Obeying The Pope

[HartfordWhalers]

I started reading a book a friend lent me yesterday called The Great Facade by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods. It is very good so far. It said the following at the beginning: "Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff anre the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See--they destroy instead of strengthen its foundations."

That quote is from Melchoir Cano, a theologian from the Council of Trent.

They make a point that "conservatives" (name neo-Catholics) blindly follow all the Pope says, stating that everything the Pope says is "de facto" in line with Tradition. He goes ahead to point out places that this is not true, most notably on John Paul II's idea of the woman's submissiveness as well as many other things including: "ecumenical dialouge" and new post conciliar ideas. What are we to think of all this? (So far the book is wonderful! They make a good argument and back it up with fact.)

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Well, it sounds like a dangerous slight of hand to inspire dissent. Most certainly, the pope is not perfect, and he is not always correct, but the vast majority of the time, his theology more than anything else will be accurate.

The attack on Pope John Paul II's stance on sex and gender roles is particularly ridiculous. His stance is correct and it seems rather arrogant for anyone simply to assume that he is incorrect in this regard simply because this part of his papacy does not have the guarantee of infallibility.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 4 2004, 05:45 PM'] I started reading a book a friend lent me yesterday called The Great Facade by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods. It is very good so far. It said the following at the beginning: "Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff anre the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See--they destroy instead of strengthen its foundations."

That quote is from Melchoir Cano, a theologian from the Council of Trent.

They make a point that "conservatives" (name neo-Catholics) blindly follow all the Pope says, stating that everything the Pope says is "de facto" in line with Tradition. He goes ahead to point out places that this is not true, most notably on John Paul II's idea of the woman's submissiveness as well as many other things including: "ecumenical dialouge" and new post conciliar ideas. What are we to think of all this? (So far the book is wonderful! They make a good argument and back it up with fact.) [/quote]
"Conservatives" [ not a church term] follow the Pope willingly, but not blindly.

[Dave]

The Wanderer, an orthodox Catholic newspaper, wrote a series of rebuttals on that book.

[url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-10-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-10-03.htm[/url]

[url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-15-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-15-03.htm[/url]

[url="http://thewandererpress.com/A5-22-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/A5-22-03.htm[/url]

[url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm[/url]

[url="http://thewandererpress.com/a6-5-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/a6-5-03.htm[/url]

Edited September 4, 2004 by Dave

[Theoketos]

Lucky the Pope does not make arbitrary descisions...

[littleflower+JMJ]

if theres anyone to follow......it would be the Pope.



his creditals beat out everyone else i know


not to mention his resume has some very strong [i] referances[/i] listed



pax.

[qfnol31]

Infallibly stated by Vatican I:

[quote]9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this [b]not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful[/b]: let him be anathema.[/quote]

That's how far we must obey the Pope, although I would argue that we should agree with at least most of what he says. Cardinal Ratzinger says that there are certain things that we are allowed to disagree on. Here's an example: The Pope has spoken out against Capital Punishment to a great degree. I personally think that maybe it can be used more often that what he says. I have that right to disagree with his opinion here because it is just a private theological idea of His Holiness (and one that if I am to disagree with, I must fully understand what that means, though chances are he'd be right and I wrong because he undoubtably knows more than I do in this case because he's both lived longer and studied more theology and philosophy than I have, and is much holier than I am).

The Society of Saint Pius X thinks that they are allowed to disagree with the Pope in which Mass the Church uses. Some of their arguments may be reasonable as to why they prefer one Mass, but they're whole idea is wrong. But just now I posted something that says that the newer Liturgy, because it was promulgated by the Pope, it falls under what we must follow. Obedience in this case is not something we're allowed to shy away from.

In other words, there are certain times we can disagree with the Pope (not very often), but most of the time it is best to obey him, follow him, and in the meantime, try to figure out his reasoning, for maybe that'll lead us to new understanding of our Faith.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 4 2004, 04:03 PM'] The attack on Pope John Paul II's stance on sex and gender roles is particularly ridiculous. His stance is correct and it seems rather arrogant for anyone simply to assume that he is incorrect in this regard simply because this part of his papacy does not have the guarantee of infallibility. [/quote]
They do not claim he is wrong just because of that but because he directly contradicts what Pope Leo XIII wrote and what Pope Pius XI wrote in light of Pope Leo XIII's writing...

"The husband is [i]the chief of the family and the head of the wife[/i]. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, [i]must be subject to her husband and obey him[/i]; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her [i]obedience[/i] shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. [i]Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church[/i], let there always be, both [i]in him who commands and in her who obeys[/i], a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For 'the husband is the head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the Church. . . [i]Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things[/i].' " Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, #11, emphasis added

As compared to Pope John Paul II in Mulieris Dignitatem

"The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife" (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted [i]in the customs and religious tradition of the time[/i], is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church [i]the subjection is only on the part of the Church[/i], in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is [i]not one- sided but mutual[/i]." They also stress that it is troubling that the Pope would say the teaching is a mere "way of speaking" arising from "the sutoms and religious tradition of the time." In religious tradition is Christianity itself! If these Popes all misread this passage by reading it literally throughout all of history, maybe we are too literal in reading St. Paul's condemnations of homosexuality and other "hard sayings". I think they make these points well and very logically.

