I looked around on the board, curious what people were saying about this, but couldn’t find a topic on it. So, in a nutshell, the Pope has declared that capitalism is evil, and has ordered us all to support socialism. I’m curious how conservative Catholics feel about this. After all, this is a papal exhortation. What exactly is expected of Catholics in response to this?
According to the Vatican’s Code of Canon Law, “religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”
[QUOTE=http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM]Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
So this is perhaps a question about Catholicism, which is sometimes hard for my Protestant brain to digest. Are you all now expected to submit your wills and intellects before socialism? How does this work? Just not clear on the whole submitting of wills and intellects thing.
J. Anderson. I dont believe that the pope was speaking from the chair of Peter, Unless im missing something. Popes are always allowed to have personal opinion which we have a choice to either agree with or not to agree with.
It was the same with the pharasees. In the bible Christ told the people to listen to them when they speak from the chair of Moses, but do not act as they act because they are a brood of vipers. He was speaking specifically of the pharasees.
The chair of Moses was no where to be found in the old testament yet Christ did bring it up because it was not in scripture but it was in sacred oral tradition which shows that Christ himself placed great value in this old testament authority given by God and recorded in sacred Oral tradition.
Now getting back to the question, if the pope is not speaking from the chair of Peter we are under no obligation to agree with it at all.
My brother if Given the chance would kiss Obama’s backside, me I would boot that backside out of my house, yet we are both Catholics. Hes a flaming liberal and im a conservative who was grown from an independent moderate.
I most certainly do not place the words of any religious leader above the scriptures so embracing the most anti scriptural and evil concept for society (Socialism) is not going to happen.
Charity is an individual choice, no benefit for giver or receiver is possible when forced at gunpoint.
God submits his throne to no government, those who replace God with government are loathsome stumbling blocks to Faith and Salvation for all who suffer under this wrath.
I have no idea what criteria was chosen in selecting this Pope but he has been profoundly wrong on multiple topics so far.
The suffering that will ensue in any nation that embraces his evil concepts will be a tragedy of epic proportions. The voices of class warfare and violence are getting louder as their concepts fail, the endorsement of these failed ideas by a Pope could be the catalyst that gives these monsters the army they need to continue their destruction at a time when they were dying by the fruit of their own creation.
Here is my take . . . SPECULATION only . . . on this whole issue of Francis and some of his utterances that, IMO, have been less than wise.
The College of Cardinals, in their Papal Conclave (the current mechanism to elect a pope, though other methods were used prior to that, most notably political appointments which ended badly in most cases), decided that since South America was the fastest growing and most heavily populated area of Catholicism, it might be appropriate to select a pope from that area. I think this may have been a mistake.
Most countries in South America are socialistic to one degree or another, some even drifting to communism. Plus, the poor in that area are most abundant.
So, someone who was born and raised in that area is going to lean toward socialism and class warfare. That IS, IMO again, the perspective of Francis. He brings that baggage to the Vatican.
Consequently, his pronouncements are clouded by that perspective. My sense is that the Cardinals regret their choice, and old hands at the Vatican are rolling their eyes and shaking their heads every time Francis opens his mouth.
Wall and CT can speak more knowledgeably on that Chair of Peter stuff.
Right, but I’m talking about the theology. Your post basically implicitly assumes that Catholicism is false. Which is fine; I think it’s false also. I’m a Protestant; I don’t have to submit my will or intellect to anyone. In fact, Luther says that a Christian must never submit his or her will or intellect to anyone, especially over matters of faith and morality: for Luther, it’s the duty of a Christian to take personal responsibility on these issues.
Anyway, my point is: I don’t see how a serious Catholic can endorse the argument you just made. Within Catholic theology as I understand it, the very idea of a “mistake” vis-a-vis the naming of a Pope is outrageous. In Catholic doctrine, there are no “mistakes” in such matters, because God’s hand guides these decisions. Nor can (serious) Catholics argue that a Pope is merely motivated by local prejudices and what not with respect to his official communications. The Pope is* kind of a big deal* in Catholicism.
