For what it is worth, I very much understand and have a lot of sympathy with your point (as others here can attest). It's very much related to my own long running objections. I do, though, think that you could nuance your position a little more. I don't think it would get you very far, but it might change the nature of the conversation a bit. Doom certainly doesn't appreciate the point you're trying to make and is arguing against a misconception. Anyway, for reference, you might want to read a brief exchange I had with gherkin on the matter. You may or may not find it helpful: viewtopic.php?p=2791567#p2791567. I'd ask you to read the full exchange, as he and I do get a little deeper than my initial, surface level comments let on. But, again, that's just in the for what it's worth column.

Yes I saw that thread, it was shortly after I joined this place. I read it again, I appreciate what you say. Thanks.

I appreciate the intellectual clarity of it, but I wish to argue on a much simpler level.

Jack3 says his interpretation is not his, he says it's the interpretation of previous Popes which conflicts with what the current Pope is teaching. The problem with that is that Pope Francis says his teaching doesn't conflict with what previous Popes taught. So Jack3's assertion that it's the "interpretation of other Popes" is not a fact, it's his interpretation, as evidence by the fact that Pope Francis interprets differently.

And my point is that I don't have the arrogance to think I know more about Catholic teaching than Pope Francis. So if Pope Francis says his teaching doesn't conflict with the teaching of previous Popes, I believe Pope Francis has better credentials in this regard than Jack3 or Doom, or anyone, and so of course I'm going to accept Pope Francis's interpretation that nothing in his teaching conflicts with previous Popes. If there is a better authority than the Pope, I'd like to know who it is and why anyone thinks he or she is better qualified than Pope Francis to interpret whether or not Pope Francis's teachings conflict with previous Popes.

Do people such as Cardinal Burke expect all Catholics to take the time and trouble to study Catholic theology in sufficient depth and detail to make up their own minds as to whether or not Pope Francis's teachings conflict with previous Popes' teachings?

If not, then on what basis does Cardinal Burke think Catholics should decide whether he is right or Pope Francis is right? If it's on the basis of authority, then Pope Francis wins.

Francis is not the pope he is the antipope, Benedict XVI is the one true Pope. His resignation was a partial abdication (his words). Canon Law does not accept his words...very involved, but we've had antipopes previously....

Please provide papal proof that your interpretation of the Papacy is correct; that all teachings of a Pope must be accepted.




Using any Pope, please prove your interpretation here is correct; that the only way to understand what the Church teaches is to listen to Pope Francis.




But what if your belief that his belief is just his interpretation is in fact your own interpretation? It would be a good idea to Google this and see if Pope Francis says anything about Jack3 and Denise’ interpretations of interpretations – otherwise we will have no idea what is going on.

First, no, the Church has never, not once, taught that to listen to the Pope is the only way to know what the Church teaches (this is why we have catechisms); second, what about when Pope Francis contradicts his predecessors?

First: The Catechism of the Catholic Church is authoritative because it was written with the authority and the approval of the Pope. And the Pope can update the Catechism such as, according to Wikipedia, paragraph 2267, about the death penalty, was updated by Pope John Paul II and then "was revised again" by Pope Francis in 2018.

The only reason that the Catechism can be accepted as authoritative is because it was written under the authority of the Pope. Otherwise there could be loads of different catechisms teaching different things.

If there is lack of clarity in any part of the Catechism, which is not a perfect document, the Pope is the person with the most authority to clarify it.


Second: You ask "what about when Pope Francis contradicts his predecessors?"

This is exactly the point I'm addressing. If Pope Francis appears to contradict his predecessors in regard to Church teachings, the only way to get clarity is to listen to and understand Pope Francis. Otherwise there will be confusion and everyone will have their own interpretations.

If you sincerely listen to and understand what Pope Francis is teaching, then and only then are you in a position to decide if you can give your assent to the teaching or not.

And if you disagree, you are required as a Catholic to respectfully disagree. I see a lot of disrespect for Pope Francis from his enemies who think they are better Catholics than the Pope.

People like Xavier in this thread who say things such as "the Catholic Church may actually be run by Satan, and Pope Francis is his man" and flying away saying "the pope really is teaching... un-Catholic stuff" and one of these days who says Pope Francis "is not the pope he is the antipope" clearly have not sincerely listened to and understood what Pope Francis is teaching.

Do we have a troll?

Surely you can understand the distinction between going through the trouble of writing and publishing a universal catechism on the one hand, and off-the-cuff remarks on another?


That is true. It does not follow that the Pope will actually bring clarity to anything. It seems to me that Pope Francis raises more questions than he answers in his teaching.