First they point out of John Paul II says that ONLY the Church is subject not the wife, but Pope Leo XIII emphasizes the point in Ephesians that just as the Church is subject SO TOO THE WIFE IS SUBJECT. John Paul II blatantly contradicts that, saying only the wife is subject. He writes "For the husband is the head of the wife", btu he leaves off "[i]as Christ is the head of the Church[/i]", which clearly shows that the husband is the role of Christ and the wife is the role of the submissive Church to him.

Pius XI in Casti Connubii:

"This order includes both the [i]primacy of the husband[/i] with regard to the wife and children, [i]the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience[/i], which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, [i]because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church[/i]... the structure of the family [i]and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact[/i]."

I don't know how you can argue that he is not directly contradicting these two Popes.

[Socrates]

I repeat this from another thread, because it seems even more relevant here!

HartfordWhalers, no disrespect intended, but I really think you ought to throw away that book! While I myself am not familiar with it, it seems it is extremely misleading, and intending to stir up scandal and disent from the authority of the Church.

"Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I shall build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"!

If the Pope, the sucessor of St. Peter, and the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church are "not very orthodox" and not to be trusted, then who are we supposed to follow as our earthly head of the Church? This Mr. Woods? Amarkich? You? Me? That priest in Montana who claims he's the "real" pope?

There was a reason Jesus Christ instituted an infallible Church on this Earth! Without the guidance of the Church, it is just one man's interpretation of the Faith vs. another's. In other words, you get . . . Protestantism!

Luther, Calvin, et al. also believed the current Church had apostacized and was an imposter and heretical and pagan, etc.! They thought they could go back to the "True Faith."

Shame on all "Catholics" of whatever persuasion, who try to stir up scandal and dissent vs. the Vicar of Christ, because they pridefully think they are "more Catholic than the Pope"!

Sorry if this seems harsh, but I think dissident "Traditionalists" ought to seriously rethink their direction! (There are good Traditionalists, but this "the Pope is not orthodox" stuff is an extremely dangerous tangent - I think the current Holy Father is a far holier and wiser man than you or I, as well as being the successor to St. Peter!)

This post has been edited by Socrates on Sep 4 2004, 09:41 PM

[HartfordWhalers]

Soc.,
Please see my reply to your comment on the other thread. Thank you... oh and I forgot last time-- who is Amarkich? is that another author of like position?

[Socrates]

[quote]"The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife" (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one- sided but mutual." They also stress that it is troubling that the Pope would say the teaching is a mere "way of speaking" arising from "the sutoms and religious tradition of the time." In religious tradition is Christianity itself! If these Popes all misread this passage by reading it literally throughout all of history, maybe we are too literal in reading St. Paul's condemnations of homosexuality and other "hard sayings". I think they make these points well and very logically. [/quote]

This is extreme nitpicking with the purpose of disclaiming the authority of the Pope! The Pope says absolutely nothing here contrary to Scripture or the teaching of previous Popes! JPII does not deny that the husband is head of the wife; he is merely emphasizing that the husband also has duties or "subjection" towards the wife, too ("Husbands love your wives"). The Pope does not dismiss the teaching as "mere way of speaking" - He says that it is "so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time" - but does not say that makes it false or discredited!

These clowns are merely searching for ways to justify their dissent (same as "liberal" dissenters do!) HartforWhalers, this aptly named "Great Facade" is scurrilous garbage and is fit only for use as toilet paper!

God bless (if I may be so "blasphemous" to suggest that God blesses disenters),

~ Socrates

Edited September 5, 2004 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote]Thank you... oh and I forgot last time-- who is Amarkich? is that another author of like position?
[/quote]

He's a very Traditionalist fellow who is (or used to be on this site), though I believe his positions are not as dissident as yours appear to be.

[White Knight]

I respect the Pope, I truely do, but hes not the one in charge of the Church, obviously, I care more about obeying Jesus, rather than the Pope. I have nothing against the Pope at all, I just dont know why, The Pope is such a big influence on the Church alot of the time, Sometimes It feels like the Church is being Governed by Man and less of God, even though I know thats not the case.

[Aloysius]

"obey Jesus or the Church?" the question will never come up, for they are one and the same thing.

the supreme pontiff is the servant of the servants of God. He sacrifices a piece of his free will in order to be Pope. because as Pope, God intervenes to stop him from teaching error from his office. God will infringe upon a popes free will to stop him from teaching error to the Church. because of this, the Pope is in charge of the Church, because God won't let him bring the Church down.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 4 2004, 10:09 PM']
He's a very Traditionalist fellow who is (or used to be on this site), though I believe his positions are not as dissident as yours appear to be. [/quote]
I'm a dissident? I am just reading a book to consider all sides! (By the way, what is it that makes me so dissident, just the fact that I don't accept immediately all the Pope says when it contradicts past Popes and don't try to rationalize it in a roudabout, ineffective, and impossible way? Or is there more?)

Moreover, their argument here seems to me to be that the Pope leaves out the fact that the woman represents the Church AND he says it is a MUTUAL subjection. Just as Christ is NOT subject to the Church, neither is the man subject to the woman. They note that "it is impossibnle to see how authority could exist any more in the family than in the Church if there were a 'mutual subjection' and o ruller-subject realtion between the two spouses. The whole notion of mutual subjection" is a conundrum, since there cannot be a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have to heads."

Edited September 5, 2004 by HartfordWhalers