What most people don’t know about this pope is that he comes from a continent and country steeped in “liberation theology” (a “Christianized” version of marxism) which has been condemned by previous popes (John Paul II, specifically). He is also a Jesuit which has a long history of disobedience and in rejecting many Catholic teachings and being in conflict with Rome. All one has to do is look at those who love him (liberals) and those who are very concerned about him (conservatives). A friend of mine who spent 2 years in South America (Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay) was there when he was the Bishop and said that he has a history of rebellion against Church teachings. How he was elected pope is beyond my scope of understanding. All I can do is pray for him and hope that he sees the damage he is doing.
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Contrary to an opinion that seems to be popular in certain circles, Pope Francis did not attack global capitalism in his “apostolic exhortation” last week.
He did not say capitalism was evil, or that it had not led to prosperity of historic proportions. He did not even call for a socialist redistribution of wealth. Read the pope’s exhortation, “The Joy of the Gospel” (the paragraphs devoted to economics and poverty are 53-56).
Pope Francis did not even use the word “capitalism” in the offending four paragraphs and the only globalization he decried was the “globalization of indifference.”
Rather he made an impassioned plea for society and government to protect the vulnerable from the predations of the greedy, to include everyone in this prosperity — not by taking from the rich to give to the poor but by making sure they have a role to play.
He does indeed attack unbridled financial speculation and runaway greed, but no one would defend these as core elements of a functioning capitalism system … right?
Speaking of growing inequalities even in developed economies, Francis says, “This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation.”
The operative word here is “absolute.” These ideologies, the pope continues, “reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual.”
Far from being a fuzzy, neo-socialist critique, the analysis by this Jesuit pope is a clear-eyed description of abuses that characterize too much of business and politics in our era of born-again social Darwinism.
Francis is only calling for the protections and equity for working people and the disadvantaged that industrial economies spent much of the 20th century in establishing. He is trying to remind us that there are other values in life besides money.
J.P. Morgan Chase economist James Glassman nonetheless felt compelled to leap to the defense of capitalism, citing its record of creating prosperity.
“Those concerned about global poverty have more to be thankful today than to complain about,” he wrote in a research note without mentioning Pope Francis by name. “The commonly heard complaints that today’s economic systems fail to address the plight of the poor ignore several fundamental facts.”
Not guilty, one is tempted to say on the pope’s behalf. Just because there’s much to be thankful for doesn’t mean we shouldn’t complain about abuses and injustices. Urging that more be done to support the poor does not mean one is ignoring the powerful engine of wealth creation in our modern economy.
Conservative Fox Business News commentator Stuart Varney goes so far as to say that the pope is meddling in politics because “he has offered direct criticism of a specific political system.”
Again, not guilty. Pope Francis is explicitly attacking ideologies that apotheosize money at the expense of the general public welfare but in no way is he calling into question the democratic, capitalist political systems of Europe, the U.S. or the rest of the world.
Wallstreeter: While I can certainly understand and applaud your efforts to explain what Pope Francis has said about capitalism, what concerns me and others like me is that every time he opens his mouth, volumes of explanations of “what he really meant” follows. This should not be. Rarely, if ever, did anyone have to explain what Pope Benedict said or wrote. I stand by my assessment that he is flagrantly careless about what he says or writes. From what I can gather, he appears to be a liberal (marxist-leaning) and is blinded like a deer in headlights by being in the “spot-light”. He seems to think he is a celebrity, not the leader and public example of the Catholic Church.
As far as submitting your will and intellect to anyone, do you not submit those through faith in Jesus Christ?
What did Jesus Say to the apostles? Whoever listens to you listens to the one who sent you. I didnt want to get into this but since you claimed that catholicism is plainly wrong I must respond.
Im not a believer in sola scriptura (bible alone) as it was never believed by the early Christians and early Church.
J, Did the apostles have students who they trained and ordained as heads of the early church to teach and evangelize all people?
If yes they did they teach their students to believe and teach?
Did they teach them not to read the bible on their own? Certainly not. Did they teach them that each individual could interprete the bible in any way they saw fit? They most certainly did not.
Lets see exactly what the apostolic fathers taught.
You certainly dont understand What Jesus taught as far as the chair of Moses but it is most certainly a seat of teaching and interpretive authority. This is exactly why he told the people to follow what they are teaching when they teach it from the chair of Moses, but not to follow their actions outside of the chair.
