Showing posts with label faithful. Show all posts
Showing posts with label faithful. Show all posts
Sunday, October 31, 2021
Sunday, July 16, 2017
It's Time to Take Back the Faithful Catholic Label (and the means are different than one might think)
Introduction
On the internet, a battle rages over what image the Catholic Church should take. Some are all about changing Church teaching. Others are about preferring the older way to do things. But whether these factions are politically conservative or liberal; whether they are modernist or radical traditionalist, or some other faction, they assume they are the ones really being faithful to the Church, and that those who think the preferred faction are wrong are accused of not being faithful. The problem is, this decree is not a decision of the Pope and bishops issuing a teaching. This is the claim of factions that are in opposition to the Pope and bishops. In other words, the Catholics who claim they are really being faithful are the ones who are refusing to assent to the teachings they dislike, and claim that their disobedience is really some sort of higher obedience.
The problem with this claim is: Church history has never recognized the actions of such dissenters as being “truly faithful.” The saints who reformed the Church gave obedience to the successors of the apostles, even when the men who held the office did not personally behave in a manner worthy of it. There is a (possibly apocryphal) story of St. Francis of Assisi meeting Pope Innocent III. Disgusted with the saint’s appearance, he reportedly said to go and roll with the pigs. St. Francis obeyed, impressing the Pope with his obedience and humility. Our 21st century sensibilities rebel against this, but St. Francis, recognized as one of the saints that reformed a Church in danger of becoming worldly showed that one cannot claim to be a faithful Catholic while refusing obedience to the Pope.
There is a vast difference between the saints who showed obedience to the Church out of love of God and the dissenters who declare themselves superior to the shepherds in the Church, and we need to take back the label of “faithful Catholic” from these counterfeits.
The First Steps
You might think the first step is to denounce the dissenters. But that would actually be following into their error—putting confidence in their own holiness. We should consider well the words of St. John Chrysostom, in his homily on the Gospel of Matthew:
Nay, if thou wilt accuse, accuse thyself. If thou wilt whet and sharpen thy tongue, let it be against thine own sins. And tell not what evil another hath done to thee, but what thou hast done to thyself; for this is most truly an evil; since no other will really be able to injure thee, unless thou injure thyself. Wherefore, if thou desire to be against them that wrong thee, approach as against thyself first; there is no one to hinder; since by coming into court against another, thou hast but the greater injury to go away with. (Homily LI, #5)
John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople on the Gospel according to St. Matthew,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. George Prevost and M. B. Riddle, vol. 10, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 320.
Our first thought should not be on the injuries others have inflicted on us, nor on “getting our own back.” Our first thought should be on where we ourselves stand before God. Because we are sinners, we cannot think of ourselves to be righteous before God. But because of God’s love for us, we cannot of others as being less deserving of His forgiveness. If we forget this, we become like those who misuse the term “faithful Catholic.”
We must also seek to learn as much as we can about the faith. Now the writings of the Saints, the Popes, the Councils and the Bishops are vast. No one person could read them all—and that’s something we need to learn: That we do not know everything. We can always learn, and our teachers must be those who have the authority to bind and loose—not bloggers or academics who disagree with them.
Knowing that we do not know everything does not mean that it is possible that Church teaching can justify something we thought was a sin. What it means is we need to recognize we can be led astray by laxity or rigorism if we do not understand that the Pope and bishops teach with the same authority that Our Lord gave the apostles. They have the authority to teach and govern the Church. When they do, we must assent to their teachings. Refusal to do so is schism:
can. 751† Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Code of Canon Law: New English Translation (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1998), 247.
If we would be faithful Catholics, we must realize our own sinfulness and our own limits to knowledge. Knowing this, we can turn to God for His grace and forgiveness. Knowing this, we can turn to His Church to learn what we must do to be faithful.”
But What About the Internet Brawls?
Speaking personally, I’d be happy if I never had to take part in another one. But we will encounter some who are either mistaken about the faith or are misrepresenting it. When these situations arise, we should remember 1 Peter 3:15-16:
Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.
If someone’s going to act like a jerk, strive to make sure it isn’t us. If we want to put a verbal smackdown on our opponents, we risk leaving the audience thinking we’re both jerks.
When we encounter those dissenters who claim to be the “true” faithful, the temptation exists to “put those jerks in their place.” But we must not take that attitude. This is partially because we risk being overcome by pride, thinking we are fine as long as we are not like “them.” But also because we risk alienating the people we hope to help. Now, being sinners, we’ll always have problems. I can describe these dangers because I have fallen into them myself.
