I stopped reading after you again asserted that I said Jack3's interpretation was not valid. I've already clearly explained how I did not say that. I don't have unlimited time.

That makes it a bit clearer for me.

Does Pope Francis's teaching about communion for (some) divorced remarried Catholics belong to the Magisterium?

In Catholicism 101 p.falk asked this question:


No doubt different Catholics will interpret it differently. Is that okay? Does it matter which interpretation a Catholic accepts on this issue? If it matters, then how is one to decide which is the correct interpretation? Personally I think the Pope is the best person to guide, but if you don't trust Pope Francis then how do you decide which is the correct interpretation?

I already said you can replace the word "invalid" with "unacceptable" and all my points still stand.


You can't just stop because you are obsessed with the word "invalid," just pretend I said "unacceptable." In fact, just replace it with any word that is synonymous with "disagree" or "rejected" or whatever you like. All my objections still stand and have not been addressed.


Unless, of course, you are trying to wiggle your way out something that you simply can't cry "interpretation" ad infinitum over.

Any one else here question his validity to the papacy?

I don't think Jack3's interpretation is "invalid" or "unacceptable" or any synonym of those two words. There's no point in wasting time arguing with you arguing with me about something I never said.

Does Pope Francis's teaching about communion for (some) divorced remarried Catholics belong to the Magisterium?

But I also said you could use "disagree."



How about this: forget the “invalid” etc. stuff and just answer the questions:


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 don’t forget, please choose which Pope you assent to with regards to spousal submission.

I never said that Jack3's interpretation is wrong, I asked why should I believe that his interpretation is correct and Pope Francis's interpretation is wrong when I compare Pope Francis's credentials and authority to Jack3's credentials and authority to interpret Catholic teaching.

Okay.

Watch:
Why should I believe your interpretation of ecumenical councils? (i.e. the double standard)


Using your own logic, I have no reason to believe you in your initial response to me.

That was my whole point the entire time.

And if we have no reason to believe you, due to lack of credentials, then the concepts of, “all teachings of a Pope must be accepted,” and, “the only way to understand what the Church teaches is to listen to Pope Francis” are untenable.


Since these concepts are untenable, then Jack3 et al. should have the ability to decipher that the current Pope is wrong about doctrine X by referencing other Popes.


Now that we can determine if a Pope is wrong, we can now say not everything a Pope does and says at all times demands assent.


So, with that out of the way, we can drop this endless “interpretation” copout and we should now have the ability to actually look at what Francis does and says, comparing to other Popes; it should be a valid task that does not infringe upon the concept of assent and authority. Just to be clear: your initial questioning of authority and interpretation was fine and helpful for the discussion.

Your Question: 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?

My answer: I'm no expert, I've only recently been reading this stuff on the Internet, but as I understand it, the Church teaches that Catholics are required to publicly accept the teachings of the Pope when set out in encyclicals and apostolic exhortations (which Pope Francis has written).


Your Question: Please prove “level of assent” includes, “after assent is given, it cannot later be rejected.”

My answer: I don't understand that question.

Your Question: Is every teaching found in an encyclical, apostolic exhortation, etc. result in the same level of authority and hence demands an unchanging assent?

No, but my understanding is that Catholics are required to publicly assent to even non-infallible teachings, and certainly not show disrespect. It's a bit confusing, maybe others understand it better.

Your Question: Please prove that, “the only way to understand what the Church teaches is to listen to Pope Francis/current Pope.”

My answer: It's the only way for Catholics who don't think they are cleverer or holier or better Catholics than the Pope to understand what the Church teaches. That's just my opinion, I can't "prove" it, at least not in the time I have available.

Your Question:
please choose which Pope you assent to with regards to spousal submission.

First of all, I am not a practicing Catholic (I'm interested but I haven't yet made the commitment, I think it's important to be sure before making any important commitment) so I don't have to assent to either of the Popes. Secondly, why does the choice have to be one or the other, Pope Leo or Pope John Paul II, why can't it be both?

I agree with Pope Leo that a wife should not be obedient to her husband as a servant. If in the blissful situation of divine charity being the constant guide, I'm sure Catholic women would be happy to be in the situation Pope Leo recommended. But in this day and age, in the reality of many people's married lives, and with increased awareness of how teachings can unintentionally or wilfully be misunderstood, I understand why Pope John Paul II clarified it, I get it, I agree with it. If you think Pope John Paul's teaching contradicts Pope Leo's teaching, it's not entirely clear to me, I could make a case either way, but I'd say that Pope John Paul II had more authority and competence to interpret Pope Leo's teaching, and his own teaching, than you or I have, and I would assume that Pope John Paul didn't do anything a Pope isn't allowed to do.

I can't make head nor tail of that.

Private opinion is not the right term. A better term would be 'prudential judgment'. John Paul II never denied the principle that the state has the moral right to execute criminals. In fact, the Catechism affirms this teaching. But the Church has always tempered this belief that the state has the right to execute criminals with the caveat that executions should be performed only when necessary and that at least some of the time mercy is better than justice, and that if it is possible that justice could be served without execution, this would be best of all. None of this is novel. The Church taught this in the Middle Ages.


In fact, the movement away from capital punishment pre-dates the 20th century, in the Middle Ages, there were many laws on the books in the Papal States that required execution. But capital punishment was abolished in practice (if not in theory as the laws remained on the books) in the Papal States during the 19th century, or possibly earlier.

The shift away from capital punishment has been gradual over a period of several centuries. The Popes have taken a gradually dimmer and dimmer view of capital punishment for quite some time.