Ignatius of antioch was a student of John the apostle. Ignatius of antioch was ordained the 3rd bishop of antioch by the apostles.What did John teach ignatious as far as who the Christian Flock should follow?
The early Church Fathers are indispensable resources for Catholic apologetics, helping to bridge the gap between our own time and the age of the apostles. Not only do they provide extrabiblical verification of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, they also provide a great deal of insight into what the early Christians believed and how they interpreted Scripture.
Ignatius lived from around A.D. 35 to 107. He was the third bishop of Antioch and tradition records that he was a disciple of the apostle John (cf. The Maryrdom of Ignatius). During the reign of Emperor Trajan, he was taken to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. Along the way he wrote seven letters—one to St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and six others to various churches.
On the Authority of the Catholic Church
The Greek root of the term catholic means “according to the whole” or “universal.” Ignatius uses the term to refer to the visible and authoritative Church:
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
This is an early Christian writing between 107ad to 110ad that explicitely shows what the early Christians were taught to believe by one of the apostolic Fathers Ignatius of antioch. He didnt say “guy do your own thing, interpret the bible any way you see fit as it all doesnt matter how scripture is interpreted” He specifically said follow the bishop.
The docetists preached what you are preaching right now J. Anderson . They read same scriptures you have access to now yet they came to a very different conclusion then you or I did.They did not believe that Jesus Christ had a real Physical form but it was an illusion and that he was all spirit and no flesh. The Church wasted no time in condemning them as heretics.Did the early Church condemn Ignatious even once as a heretic for telling the flock to follow the bishop? Not even once. Again Jesus Said, whoever follows you, follows the one who sent you.
What did Ignatious and the early Church have to say about the docetists who also as you do J Anderson choose to interpret scripture your own personal way.
On the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (1374). In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius addresses the issue of those who do not believe as the Church does:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6
Here Ignatius equates the Eucharist to the same flesh of Christ that suffered for our sake on the cross. Jesus also uses this literal comparison when he explained, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).
Ignatius also explains that the Eucharist must be administered either by a bishop or one of his ordained ministers:
Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.—Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch
what else does Ignatious say?
Ignatius urges the faithful to submit to the authority of their bishop because it is the will of God:
But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the manifested will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ… Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. —Letter to the Ephesians, Ch 3,5
Again, this is someone who was trained by John the apostle telling the flock to submit to the will of the bishop.
Ignatius recognizes the authority, or “presidency,” in particular of the Church at Rome:
Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church wich also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. —Letter to the Romans, Intro
Ignatius indicates that the Church at Rome possessed the authority to teach others:
In closing J. Anderson you submit your will to Christ but U dont do so with the ones he taught and the ones they taught. What did Christ say to the apostles?
“HE WHO HEARS YOU,HEARS ME”,
Jesus never said there wouldnt be problems in his Church, but he also promised Peter and the apostles that the gates of hades would not prevail over it.
And yes there have been a few bad popes but it will doesnt make the 2000 year old institution of the catholic church wrong.
Do we know every part of God’s plan? Certainly not and no Christian would say that, do we still trust him? Yes.
By what authority to do you use to interpret scripture? Personal authority? Read the writings of the apostolic fathers and the early Church fathers such as Clemente of Rome , ignatius of antioch etc, and the early pre niceane fathers that followed them. It was exactly my intellect and will that lead me to the church after going to many different churches in search of what was taught to the earliest Christians and the early Christian Church
CT, I can understand what you mean, and I also wish he would be alot more clear in what he is saying, but lets not discount his other actions also. What pope has ever sneaked out of the vatican disguised to help the homeless, choosing not to live in the lush palace of the cardinals. I agree with you that he is not perfect, but no pope ever was. CT you know how conservative I am both socially and politically. I learned about liberation theology last year from a girl that followed it and I hate it like the plague. I really hope that the pope doesnt personally believe in this, But what J Anderson was talking about was the Pope’s authority which is a completely different issue here.
We had the same issues that came after vatican 2 and many times they had to more fully clarify what it meant. I dont like it but at least they didnt leave it hanging in the wind.
