Pope Vs. Bishop

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1914967' date='Jul 8 2009, 10:47 PM']Whether or not your argument is correct, your terms are incorrect again.

In Unam sanctam, Pope Boniface teaches:

"And we are taught by the texts of the Gospels that in this power of his are two swords, namely spiritual and temporal. . . . Therefore, each is in the power of the Church, that is, a spiritual and a material sword. But the latter, indeed, must be exercised for the Church, the former by the Church. The former by the hand of the priest, the latter by the hand of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. For it is necessary that a sword be under a sword and that temporal authority be subject to spiritual power" (Pope Boniface VIII, [i]Unam sanctam[/i]: Denzinger-Schonmetzer 873)

The term "temporal authority" thus refers to the authority exercised by Catholic civil rulers and their armies.[/quote]
and you are being pedantic again to the point of being offensive.

Dont quote Unam sanctam at me and then be the arbiter of terms as if you hold the higher ground because you have a quote from Denzinger.

There are two authorities the Church exercises:

Temporal
Spiritual (Magisterium)

I basically defined what I meant above in the post to KoC what I meant by temporal authority which is what you call 'disciplinary.' Some theologians use the term 'temporal' in place of 'disciplinary since it is more accurate. Temporal authority of the Church is not the same as temporal authority of the State as you know.


Please learn how to argue based on principles, not on pedanticism.

Edited July 9, 2009 by kafka

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' post='1915053' date='Jul 8 2009, 10:42 PM']and you are being pedantic again to the point of being offensive.

Dont quote Unam sanctam at me and then be the arbiter of terms as if you hold the higher ground because you have a quote from Denzinger.

There are two authorities the Church exercises:

Temporal
Spiritual (Magisterium)

I basically defined what I meant above in the post to KoC what I meant by temporal authority which is what you call 'discipline.' Some theologians use the term 'temporal' in place of 'discipline since it is more accurate. Temporal authority of the Church is not the same as temporal authority of the State as you know.


Please learn how to argue based on principles, not on pedanticism.[/quote]

Instead of complaining about how pedantic I am, why don't you show me a quote from the Magisterium (or from a reputable theologian) that "temporal authority" can refer to the Pope's disciplinary authority over the whole Church?

[zunshynn]

If the bishop put out rubrics to stand and the pope issued a motu proprio to kneel I would definitely kneel.

That doesn't mean that I would be judging my bishop in the least. I most certainly am not in a position to judge him.

However, I do know that there is a hierarchy of authority and I personally feel I should go with that.

For example, if a religious congregation's constitutions happen to differ somehow from the most recent papal document on religious life, they are instructed to obey the most recent papal document until their constitutions are amended. Granted, the pope does approve the constitutions for the congregation to abide by. But when they are at variance with the most recent judgments of the magisterium, they are supposed to go with that, because that is of higher authority. (I'm sorry, I don't know what document says this, but I know there is one... even though it's a slightly different situation, I think it still applies.)

But I would write to the CDW so that the Vatican did know that there were people in the diocese confused by an apparent between the two instructions, so they can work that out the way they see fit.

Kind of like how with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum... even though the Pope did say that priests had the right to celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form, there were some bishops that still gave priests trouble about that. And the motu proprio said that they should have recourse to the CDW. That does not mean judging the bishop at all, or someone telling the bishop what to do, but rather letting the Vatican know about these things so that could be amended and the Holy Father's wishes could be properly implemented.

I wouldn't think less of someone that felt they should stand... I could understand why someone might feel that was more appropriate. But personally, my conscience would dictate that I humbly submit to the clear wishes of the pope, until it was clear that for whatever reason the pope did actually want me to ignore his motu proprio in preference to the bishop's instructions.

[MissyP89]

It definitely depends on the issue at hand.

HOWEVER, in most situations, I would obey my bishop as my local ordinary. If he were to be clearly and obstinately disobedient to Rome, I would follow the Pope's directives.

Submitting in obedience to one's local ordinary is, for me, like accepting a difficult article of faith. I don't always understand it, it might not make sense, and I may even disagree. I have to trust that there are reasons for certain changes, and providing there isn't anything totally errant being enforced, I would obey my bishop.

Edited July 9, 2009 by MissyP89

[Didacus]

The chain of command must be respected; I would obey the bishop in 'most' cases, and leave the errors to be sorted by the pope and magisterium.

Exceptions to this would be, for example, things clearly against Catholic dogma and teachings (if the bishop would claim that abortion was not a sin).