Why is that? Why would one choose the current Pope over 2,000 years of Popes?


What if the current Pope's teaching is actually incoherent? How is one to "understand" it?

Vatican 1
Session 4, Chapter 3, Point 1:

"...the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church."


1439 Council of Florence

"We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."

Just because someone has a different point of view should not open the door for derogatory character assassinations....

Open your mind and do some due diligence.....

What if. There are many what ifs. What if there is no God. What if the Mormons are right? There are endless what ifs. I'm sure the Church has something in place if a Pope was bonkers in regard to teaching faith and morals. I don't know. I was raised as a Catholic but stopped practicing in my teens, and I am still considering whether or not I should commit myself to the Catholic faith and have my daughter baptised a Catholic. If Catholics start to vehemently and disrespectfully disagree with several teachings of the Pope and still call themselves Catholics under the authority of the Pope, then I don't understand how the Catholic religion is in any way special compared to so many other Christian churches and denominations. I want to see the Catholic Church be the Catholic Church under the authority of the Pope, currently Pope Francis with his positive message of compassion, inclusiveness and mercy.

You ask what if the current Pope's teaching is actually incoherent? This brings us back to the question of interpretation and authority. Who decides if a Pope's teaching is "incoherent" or not? If any Catholic can decide that any Pope's teaching is incoherent, then in what sense are Catholics under the authority of the Pope? I think it's wiser to assume that a Pope's teaching, including Pope Francis's teaching, is not incoherent and make a better effort to understand it in the way that most priests, bishops and Cardinals understand it. If they can understand it, so can you. If you think you are more qualified to judge the teaching as "incoherent" than the Pope, and most bishops and cardinals, in what way do you think you are more qualified?

Then do not character-assassinate Pope Francis.

I did no such thing. Francis is a liberal globalist and is trying his hardest to create a one world religion. His disregard for sound Doctrine is very evident in all his writings...especially Amoris Laetitia. His first speech as elected pope he says that he is the Bishop of Rome......read the Dictator Pope and understand how Francis's emergence on the scene was all promulgated by/from the lavender mafia.....

Some Francis blatant mistakes:
-Referring to himself as “the Bishop of Rome”
-Refusing to wear the Mozzetta and other Papal garb
-Refusing to live in the Apostolic Palace or use Castel Gandolfo
-Waving, not blessing
-Retaining his Argentine citizenship and passport, even though the Pope is the Sovereign Monarch of the Vatican City State
–Refusing to answer the Dubia

And this illuminating statement:"In a very small circle, Pope Francis is said to have self-critically further explained himself as follows: 'It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church'"

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/art ... er-spiegel

There is nothing here about accepting all teachings a Pope makes.

There is nothing here about “the only way to understand what the Church teaches is to listen to Pope Francis/current Pope.”





There is nothing here about how we must accept all teaching from all Popes, a particular Pope, or the current Pope.



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.




Here is a quiz for you.

Which teaching do you accept?



Or:

That's not a double standard because I never said Jack3's interpretation is invalid.

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.

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. 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.'

I don't understand the difference between teachings of a Pope, e.g. Pope Francis, some of which a faithful Catholic may be allowed to respectfully disagree with, and teachings of the Magisterium which faithful Catholics must accept.

For example, according to Wikipedia, paragraph 2267 of the Catechism, about the death penalty, was updated by Pope John Paul II and then "was revised again" by Pope Francis in 2018. So is Pope Francis's "revision" of paragraph 2267 a Magisterium teaching and therefore must be accepted by faithful Catholics? How does a teaching become a Magisterium teaching? How much of the Catechism is Magisterium teaching and therefore must be accepted. If not all the Catechism has to be accepted, then how is someone like me supposed to know which parts have to be accepted and which parts don't necessarily have to be accepted?

Not everything a Pope teaches belongs to the Magisterium. It's (sometimes but with increasing frequency) his own private opinion. How can one tell? Oftentimes by reference to what the Church taught in the past -- a Pope's job isn't to make some new doctrine but to guard the deposit of faith and preserve it from any corruption. So if the Pope is teaching something new, whether it be St. John Paul II's teaching on the death penalty, or Pope Francis's even more radical teaching on the death penalty, we can see that he is putting forth his private opinion by comparing it to what the Church has always taught on the subject. I think Pope John Paul II was clearer (although not entirely clear) that what he was teaching was private opinion since he still made a theoretical allowance for the death penalty.

Yeah you did:



And:



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?





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?






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?




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:



Or:






I’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?