If he is a liberal marxist leaning guy then I dont agree with his personal opinion CT, but when a pope speaks from the chair of peter CT, you know as well as I do that he speaks infallibly.
If I denied the chair of Peter I would cease to be Catholic as the sedevacantists have done.
sedevacantist believe that the chair of Peter has been empty from the last 4 or 5 popes (cant remember the exact numbers)
Do I join them or do I hang on the promise that Christ said to Peter that the gates of hades shall not prevail over this Church.
Ill take Christ’s word.
Ok I finally found what an apostolic Exortation is, and no they are not church doctrine
Apostolic exhortations often concern similar topics but do not define doctrine and are normally directed at encouraging certain groups within the Church to certain activities.
So no we dont have to agree with them if we choose not to.
Even though I hate to quote Wikipedia I have to in this instance. They 100% dont encourage doctrine and on top of that they are written to encourage certain groups within the church
An apostolic exhortation is a type of communication from the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. It encourages a community of people to undertake a particular activity but does not define Church doctrine. It is considered lower in formal authority than a papal encyclical
Here are some examples
Africae munus (On the Church in Africa in Service to Reconciliation, Justice and Peace)
Christifideles Laici (Christ’s Faithful People, 1988, Pope John Paul II)
Ecclesia in America (The Church in America, 1999, Pope John Paul II)
Ecclesia in Asia (The Church in Asia, 1999, Pope John Paul II)
Ecclesia in Europa (The Church in Europe)
Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel, 2013, Pope Francis)
Evangelii Nuntiandi (On Evangelization in the Modern Age, 1975, Pope Paul VI)
Familiaris Consortio (On the Christian Family in the Modern World, 1981, Pope John Paul II)
Pastores Gregis (For the Hope of the World)
Pastores Dabo Vobis (Shepherds After My Own Heart, 1992, Pope John Paul II)
Reconciliatio and Pœnitentia (On Reconciliation and Penance)
Redemptoris Custos (Guardian of The Redeemer, 1989, Pope John Paul II)
Sacramentum Caritatis (On the Sacrament of Love, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI)
Verbum Domini (On the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI)
Vita Consecrata (On the Consecrated Life)
It is not an encyclical. It is not an apostolic letter. It is only an apostolic exhortation.
I caution all of you (and myself as well) not to rely only on accounts or summaries of this document in the New York Times, or Fishwrap, or … name your liberal source… or trad source for that matter. I am for now avoiding reading about it.
See if you can avoid getting kicked by the knee-jerks.
I will have more observations later. However, as I have begun my work on it – and when I land on something that I sense will be controversial – one of the things that I constantly remind myself of is “About whom is the Pope talking in this phrase?” and also, “What does that really mean?” Half the time, when I review his daily sermons, I have a hard time figuring out what on earth he is talking about. What on earth does he mean by “ideology”, anyway? When he talks about people who do “X” (something bad), I am often often hard-pressed to determine precisely to whom he is referring. I am finding that in this document too, but I still have a lot more to read.
So as we can see This isnt spoken from the Chair of peter as far as I know.
[quote=“J.Anderson, post:8, topic:41903”]
Your post basically implicitly assumes that Catholicism is false. Which is fine; I think it’s false also
[/quote]Whoa . . . whoa . . . whoa. Let’s not make the leap from me saying that the pope is socialist/leftist leaning and perhaps has poor communications skills to me saying Catholicism is “false”. I have no idea which of the gazillion sects is “right”, though my own personal belief system has discarded some of the Roman Catholic dogma I was exposed to in my upbringing.
I have long since left the Roman Catholic church . . . nevertheless I still consider myself a Christian. I suppose by default I am a Protestant, but I wouldn’t identify with any particular sect. Much like my politics, I would consider myself “eclectic” . . . Christian is to my religion as conservative is to my politics, and I don’t get much more specific than that. I’m a mongrel, not a purebred.
Plus, I don’t think we want to start any Protestant versus Catholic wars. Not saying that’s what you’re doing, but that’s why I did the “whoa . . . whoa” dance. I just don’t want to open that Pandora’s box, or be the cause of it myself.