So, when someone decides to attack the Church, or the Pope, we must not allow ourselves to flail wildly, or speak viciously. We may have to tell a critic, “We do not believe what you accuse us of believing.” We may have to explain the truth. This may not be effective with the person we are arguing with. But that person is not the only person involved. On the internet, there are more lurkers than commenters. Even if our adversary is not willing to listen to us, the lurkers might—if we give them a reason to. But if we’re rude and abusive, we might win some points with people who already agree with us for doing a stylish smackdown, but we won’t convince others.
Conclusion
How do we take back the label of “faithful Catholic” from those dissenters who claim to be in the right while the Church is in the wrong? As I see it, we have to act like faithful Catholics. That means following the example of the saints in their obedience and humility. If we want to convince people to be faithful Catholics, we have to give them a living example.
That means, turning to the Lord with the desire to repent and follow Him anew, seeking to know and do His will as taught by the Church. Not by what we think the Church taught at a time we think most pleasing to follow.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Thoughts on the Purpose of the Christian Religion
In modern times, Christianity has a problem with people who choose not to follow the people who are the appointed leaders. They believe that when the Church differs with them, the personal preference is to be heeded, not the Church. Such an attitude is understandable when we deal with Non-Catholics who do not believe that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ, or non-Christians and non-religious people denying Christianity altogether. The point of Christianity is that it professes to have revelation from God, and that people who have been entrusted with the authority of applying that revelation have their teaching backed by this revelation. So a person who does not believe Christianity possesses any such revelation, it stands to reason that they won’t follow the teachings of that Church.
However, when it comes to Christianity, which professes to believe in the God of the Old Testament and believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God, this faith necessarily presupposes that God has given us realization—through the Law, the Prophets and finally through His Son. When the Christian falls afoul of the commandments in some way, the fact is he or she is behaving in a way which God has revealed to us to be counter to the way He wants us to live. Furthermore, when God has revealed that authority has been given to certain human beings to bind and to loose (Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18) for the purpose of bring the message of salvation and teaching His commandments so that people may live as He commands (Matthew 28:19-20 and Revelation 22:11), then obedience to that human authority is a part of being faithful to that revelation of God.
Now, with the non-Catholic, the non-Christian and the non-religious, they have some excuse (if they are sincere in their error) of not obeying the authority of the Church. We do have a mission to reach out to them, but their disobedience is not based on a disregard for the truth they have been taught (see Luke 12:47-48). Their judgment will be based on what they could have learned and what effort they put into seeking the truth. It’s not for us to try to guess whether they have searched hard enough or not. Rather we are to try to give them the message of salvation and the teachings of Our Lord so that they will not have to risk that judgment (and doing so in a way which does not drive them away from the truth on account of our behavior).
However, we who profess to believe in the Catholic Church as being the Church established by Our Lord have no excuses when it comes to not being obedient to revelation and to the teaching of the Church that we profess (with our lips anyway). As Vatican II put it, in Lumen Gentium #14:
All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.
Catholic Church, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011).
This leads to the problem of dissent. If we profess a belief in a God who reveals His will and who establishes a Church to teach people His ways, then what are we thinking when we decide to set aside a Church teaching in favor of our own preference? To do so is to either effectively deny God’s revelation or to effectively deny that the Church has any authority to teach in His name. In either case, it forces us to ask: For what purpose do we belong to a Church if we do not believe her claims to be true?
Of course such a rejection does not have to be total. People can (and do) choose to believe the Church is mostly right, except for that one area that he or she chooses to disagree with. Perhaps they are fine with the Social Teaching of the Church, but not the teaching on sexually. Or perhaps they profess to accept the moral teaching of the Church but refuse to acknowledge her authority when it comes to social justice or the ordinary form of the Mass. In such situations, the person reserves the right to say they will not recognize the authority of the Church.
The problem is, the fact that the Church has any authority on a favored issue requires that she has authority from God in the first place. If God has not revealed His authority, then one might be excused for making their own morality up. But, if God has revealed His authority, then the behavior which goes against His authority goes against Him (see Matthew 7:21, Luke 10:16 and John 14:15).
We certainly know that Our Lord has made revelation known to us saying that some actions are sins in His eyes. When we seek to determine right and wrong, and we profess to believe that there is a God who will come to judge the living and the dead, it certainly makes sense to listen to Him and to those whom He empowers to teach in His name. If we choose to treat this revelation as if it were not revelation, it raises the question: On what authority does this person make their claim to determine good and evil? As Frank Sheed put it, “The most brilliant moral system, constructed without the information only God can give, is brilliant guesswork,: (Is It the Same Church page 33). The person who disregards the Revelation in Scripture and Sacred Tradition in favor of his or her own guessing on what God really wants is choosing to ignore God’s commands in favor of the guesswork that “God doesn’t really still mean that."
