Obeying The Pope

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]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.[/quote]

The Pope is not merely to be "respected" as you would respect a friend, or even a relative. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. He is the direct successor of Peter, and his official declarations on matters of faith and morals are infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit. Certainly, he is not impeccable, however, he is more than mearly a "church leader" in the normative sense. Also, Aloyisius is right, a "pope vs. jesus" situation cannot exist.

HartfordWhalers, the quotes you provided from the Holy Fathers Leo XIII, Pius XI, and John Paul II show no contradiction whatsoever. The Popes Leo and Pius assert that the male is the head, which John Paul does not contradict. The only clear difference is that in John Paul II's writing, he is addressing the growing problem of men forgetting that their calling is not to "be in charge" but to lead responsibly, and this means subjecting ourselves before all, and becoming the greatest of servants. John Paul acknowledges the seperate callings of men and women, and his writing is merely accentuating what those seperate callings entale. For a wife, it is to submit to one's husband, for a husband, it is to give oneself entirely over to their wife. Marriage is a mutual giving of oneself absolutely. Far too many people have flagrantly misunderstood the writings of Leo (and Pius) and focused on simply "him who commands and in her who obeys" rather than marriage as "a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties." The Holy Father John Paul II is merely returning our attention to the latter, while never contradicting the former.

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

If this is really the case, and you are entirely unable to see how the writings of John Paul II are most clearly in line with those of Leo XIII and Pius XI, then I suggest perhaps getting a spiritual director and speaking with him about it.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 4 2004, 11:11 PM'] If this is really the case, and you are entirely unable to see how the writings of John Paul II are most clearly in line with those of Leo XIII and Pius XI, then I suggest perhaps getting a spiritual director and speaking with him about it.
[/quote]
Jeff,

I am not saying all John Paul II has written does, but if you look at what he says about the role of the wife compared to Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, can anyone say they DON'T contradict? This, I think, just goes to show that not everything the Pope says is de facto in line with Tradition. If that is the case, what are we to say about John XXII's view on the Particular Judgment? A view that was deemed HERETICAL by the next Pope... (a view that he rejected on his deathbed but preach FROM THE PULPIT!) It is very simply reconcilled, in fact: just as Vat. I said, not everything that comes out of the Pope's mouth is infallible. I would like to recall the quote from the theologian from the Council of Trent, Melchoir Cano, who was himself quoted by a POPE, Pope St. Pius V, in an encyclical: "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."

To follow all the Pope says, even when it contradicts the Tradition of the Church for 2000 years and Scripture is to disobey this decree of Pope St. Pius V: "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."

[MC Just]

ok First of all, who are we to question the Successors to Peter?? Are you trying to teach the teachers????? Dissenters are bunk.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 5 2004, 12:11 PM'] Infallibly stated by Vatican I:



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. [/quote]
thx zach

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Jeff,

I am not saying all John Paul II has written does, but if you look at what he says about the role of the wife compared to Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, can anyone say they DON'T contradict? This, I think, just goes to show that not everything the Pope says is de facto in line with Tradition. If that is the case, what are we to say about John XXII's view on the Particular Judgment? A view that was deemed HERETICAL by the next Pope... (a view that he rejected on his deathbed but preach FROM THE PULPIT!) It is very simply reconcilled, in fact: just as Vat. I said, not everything that comes out of the Pope's mouth is infallible. I would like to recall the quote from the theologian from the Council of Trent, Melchoir Cano, who was himself quoted by a POPE, Pope St. Pius V, in an encyclical: "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."

To follow all the Pope says, even when it contradicts the Tradition of the Church for 2000 years and Scripture is to disobey this decree of Pope St. Pius V: "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." [/quote]

First I will reply to your particular argument, then I will reply to your general question.

With regards to the specific writings you quoted in previous posts, I was not going to bring it up, but you obviously do not understand the writings, or are copy-pasting writings from others (who in turn did not understand the writings.

Most particularly, I am referring to the assertion which was your entire argument, excluding direct quotations

[quote]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 "as Christ is the head of the Church", which clearly shows that the husband is the role of Christ and the wife is the role of the submissive Church to him.[/quote]

Lets consider the most glaring falsity: The first sentence. Now, as you quoted, John Paul wrote "in the relationship between husband and wife the 'subjection' is not one- sided but mutual." In order for the subjugation to be mutual, the wife [i]must be subject[/i] thus making the first sentence of the above an utter lie. Moreover, as one reads on, we see nothing that contradicts Leo, but rather, simply an assertion that part of being the "head" is complete and total service.

So, that having been said, the following is what is left of your argument:

[quote]He writes "For the husband is the head of the wife", btu he leaves off "as Christ is the head of the Church", which clearly shows that the husband is the role of Christ and the wife is the role of the submissive Church to him.[/quote]

Now we are getting somewhat ridiculous. If you go back and read your own quote from John Paul's writing, he clearly and explicitly relates the husband to Christ, saying "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."

