Denise Dee wrote:
Alexandros wrote:
Or, in other words. It’s your interpretation that is the issue.
Why should we listen to your interpretation of the Council of Florence and Vatican I?
Why is Jack3’s “interpretation” invalid when he reads Francis and JPII – but you yourself are allowed to make an interpretation when you read ecumenical councils approved by Popes?
That is a double-standard.
That's not a double standard because I never said Jack3's interpretation is invalid.
Yeah you did:
Quote:
But your belief that your interpretation is "the interpretation of other Popes" is your interpretation. It's not Pope Francis's interpretation. You think the teachings of Pope Francis conflict with the teachings of previous Popes. But Pope Francis says his teachings do not conflict with the teachings of previous Popes. You think you can understand and interpret Catholic teachings better than Pope Francis. I have no reason to believe that you can.
And:
Quote:
There may be some people more knowledgeable about Catholic teaching than Pope Francis but I doubt that Jack3 is one of them.
You don’t believe it, so it’s invalid for you.
Then you give us your own interpretation of an ecumenical council.
So, we have to question Jack3 and ultimately say “we have no reason to believe him,” and then turn around and accept you? What?
Quote:
What I said to Jack3 was that, with his credentials and position in the Catholic Church, a teenage student, compared to the credentials and position of the Pope, I see no reason to believe that his interpretation is correct and the Pope's is wrong. Jack3 is entitled to his own opinion and he could be correct and the Pope could be wrong, but I see no reason why I should think Jack3's interpretation is correct and the Pope's wrong.
If you don’t believe him, then you think his interpretation is invalid. If you’re stuck on the word “invalid” just replace it with “unacceptable,” and all of my points still stand.
Also, you don’t have the credentials either, so why quote and interpret ecumenical councils for us?
Quote:
Also I pointed out that Catholics are required to give the same level of assent to Pope Francis's encyclicals and apostolic exhortations as they are required to give to all previous encyclicals and apostolic exhortations from all other Popes.
Please prove “level of assent” includes, “after assent is given, it cannot later be rejected.”
Is every teaching found in an encyclical, apostolic exhortation, etc. result in the same level of authority and hence demands an unchanging assent?
Where’s the Catholic teaching that says a person is unable to decipher that the current Pope is wrong about doctrine X by referencing other Popes?
Quote:
And when registering for this message board it states that if you want to denote your religion below your username in these posts, '"Catholic" is reserved for practicing Catholics (upper case C, please) under the authority of the Pope.'
Let’s pretend “under the authority of the Pope” means to accept every single thing he says, it cannot be questioned, and no one can interpret it otherwise. Who cares? It’s a message board statement, not the Papacy.
I will put these questions to you in order to prove a point:
Where’s the Catholic teaching that says a person is unable to decipher that the current Pope is wrong about doctrine X by referencing other Popes?
Please prove “level of assent” includes, “after assent is given, it cannot later be rejected.”
Is every teaching found in an encyclical, apostolic exhortation, etc. result in the same level of authority and hence demands an unchanging assent?
Please prove that, “the
only way to understand what the Church teaches is to listen to Pope Francis/current Pope.”
And finally, as a great example, which one do you “assent” to:
Pius XI via Leo XIII wrote:
29. With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: "The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church."
https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/e ... nubii.htmlOr:
John Paul II wrote:
According to the Letter to the Ephesians, marriage excludes that element of the pact which was a burden and, at times, does not cease to be a burden on this institution. The husband and the wife are in fact "subject to one another," and are mutually subordinated to one another. The source of this mutual subjection is to be found in Christian pietas, and its expression is love.
…
Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband, an object of unilateral domination. Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, and thereby subject to the Lord himself, just as the wife to the husband.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb88.htmI’m not trying to play a game here. I am trying to get away from the “interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation” endlessness.
Hint: The Church has never taught that everything a Pope writes and says requires absolute unchanging religious assent. And the Church has never taught that a person can never decipher that a Pope is wrong via other Popes and ecumenical councils. Can you prove otherwise?