[quote=“J.Anderson, post:8, topic:41903”]
Anyway, my point is: I don’t see how a serious Catholic can endorse the argument you just made
[/quote]I’ll let wall and CT deal with that one. That’s way way above my pay grade.
[quote=“J.Anderson, post:8, topic:41903”]
Within Catholic theology as I understand it, the very idea of a “mistake” vis-a-vis the naming of a Pope is outrageous. In Catholic doctrine, there are no “mistakes” in such matters, because God’s hand guides these decisions. Nor can (serious) Catholics argue that a Pope is merely motivated by local prejudices and what not with respect to his official communications. The Pope is* kind of a big deal* in Catholicism.
[/quote]Again, I’ll defer to wall and CT on these issues.
First of all, the Chair of Moses, as referred to by Jesus in Matthew 23, was an element of Jewish oral Tradition. The “chair of Moses” was Moses’ teaching authority – the authority inherited by the legitimate teachers of Israel:
It is recorded in the Midrash Rabbah:
They made for him (Moses) a chair like that of the advocates, in which one sits and yet seems to be standing. (Exodus Rabbah 43:4)
Also, the Pesikta siRav Kahana 1:7 mentions the “chair of Moses”, and the editors of the English edition comment:
The particular place in the synagogue where the leaders used to sit was known metaphorically as the “chair of Moses” or as the “Throne of the Torah”, symbolizing the succession of teachers of Torah (from Moses) down through the ages.
Also, if you ask any Orthodox Jewish rabbi, he will tell you that he holds (in part) the “Chair of Moses” today.
Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees (i.e, the full Sanhedrin, with the High Priest as its head) rightfully succeeded to this “Chair of Moses”. See also Acts 23:3-5, where Paul calls the High Priest the legitimate ruler of the people of Israel.
Simply put, the “Chair of Moses” was the teaching authority of the synagogue; and …
This teaching was no where to be found in the old testament, but it was passed down through Sacred Tradition and it was held just as important as Sacred Scripture (not sola scripture or bible alone) and it was widely understood and believed as such and even Christ himself recognized this ORAL TRADITION WHICH IS NO WHERE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE.
Simply put, the “Chair of Moses” was the teaching authority of the synagogue; and …
On the local level, the “Chair of Moses” was held by the principal rabbi of a particular city’s synagogue (e.g. Corinth or Rome).
On the regional level, the “Chair of Moses” was held by the principal rabbi of a particular region (e.g. Rabbi Akiba at Jamnia).
BUT, … On the universal level, the “Chair of Moses” was ACTUALLY held by the High Priest in Jerusalem. This is more than clear from John 11:49-52 and from Acts 23:2-5, where Paul backs down because the law defined the High Priest as “the ruler of thy people”. See also Acts 28:17-21, where those who held the “Chair of Moses” in Rome (i.e., the “leaders of the Jews”: 28:17) speak about receiving authoritative instruction from Jerusalem (i.e., from the ACTUAL and UNIVERSAL “Chair of Moses”, the High Priest).
For the Jews of the Diaspora, one could not be said to be part of Israel if he rejected the rightful authority of Jerusalem. Such a position would make oneself a Samaritan.
Indeed, the Jewish historian Josephus says how the Hellenistic Jews before the fall of the theocracy in Palestine looked reverently toward Jerusalem and favored religious currents coming from it:
Doubts were referred there for solution… (Josephus, Contra Apion 1.30-36)
We also know that the Jews of the Dispersion turned to Jerusalem for their Scriptures (2 Maccabees 2.13-15) and for its translation [Est 11.1 (Vulgate); 10.31 (LXX)]. Such were appeals to the ultimate “Chair of Moses” (Matthew 23:1-3), the High Priest and the Sanhedrin itself.
So, to answer your other question about the Septuagint Greek canon being approved by Jerusalem in c. 200 B.C., … Both Josephus and 2 Maccabees 2:13-15 (compared with 2 Maccabees 1:1-6) testify to the fact that the Jews of Alexandria, Egypt (where the Septuagint canon was fomed) based their orthodoxy on the decrees from Jerusalem.