Having addressed these two points, I see no further problems, however, if you have any more questions, please feel free to respond.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Sep 4 2004, 11:36 PM'] ok First of all, who are we to question the Successors to Peter?? Are you trying to teach the teachers????? Dissenters are bunk. [/quote]
Well, I am not one to do so.. that is what John Paul II did. He questioned and contradicted what Pope Leo XIII and Pius XI taught (according to The Great Facade). I am open minded about the issue 100%, but I WILL consider both sides. So far, no one has reconciled what he has said effectively to what Woods and Ferrara contend. I will follow what makes logical sense: The Great Facade is correct. Moreover, you asked who are we to question the Vicar of Christ? I answer with the quote I have already written from a theologian from Trent, repeated by POPE St. Pius V: "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." Those who follow indiscriminately are not truly obedient. They are giving lies and flattery. Moreover, Vatican I does not say the Pope is infallible in this manner. Are we to promise to him and others what Christ has NOT promised to him, which is complete infallibility? We dare not.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hartford, please read my above reply, as I fail to see any form of legitimate argument that has yet to be addressed.

[Dave]

HartfordWhalers, please go to the links I posted earlier in this thread.

[MC Just]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 4 2004, 11:58 PM'] Well, I am not one to do so.. that is what John Paul II did. He questioned and contradicted what Pope Leo XIII and Pius XI taught (according to The Great Facade). I am open minded about the issue 100%, but I WILL consider both sides. So far, no one has reconciled what he has said effectively to what Woods and Ferrara contend. I will follow what makes logical sense: The Great Facade is correct. Moreover, you asked who are we to question the Vicar of Christ? I answer with the quote I have already written from a theologian from Trent, repeated by POPE St. Pius V: "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." Those who follow indiscriminately are not truly obedient. They are giving lies and flattery. Moreover, Vatican I does not say the Pope is infallible in this manner. Are we to promise to him and others what Christ has NOT promised to him, which is complete infallibility? We dare not. [/quote]
and you really think you know better? I do not think so.

[HartfordWhalers]

I am sorry I completely mistyped something... I was writing so many "subject to" 's that I mixed up completely what I was trying to say:

"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 [u][b]Church and NOT the[/b][/u] wife is subject."

That is how it should have read. I am sorry I said what I meant backwards.


You said he wrote nothing that contradicts Pope Leo XII, right here he wrote that the Church only and not the wife is subject: "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."

[quote]Lets consider the most glaring falsity: The first sentence. Now, as you quoted, John Paul wrote "in the relationship between husband and wife the 'subjection' is not one- sided but mutual." In order for the subjugation to be mutual, the wife must be subject thus making the first sentence of the above an utter lie. [/quote]

Mutual subjection is no subjection at all, as I quoted from the book itself: "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."


Me: "He writes "For the husband is the head of the wife", but he leaves off "as Christ is the head of the Church", which clearly shows that the husband is the role of Christ and the wife is the role of the submissive Church to him." "

[quote]Now we are getting somewhat ridiculous. If you go back and read your own quote from John Paul's writing, he clearly and explicitly relates the husband to Christ, saying "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."[/quote]

No, it is not ridiculous because he recognizes the fact that the husband must sacrifice but completely leaves out the part where he is the "ruler" or "head" of the family to whom the wife MUST be subject.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Sep 5 2004, 12:09 AM'] and you really think you know better? I do not think so. [/quote]
What do you mean..??

Do YOU think YOU know better than Popes Leo XII and Pius XI??

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Dave' date='Sep 5 2004, 12:06 AM'] HartfordWhalers, please go to the links I posted earlier in this thread. [/quote]
I don't have nearly enough time to read all of those links through. That is almost a small book, considering it would be probably the main story for 5 different issues. In any event, I am not discussing the merit of the book as of this time but rather the issue of the apparant contradiction here of John Paul II and two previous Popes.

[qfnol31]

The Popes don't contradict as often as it seems. Oftentimes, they only contradict when what they've said is misunderstood.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 5 2004, 12:19 AM'] The Popes don't contradict as often as it seems. Oftentimes, they only contradict when what they've said is misunderstood. [/quote]
If I misunderstand, then please explain what John Paul II means and how that doesn't contradict what previous Popes have said. How about his position on being able to read at a protestant service. Pius XI said that NO CATHOLIC could participate in the services of non-Catholics and that the Church has NEVER allowed any Catholic to do so. So, then, I would say he has contradicted right there over 350 Popes.

[Apotheoun]

In his comments on Ephesians the present Pope has said nothing shocking, nor has he taught anything in opposition to the previous teaching of the Papal Magisterium. No Pope has ever taught that a wife must give the same kind of submission to her husband that the Church gives to Christ, because to say that would be to fall into a form of idolatry. Christ is God, and so the Church owes Him absolute submission, but a wife's submission to her husband is relative, because he is merely a created being, and to say otherwise is idolatrous. Moreover, the section of Ephesians on submission begins with the verse which says, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ," [Eph. 5:21] and so it follows that everyone must be subject to those around them for Christ's sake, and not simply wives in subjection to husbands. The text goes on to point out the nature of the submission given, i.e., that wives are subject to their husbands because man is the head of woman, but text continues by saying that husbands must love their wives and must die for them as Christ died for the Church. Now, to die for someone is also a form of subjection, and in fact it is the ultimate form of subjection that one person can give to another person. [cf. St. Ignatius, Trallians, chap. 11] The problem with the socalled "traditionalists" is that they fail to take into account the integral nature of Catholic tradition; instead, they try to isolate individual elements of the tradition and in the process they fall into a form of Protestant reductionism. No Catholic would ever try to pit the teaching of one Pope against another. The Papal Magisterium is a diachronic reality, and so in a mysterious way the Popes (all 264 of them and however many more are yet to come) are a single corporate person acting as the visible head of the Church until Christ's Parousia.