[LouisvilleFan]

Threads like this remind me of Protestants debating postmillenialism.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1915437' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:15 AM']Threads like this remind me of Protestants debating postmillenialism.[/quote]

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1915062' date='Jul 8 2009, 11:47 PM']Instead of complaining about how pedantic I am, why don't you show me a quote from the Magisterium (or from a reputable theologian) that "temporal authority" can refer to the Pope's disciplinary authority over the whole Church?[/quote]
The Magisterium teaches the truths of faith and morals drawn from Tradition and Scripture, it does not act as the arbiter of theological terms. Terminology is not teaching. The term is useful, but not essential.

I tend not to quote from theologians in order to attempt to express the Faith in my own unique way, and to prepare for the day people will need me when there are no books available to quote from.

I live by love-faith-hope, not by quotes from theologians. In my opinion, the best book to quote from to proof text from is the Bible, and then the Magisterial documents. However I would never proof text to arbitrate a theological term. Theological terms and technical terms come and go, some are used during certain time periods, some fall into general use, some fall out of use. Technical terms are non-essential to the truths of the Faith, they aid in communicating the truths of Faith, for example the technical term transubstantiation is not essential to the dogma of the Holy Eucharist. The dogma was taught long before the term was invented, however it aptly explains the mystery. Notice the wording of the Council of Trent:

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-[i]which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.[/i]



So do you see why I got a bit annoyed with you yesterday?

Edited July 9, 2009 by kafka

[Fidei Defensor]

The point being, it's not a matter of sin whether or not you kneel or stand during consecration. The norm is to obey the local ordinary. In the freak chance that the pope would make some kind of decision like this, you'd be safe in obeying him directly, but you wouldn't be sinning if you elected to follow the bishop's direction.

It would be a total different story if it was a matter of faith or morals.

[Didacus]

Example aside, the point to be discussed is;

In case of discrepency between pope and bishop, who should the faithful first follow?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' post='1915659' date='Jul 9 2009, 11:33 AM']The Magisterium teaches the truths of faith and morals drawn from Tradition and Scripture, it does not act as the arbiter of theological terms. Terminology is not teaching. The term is useful, but not essential.

I tend not to quote from theologians in order to attempt to express the Faith in my own unique way, and to prepare for the day people will need me when there are no books available to quote from.

I live by love-faith-hope, not by quotes from theologians. In my opinion, the best book to quote from to proof text from is the Bible, and then the Magisterial documents. However I would never proof text to arbitrate a theological term. Theological terms and technical terms come and go, some are used during certain time periods, some fall into general use, some fall out of use. Technical terms are non-essential to the truths of the Faith, they aid in communicating the truths of Faith, for example the technical term transubstantiation is not essential to the dogma of the Holy Eucharist. The dogma was taught long before the term was invented, however it aptly explains the mystery. Notice the wording of the Council of Trent:

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-[i]which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.[/i]



So do you see why I got a bit annoyed with you yesterday?[/quote]

No, I do not.

The Church has called the conversion of the substance of the breed and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass "Transubstantiation." If one were to call this conversion "Consubstantiation," he would be making a grave error.

Similarly, if someone were to say that Christ is "homo[b]i[/b]ousios" to the Father rather than "homoousios," to the Father, he would be making a grave error.

The correct use of terminology in theology does indeed matter.

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1915835' date='Jul 9 2009, 02:09 PM']No, I do not.

The Church has called the conversion of the substance of the breed and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass "Transubstantiation." If one were to call this conversion "Consubstantiation," he would be making a grave error.

Similarly, if someone were to say that Christ is "homo[b]i[/b]ousios" to the Father rather than "homoousios," to the Father, he would be making a grave error.

The correct use of terminology in theology does indeed matter.[/quote]
you completely missed my point, which isnt surprising.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' post='1915853' date='Jul 9 2009, 01:17 PM']you completely missed my point, which isnt surprising.[/quote]

I understood your point, though I don't necessarily agree with you completely.

Perhaps instead of discussing how theological terms sometimes go in and out of use, why don't you just use the technical terminology laid down by the Magisterium?

Edited July 9, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Didacus]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1915856' date='Jul 9 2009, 01:18 PM']I understood your point, though I don't necessarily agree with you completely.

Perhaps instead of discussing how theological terms sometimes go in and out of use, why don't you just use the technical terminology laid down by the Magisterium?[/quote]


The term is not so important as the meaning.

The term is important in order to properly grasp or express the meaning.


Did I miss something?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kafka' post='1914964' date='Jul 8 2009, 09:42 PM']You are over-simplifying. This is a practice and it is non-essential.

It is also a bad hypothetical since the Pope would never issue a motu proprio like this.[/quote]

I dont care if I am or not. If the Pope clearly teaches to do X, and X is not immoral or against Church teaching, and a Bishop opposes X, I will obey the Pope.