Also, … According to both Jewish and Christian tradition, the Septuagint was compiled by scholars from Jerusalem under the supervision of the High Priest:
If God himself recognized this as the one he gave to these Church authorities then I will stand with Christ and do the same and that is why I recognize the authority of the Chair of Peter to interpret scripture.
[QUOTE=Wallstreet]As far as submitting your will and intellect to anyone, do you not submit those through faith in Jesus Christ?[/QUOTE]
I don’t get your point. What does the subordinate status of human beings before God have to do with my claim that I don’t owe any other human being a “submission” of my will and intellect?
I appreciate your arguments on behalf of Papistry, but I’m just not interested in discussing them.
[QUOTE=Wallstreet]Ok I finally found what an apostolic Exortation is, and no they are not church doctrine [/QUOTE]
I gave you a link to to an explanation of apostolic exortations from John Paul II. Here it is again:
According to John Paul II, “the faithful owe what is called ‘religious submission of will and intellect’” to apostolic exhortations. “Catholics, therefore, are to give religious submission to the teaching of post-synodal apostolic exhortations. They are expected to accept what is taught in an exhortation and act in accordance with it.”
I’m reasonably sure John Paul II has a pretty good idea what he’s talking about regarding these internal Catholic legalities (with all due respect to wiki and some random blogger that you cite). It does say that exhortations do not define doctrine, but it seems that Catholics are still expected to submit to them.
[quote=“wallstreeter43, post:4, topic:41903”]
Like I said RET, I as a conservative Catholic am not in any way , shape or form obligated to follow the pope’s personal opinions
[/quote]Addendum to J.Anderson:
I think this may be the crux of the issue . . . whether or not you believe this utterance was a “personal opinion”, or speaking from the “chair of Peter”, or this “authentic magisterium” you’re talking about, or this "apostolic exhortation (and I’ll freely admit I have absolutely no idea what the last two are, nor do I have my arms around this “chair” thing . . . all I remember from my catechism classes is “matters of faith”, and whether or not Francis was making a proclamation that fits that criteria . . . again CT and wall can speak to that . . . I have no idea what the criteria are.)
Thanks Bob, the last 3 of my posts have dealt with this J. Andersons posts. I Studied many different denominations when I wanted to seek and make sure that Im A catholic not just because I was born and baptised one but because this is what the early Church taught.
As far as my Family. My dad calls himself a Christian, My mom calls herself a Catholic. Now my Dad had an issue at times because when he was akid back home in lebanon a priest tried to molest him (but he left the priest before he made the attempt). This falls under "the church has many Good preists that try to follow the Church and less then 2% of bad priests that have their own perverted agenda. It doesnt change the ancient teachings of the church as passed down by Christ to the apostles, the apostles to the apostolic fathers and so on.
As another early Church leader Irenaeus of Lyons said that in order to combat all the false teachings of his day that those who want to know the truth must know the Church that teaches from apostolic tradition and this church must be able to enumerate the successors to the apostles from the apostles to their day. Interpretation of the bible as far as doctrine was never held to be a person matter, it was on the authority given to the leader of the church.
Again I will quote St. Irenaeus of Lyons, a student of St. Polycarp (who, in turn, was the student of St. John the Apostle). In his famous work Against Heresies, in which he took it upon himself to combat all of the false teachings of his time. He openly affirms that “Those that wish to discern the truth may observe the apostolic tradition made manifest in every church throughout the world. We can enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the apostles, and their successors down to our own day, who never taught, and never knew, absurdities such as these men produce. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught the perfect in private and in secret they would rather have committed them to those to whom the entrusted the churches. For they wished those men to be perfect and unblamable whom they left and their successors and to whom they handed over their office of authority…” He futher goes on to refute the heretics of his day by simply affirming that “For all these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to whom the apostles handed over the churches . … . It is of necessity, then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in devious paths, . … . The path of those, however, who belong to the Church goes around the whole world, for it has the firm tradition of the apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same.” (ibid. 5:20:1)
Bob as I have shown in my posts this wasnt spoken from the Chair of Peter (as far as I have seen so far ) and therefore I dont need to submit my will and intellect to it.
So far I have to correct this and say that I probably am wrong about it. Just wanna make sure this is known