But substantial errors can exist in ideas that flow from the Magisterium general. Therefore, the requirement to believe is limited, and the greater requirement is to accept the teachings of the Magisterium proper.

Edited May 19, 2012 by cappie