Denise does raise valid questions. When John XXII held that those who die in grace still do not see God face to face until after the resurrection, what justified Thomas Waleys denouncing that doctrine, and what made it wrong for Church authorities to punish Thomas Waleys? How do we know that Benedict XII, who followed him, was right in defining that they do see God face to face?
In some ways it is far easier to see the answer after the fact. John XXII held what he did as a personal opinion, albeit one he shared publicly, which he recanted later. Benedict XII clearly defined the matter with authority. But at the time, before the issue was settled (and in the midst of debates over papal infallibility that were raging at the time) it would be quite difficult to sort out.
The practical answer is this: we hold what is clearly taught. As stated by the Church, e.g. in Canon law, we do not hold as infallible any doctrine unless it is clearly so. At the same time, we hold the ordinary teachings of bishops and popes in reverence. Where there is ambiguity, we must hold to what is clear and interpret in light of that.
But at the same time, not every Catholic need be a theologian. He does not need to read, interpret, reconcile, every magisterial document, let alone every statement of whatever authority by the pope. And yes sometimes there will be misunderstanding, especially in the modern world where a far greater number want answers to very particular questions.
There are a host of questions where the answer is clear, even as given by Francis elsewhere- on abortion, on homosexuality, on homosexuality in the priesthood, where he has explicitly and clearly taught the same thing as his predecessors. If he speaks, especially off the cuff, in a way that seems contrary, clearly the clear and unambiguous teachings take precedence, and we should either interpret other statements in light of that, or, failing seeing how they are reconcilable, hold to what is clearly taught with authority, and not be bothered with other statements.
Now sometimes there may not be a clear answer, or there may be confusion as to what that is. That is why the confusedness in many statements and pronouncements are so troubling, because they cause confusion.
In anycase, in matters clearly defined (like the indissolubility of marriage, defined at Trent) there is no doubt as to the true doctrine, and anything seemingly contrary is either reconcilable in fact or not, but even were a pope to say something clearly irreconcilable with Trent, well we would still know the truth, because it was clearly defined. And that is what we must fall back on, explaining what is obscure by what is clear.
The pope is the servant of the deposit of faith, not its author. He is to hand down (tradere) not invent doctrine. And hence we defer to the tradition, whether in scripture, in the Fathers, in the Theologians or in prior magisterial teaching, to understand this deposit, and in understanding this or that pope's exercise of his guardianship.
The pope is not the object of faith. God is. And revelation is the matter of faith, with the Church' s witness being the proximate matter, that is the immediate means, by which it is received. But that witness is not any one pope, but the witness of the Church as a whole. Each pope has exercised supreme authority here in this tradition. Francis is no less than Pius XII. But the witness of his predecessors is no less than his. Consequently, we must choose what is clearer and more authoritative whether between Francis' own statements, or between his and his predecessors. And understand him, as far as possible, in this context.
_________________ Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.
http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/
|