It is similar to the Papal attitude towards war.

Popes waged war for centuries, Julius II saw no moral problem with going on the battlefield in armor leading the charge himself. A century later, the Popes had no apparent problem with Cardinal Richelieu in France waging war against Austria and Spain, both Catholic countries, and forging an alliance with Sweden, a Protestant country. When the question came before the Pope of whether it was really appropriate for a Cardinal (and bishop!) of the Church to be responsible for leading armies into war, the Pope gave his blessing.

And yet, by the time of Pius IX, the Popes had come to a generally negative view of war, and when the Italian nationalist army entered Rome, Pope Pius IX ordered them to offer no resistance.

Julian II, not to mention someone like Boniface VIII or Innocent III, would have surrounded the Vatican palace with large cannons and opened fire, there would have been a bloody battle that might have lasted for weeks, with casualties on both sides in the tens of thousands and 'The Battle of Rome' would be in the history books as one of the bloodiest battles on Italian soil in history. But Pius IX chose to offer no resistance because the Popes even then were becoming extremely hostile to war.

Yes. But, assent or acceptance is not absolute unless it’s an infallible declaration. Earlier in the thread, you said a Pope could be wrong about something: “I understand that the Pope can be wrong when not speaking ex cathedra” – so if he can be wrong, then it necessarily follows that assent should not be given.




This means that by default we are supposed to assent to what the Pope teaches. If one discovers that he is not teaching properly – i.e. it contradicts previous Popes and the constant teaching of the Church (found in Popes and councils), then one can reject said assent. If it’s not obvious that there is a contradiction, people really should not shout on the roof tops that the Pope is wrong. The other option is to give the benefit of the doubt and defer to a clearer previous teaching.

I don’t think the common person should worry about every word in every Papal writing – they aren’t even required to read them in the first place. If someone says Pope Francis is in err, the best thing to do is give him assent until proven otherwise. The proof must come from authority – other Popes or councils. It’s not really going to be 100% perfect, but it was never intended to be in the first place.





That’s true. But sometimes there are issues – like how you mentioned with the death penalty, or my example with spousal submission. When Francis spoke of the death penalty, I immediately knew he was in error and I did not assent. Why? Because it contradicts all past teaching, so it is illogical. I will defer to past teaching.

In other words, it is impossible for me to assent to two contradictory positions at the same time. There are far more Popes and theologians who taught the traditional view of the death penalty – and I can only think of one Pope who agrees with Francis, which is Francis himself.




Okay. I see what you mean here. But, my point was that there is nothing in Church history or doctrine that says we must only listen to the current Pope – there is a whole body of authoritative teachings and pronouncements that are from other Popes or approved by other Popes – they also had the same teaching authority as Francis currently does.




So, this is good because we can now examine what Popes have said try to figure things out.

Firstly, John Paul II is not interpreting Pope Leo XXIII or Pope Pius IX. What you have is two different interpretations of Scripture. Popes interpreting scripture with different results.

Secondly, John Paul II never mentions that the husband has any kind of primacy over his wife – in any way – but Leo and Pius do in fact teach this: “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.”

Third, JPII states, “Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, and thereby subject to the Lord himself, just as the wife to the husband.”

He makes the concept of “subjection” exactly the same between spouses.

With all this in mind, there is a blatant contradiction.




I don’t really want to argue the submission thing. But, it rests itself in Natural Law. There is no evolution of doctrine that changes natural law because of a modern situation (we can check this via Pope St. Pius X). It is based on Genesis when God created man and then women from man, and then designated natural authority. This was reconfirmed by St. Paul.

We can know for sure that this concept doesn’t change with the times because Leo uses the Book of Genesis to justify submission of wife to husband – a book that is certainly well over 2000 years old. Also, divine charity does not change (John Paul II’s reasoning). Or in other words, if JPII is right, divine charity should have superseded any cultural modality in the 19th century - and Leo should have realized this. But he doesn't. So that means one of them is wrong.

I.e. divine charity does not take a back seat to some kind of so-called social construct.


That right there is an entirely different topic – which is possible because we can look at more than just three Popes on this issue.



Even if you think they can be reconciled, the point was to produce a situation where you would choose to “assent” to one Pope over the other.

1. A Pope can be wrong (your words).
2. Hence, hypothetically, two Popes can teach in contradiction.
3. Resulting problem: It’s impossible to assent to both.

Ergo, one must use their deductive powers via other authoritative teachings, to determine which is correct and hence which one to give assent.

One could apply "prudential judgment" to his belief about modern penal systems rendering executions unnecessary since they (supposedly) can render society safe from criminals. However, the idea that defense of society is the only, or even the main, reason for the death penalty is not a prudential judgment, it is a Pope's private theological opinion, and one which conflicts with the Church's traditional teaching that retribution is the primary end of punishment.

Insofar as he can be said to have a teaching on the subject, no, it does not belong to the Magisterium.

Alexandros, of course anyone can believe a Pope is wrong. Pope Benedict wrote a book and said "feel free to disagree". But there are also teachings Catholics are supposed to assent to. I'm very confused as to which teachings a Catholic can disagree with and which teachings a Catholic must accept.

I have a question for you: If a minority of priests, bishops and cardinals disagree with a teaching of the Pope, how is an ordinary average Catholic supposed to decide which is the right teaching?

Would an exposition on the topic of theological grades of certainty be of use here?

Or reading the introduction to Ott, generally? That's short.

It's already showed up in one of these discussions, I think.

Doom hinted at it.

I'm suggesting an immersion. Latin and all.