Respect for the Pope and Bishops

[Amppax]

I just saw this article, and figured perhaps it was worthy of discussion here: http://aleteia.org/2017/02/07/catholic-social-media-why-its-important-to-respect-our-bishops-and-pope/

 

Quote

Bishops and popes are human. Like many of you, perhaps, I have had to wrestle in a personal and very direct way with the reality of the flawed humanity of our Church’s shepherds.

When I left the Church I felt a deep sense of rebellion against any and all authority. I felt that there was no reason I should live under anyone’s thumb—not a pope, not a bishop, and certainly not any imaginary God.

But, after living my own rules to the extreme, I returned to the Church. Life under my own direction had left my heart in tatters. I saw that as a human being I needed to accept Christ’s authority. I desired to unify my mind, behavior, and heart to a way of life that would lead me to happiness.

Saint Augustine once wrote, “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” Like Augustine, I found harmony of life and peace in submitting to the legitimate authority of the Church.

1

 

[Nihil Obstat]

What is the nature of submission in the Catholic sense?

[Peace]

Good article. I think my feelings on this topic are pretty well known. The magisterium should magistrate, and the laity should lay.

Sometimes the judge may be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the judge and gets to decide, and you have to comply with his judgment.

I think it is fine to express your opinion when you think an authority is wrong, but in most cases as long as he has authority and you don't, you should ultimately comply even if you believe he is wrong.

Otherwise you just end up with a lawless Protestant type system where each individual is ultimately his own pope.

[Amppax]

On 2/7/2017 at 3:13 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

What is the nature of submission in the Catholic sense?

I could give an answer, but why reinvent the wheel? I think Dr. William May, in this article, gives a great explanation of the obsequium religiosum (which, funny enough, came up recently in another thread). I'd specifically look at #5 in his article. 

[Credo in Deum]

On 2/7/2017 at 1:58 PM, Peace said:

 

Sometimes the judge may be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the judge and gets to decide, and you have to comply with his judgment.

 

No. No. No. If a judge is wrong then not only should you not comply with their judgment, you should oppose it and challenge their ruling in all chairty.  Judges are stewards of the law. If they oppose the law then they are guilty of lawlessness NOT the people opposing their unlawful judgment. 

[Peace]

4 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

No. No. No. If a judge is wrong then not only should you not comply with their judgment, you should oppose it and challenge their ruling in all chairty.  Judges are stewards of the law. If they oppose the law then they are guilty of lawlessness NOT the people opposing their unlawful judgment. 

OK. Let me amend my previous statement for further clarity:

Quote

Sometimes the judge may be you may believe that the judge is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the judge and gets to decide, and you have to comply with his judgment.

Happy Now?

[Credo in Deum]

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

OK. Let me amend my previous statement for further clarity:

Happy Now?

Yes, I am. Thanks.

[Papist]

On 2/7/2017 at 4:58 PM, Peace said:

Good article. I think my feelings on this topic are pretty well known. The magisterium should magistrate, and the laity should lay.

Sometimes the judge may be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the judge and gets to decide, and you have to comply with his judgment.

I think it is fine to express your opinion when you think an authority is wrong, but in most cases as long as he has authority and you don't, you should ultimately comply even if you believe he is wrong.

Otherwise you just end up with a lawless Protestant type system where each individual is ultimately his own pope.

i.e. Obedience.  

[Jack4]

On 2/8/2017 at 3:28 AM, Peace said:

Sometimes you may believe that the judge is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the judge and gets to decide, and you have to comply with his judgment.

May I propose one more qualification respectfully? "...and unless the judge orders what is objectively sinful...."

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Jack4 said:

May I propose one more qualification respectfully? "...and unless the judge orders what is objectively sinful...."

Yes. My complete view is a bit more nuanced than my original post. The original post describes my view with a broad brush.

[Peace]

I do not necessarily ascribe to everything in this article but it appears to be generally consistent with my take on the topic.

http://www.ifimightinterject.com/2016/04/the-surreal-world-of-radical.html

Quote

Radical traditionalists have many different factions. It ranges from people who stay within the Church while sniping at the Pope and bishops to those openly denying that the Pope is the Pope. Because of these factions, criticisms of the errors from the extreme side of radical traditionalism won’t apply to the “mainstream” versions, but all versions prefer their own interpretations to any teaching they disagree with. They claim to be the survival of truth within the Church while the Pope and bishops fall into error. They never assume that they fell into error. 

