Pope Vs. Bishop

[kafka]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1915941' date='Jul 9 2009, 03:13 PM']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.[/quote]
but the hypothetical isnt a teaching, it is a practice. So one has to treat it like a practice, and apply principles to it like a practice.

Plus the hypothetical was bad since a bishop who revises a practice might not be acting in defiance, he could be acting for a just and good reason.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1915438' date='Jul 9 2009, 10:16 AM'][/quote]

In other words, there is no more authority among the participants of this discussion on this topic than there is among Protestants debating their various beliefs about the Second Coming. Some people here clearly understand how the Church operates and what it means -- practually speaking -- for the Bishop of Rome to have authority over the whole Church, but nobody's authority on the matter is respected enough to settle the question we're trying to answer.

Resurrexi, you need to recognize that your book knowledge about the Faith is impractical when it comes to how the many relationships among clergy and laypeople within and outside the Church operate in the real world. You can't learn about Church politics from the Catechism or Code of Canon Law; that comes from experiencing it firsthand, to the point that you come to a crossroads that either drives you away from the Church, makes you cling more tightly to her, or into some middle ground where both joy and innocence are sacrificed for mediocrity and cynicism. Seeing as you are so proudly orthodox and knowledgeable today, I don't think you could settle for that lukewarm middle ground, which tells me the 25-year-old Resurrexi will either be in seminary or an atheist, but definitely not both.

Edited July 9, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[zunshynn]

This analogy has obvious flaws but I would think about it this way:

Parents go out of town and leave their children, a son in junior high and a girl who is a senior in high school, at home, leaving the eldest in charge. They tell them not to take any trips while they are gone.

After they leave, the eldest plans a trip anyway to San Francisco (notice we're not talking about anything sinful in itself, but that is against the parents express wishes).

Is the younger kid wrong to refuse to go with his older sister? No, because even though she technically is in charge of him, she is going against the express wishes of her parents. Of course if he does go along with her, she's the one that is ultimately responsible for their disobedience. But he should be obedient to his parents before his sister, when they are clearly in opposition.



Maybe this would be a better comparison. If the novice mistress of a religious congregation tells the novices to do something contrary to what their major superior has told them to do (knowingly or unknowingly), are they right to obey the major superior? Yes, (although it would be understandable if they obeyed the novice mistress) And they should humbly bring it to the attention of the novice mistress that they had been told to do otherwise by the community's superior. It does not have to be judgmental of the novice mistress, but merely acting in deference to a higher authority.

Edited July 9, 2009 by zunshynn

[zunshynn]

[quote name='kafka' post='1915950' date='Jul 9 2009, 01:21 PM']Plus the hypothetical was bad since a bishop who revises a practice might not be acting in defiance, he could be acting for a just and good reason.[/quote]

but he would have to be given the authority to do that (i.e. the directives from the pope expressly said that they could be adapted in different dioceses the way the bishops sees fit). If the bishop hasn't been given the authority to do so in a particular situation, the faithful are not wrong to obey the express the directives of the pope in that regard. While, of course, not spurning his authority and being obedient in all other respects.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1914906' date='Jul 8 2009, 07:32 PM']We do not have to obey a Bishop who ask us to do something counter to truth. It is as simple as that. To obey a order that we know is counter to truth would be a great injustice.[/quote]
no one (that i noticed) has said anything about the fact that God blesses our obedience. when we obey our bishop (who may be in error), while writing to the CDW or the Pope or the Papal Nuncio, God will bless us in our obedience to our bishop.

[quote name='kafka' post='1915053' date='Jul 8 2009, 09:42 PM']pedanticism.[/quote]
i love this word. ha ha

[Apotheoun]

I would do what is the traditional liturgical practice of my [i]sui juris[/i] Church. That said, the question put forward in this thread is rather academic from an Eastern Christian perspective, because the liturgy is the expression of the Apostolic [i]paradosis[/i] par excellence, which means that it is not open to constant revision through the juridical acts of a bishop.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1916027' date='Jul 9 2009, 04:43 PM']I would do what is the traditional liturgical practice of my [i]sui juris[/i] Church. That said, the question put forward in this thread is rather academic from an Eastern Christian perspective, because the liturgy is the expression of the Apostolic [i]paradosis[/i] par excellence, which means that it is not open to constant revision through the juridical acts of a bishop.[/quote]

oh how I wish the west would take note to this.

[zunshynn]

I second that.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1915941' date='Jul 9 2009, 01:13 PM']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.[/quote]
The problem is that you're missing the boat here. No one is arguing that if a bishop is teaching something clearly against the church's faith, that you should follow. The point that's trying to be made is that you're [b]not in the wrong either way when it comes to whether or not you kneel or stand during consecration, if there is a conflict between a bishop and the pope in this hypothetical situation.[/b]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1916176' date='Jul 9 2009, 07:40 PM']The problem is that you're missing the boat here. No one is arguing that if a bishop is teaching something clearly against the church's faith, that you should follow. The point that's trying to be made is that you're [b]not in the wrong either way when it comes to whether or not you kneel or stand during consecration, if there is a conflict between a bishop and the pope in this hypothetical situation.[/b][/quote]

That would depend on what was written in the hypothetical motu proprio, and how the Pope would condemn standing during consecration. Such as if the Pope condemned it as heretical and back it up with numerous teachings of the Church.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1916178' date='Jul 9 2009, 06:46 PM']That would depend on what was written in the hypothetical motu proprio, and how the Pope would condemn standing during consecration. Such as if the Pope condemned it as heretical and back it up with numerous teachings of the Church.[/quote]
I think it's safe to assume that in this hypothetical situation, standing during consecration is not heretical. The point of a hypothetical situation is to demonstrate certain points. A conflict between a bishop and the pope in matters not pretaining to specific teachings is the point of this one. But like I said, a catholic could follow either their bishop or the pope, in good faith, and be okay.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1916188' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:14 PM']I think it's safe to assume that in this hypothetical situation, standing during consecration is not heretical. The point of a hypothetical situation is to demonstrate certain points. A conflict between a bishop and the pope in matters not pretaining to specific teachings is the point of this one. But like I said, a catholic could follow either their bishop or the pope, in good faith, and be okay.[/quote]

Still it would really depend on how and what was written in the motu proprio.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1916188' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:14 PM']I think it's safe to assume that in this hypothetical situation, standing during consecration is not heretical. The point of a hypothetical situation is to demonstrate certain points. A conflict between a bishop and the pope in matters not pretaining to specific teachings is the point of this one. But like I said, a catholic could follow either their bishop or the pope, in good faith, and be okay.[/quote]

If a bishop's command obviously and certainly contradicted the command of the pope, one could not follow it since a mere bishop has no authority to overrule a papal decision.

[LouisvilleFan]

Everybody here thinks the answer is obvious... and on page 4 you all have reached no consensus.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1916535' date='Jul 10 2009, 05:06 AM']If a bishop's command obviously and certainly contradicted the command of the pope, one could not follow it since a mere bishop has no authority to overrule a papal decision.[/quote]
If it's not related to specific doctrines or beliefs, then yes one could. This isn't an ex cathedra statement. The way the system of authority works is that in matters of specific practices, the bishops have individual say over their diocese, within reason. Unless the Pope specifically says "there will be no deviation from this under pang of excommunication," which was not stipulated in this hypothetical situation, then the faithful can safely obey either the pope or their bishop.

If you want to throw a hissyfit about obeying the pope and his authority in matters of truly important things like beliefs and not about standing or kneeling during the mass, then start another thread. This thread is talking [b]only[/b] about practices and non-essential decisions.