Begging the Question through Invented Theologies

To justify his claim, the radical traditionalist invents a theology that works this way. Based on the opinions of a few theologians who defended the Papacy in the 16th and 17th centuries, they claim that if a Pope teaches heresy his teachings cannot bind (some even claim this means he is no longer Pope). From that assumption, they argue that a difference exists between what the current Pope said and what the Church taught in earlier centuries. From that claimed difference, they claim the current Pope is a heretic. From this, they conclude with the argument that they can ignore (or sometimes, depose) the Pope.

The problem with this argument is this: It is the Begging the Question fallacy. The radical traditionalist takes as given several things which they have to prove before we can accept their claims as true.

1. They have to prove that the theological positions in the writings of certain saints were more than just theological opinions.
2. They have to prove that their interpretation of past Church documents are accurate and in keeping with magisterial interpretation
3. They have to prove that their citation of past Church documents have the proper context
4. They have to prove that their interpretation of Pope Francis is the same as his intention
5. They have to prove that what Pope Francis intends to say is in fact error that contradicts past documents.
6. They have to prove that they have authority in making these determinations.

They do none of these things. Instead they beg the question, appealing to their own non-magisterial interpretation against the magisterial interpretation of the Pope and bishops. But no matter how many arguments they make over how the Pope goes against an obscure document, they all assume exactly what they have to prove: That they, not the Pope, have properly understood the document. But only the Pope and bishops in communion with him can judge how to best apply past teaching documents to today’s situations. Not the layman. So, no matter how eloquent the radical traditionalist might be, they simply offer opinions, not authoritative teaching.

The Pope and Bishops, Not the Radical Traditionalists, Interpret and Apply Church Teaching

Once we recognize this, we can say about the radical traditionalist, “The emperor has no clothes.” He or she can't pass judgment on the Pope or bishops, or call them heretics. As St. John Paul II pointed out, radical traditionalism has a fundamental flaw. They have

...an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".

 

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church. 

 

 John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei #4

So, in the eyes of the Church herself, the person who rejects the authority of the Pope and bishops in communion with him is starting in error and ending in error. They can rage against the Pope for writing about social justice or how to help people in an invalid marriage, but their accusations of heresy have no authority. Canon 1404 tells us, “The First See is judged by no one.” Not a Council, not a personal interpretation of past Church documents.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Peace

[Amppax]

On 2/10/2017 at 0:32 PM, Peace said:

I do not necessarily ascribe to everything in this article but it appears to be generally consistent with my take on the topic.

http://www.ifimightinterject.com/2016/04/the-surreal-world-of-radical.html

 

 

 

I'm going to have to come back to this, but I just wanted to point out that there are numerous problems with this article.

1) It isn't helpful to collapse the whole spectrum of traditionalists, as he does. There are huge differences between various groups, and it's not helpful in anyway to equate all the different factions because an observation about one group doesn't necessarily apply to others. So that limits how helpful his argument actually is.

2) His dismissal of "a few theologians" and their speculations about a heretical pope. These "few theologians" include St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, and Francisco Suarez, who was probably the most important theologian of the early modern period. Their work on this topic is not some fringe opinion but has largely been taken up into the mainstream of Catholic theology (Dr. Edward Peters has a good article on the influence of their opinions on the canon law tradition, and Dr. Jacob Wood a good summary of their position). Has their work on this topic been misused? Sure, but the abuse of something does not preclude its lawful use. 

So that was a lot longer than my original intention for this post, but there's still more I'd like to say, once I get a chance to actually read the article. 

Edited February 13, 2017 by Amppax

[Peace]

That's fair. I don't think I agree with the article fully.

If you read the full link you will notice that he makes a distinction among the various so-called traditionalists.

I don't have a strong opinion concerning whether the "ceases to be Pope" assertion is true, but I think I have seen the general form of argument that he describes used here in this forum - assuming authority to correct the Pope, assuming that one's interpretation of Tradition is true, and then judging the Pope to be in error based on one's unproved assumption, which justifies ignoring or criticizing him, etc.

[Jack4]

16 hours ago, Amppax said:

It isn't helpful to collapse the whole spectrum of traditionalists... There are huge differences between various groups, and it's not helpful in anyway to equate all the different factions because an observation about one group doesn't necessarily apply to others.

^This.