In essence, the person who, while professing to be a Christian, chooses to deny the Scripture and Tradition or the person professing to be Catholic who chooses to disobey the Church, has a very confused concept on what they are called to be as Christians. If God has revealed that X is a sin, then how can one claim that in rejecting that revelation they are still being faithful to the God who revealed it? It can only be done through refusing to seek out what the truth is, relying instead on what feels good to the person. But Scripture warns that what seems right can lead to destruction (Proverbs 16:25).
The fact of the matter is, in trying to put Jesus and His Church at odds, one is denying part of what God reveals, pretending it is manmade. But in doing so, the person is making Christianity meaningless. As Peter Kreeft put it:
Socrates: Furthermore, if you do that, why do you need the Bible at all?
Bertha: What do you mean?
Socrates: If it agrees with you, it's superfluous, and if it doesn't, it's wrong. Why read a book that must be either superfluous or wrong? In fact, why read or listen to anyone? They must all be superfluous or wrong.
Bertha: That's ridiculous.
Socrates: My point exactly.
Peter Kreeft. Socrates Meets Jesus: History's Greatest Questioner Confronts the Claims of Christ (Kindle Locations 532-534). Kindle Edition.
To pick and choose is to put one’s own preferences first and when it agrees, it is only useful as a piece of propaganda to justify oneself; when it disagrees, it is considered wrong. But if the Bible or the Church is wrong in your eyes in some cases, why should another not use the same way of thinking and reject what you think is important as “manmade” and promote the things you disagree with? In such cases, the revelation of God and the teaching of His Church has no meaning. There’s no point in professing to be a part of something that you reject when it pleases you. The point of professing to be a Catholic is because one believes in God and that the Church teaches with God’s authority. Deny that and religion is a social awareness group.
But as Pope Francis said:
[W]e can walk as much we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a pitiful NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. When one does not walk, one stalls. When one does not built on solid rocks, what happens? What happens is what happens to children on the beach when they make sandcastles: everything collapses, it is without consistency. When one does not profess Jesus Christ - I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy – “Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil.” When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.
Confessing Jesus Christ is to acknowledge what He says to be true, and when He gives the Church His authority, this means that to confess Jesus Christ is to be obedient to His Church. If we don’t choose to live in this way, then our profession to be Catholics is stripped of all meaning.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
The Me-gisterium? On Portraying Personal Preference as Church Teaching
Introduction
I’m noticing that there is a growth in a troubling trend on the internet. Some Catholics, whether on Facebook, blogs or comments on articles, have begun to elevate their rhetoric over personal preferences on policy to the point that they accuse other Catholics who question whether that policy is good or prudent of supporting evil or otherwise being a bad Catholic. I call this troubling because of the fact that the Church does allow us some leeway in determining how best to promote a Church teaching or oppose an evil.
Distinguishing Between Church Teaching and Personal Preference
Let’s clarify something first. When the teaching authority of the Church says that we must do X or must never do Y, then to refuse to do X or to choose to do Y is morally wrong. Moreover, to encourage others to disobey the Church on either issue would be causing scandal. Therefore, in our advocacy for a thing or our opposition to a thing, we absolutely cannot contradict Church teaching. If we oppose Church teaching, we do evil. That’s indisputable when it comes to our moral obligation.
But when two people agree that the Church teaching must be followed, but disagree with each other on the ways and means to sincerely and most effectively carry out the Church teaching, then it is unjust of Person 1 to accuse Person 2 of not being faithful to Church teaching. Person 2 can disagree with the prudence or philosophy of Person 1’s position without denying the truth of the Church teaching.
Hijacking Magisterial Authority
Now let’s carry it a step further. When Person 1 in this example decrees that the Church teaching on X requires that we embrace the specific policy that he supports, he is creating a counterfeit magisterium that makes use of what the Church actually said and misappropriating that teaching to lend unjustified authority to his or her personal politics or preferences. This happens in many ways across the political spectrum and across the Catholic spectrum from Modernist to Radical Traditionalist.
For example, the Church teaching on Social Justice requires us to care for the poor. Obviously, any Catholic who takes the position of “Let the poor suffer, we do not care” does wrong. Now, some people think that care for the poor means supporting higher taxes to help provide for the poor. So, they vote in support of taxes and encourage others to do the same. There is nothing wrong about that in the sense of going against Church teaching. Others may not agree with Person 1 saying that they believe that supporting taxes logically follows from the teaching, but provided that Person 1 does not go beyond saying that he or she thinks this follows from Church teaching, there is nothing morally wrong about that.
However, suppose Person 2 disagrees with Person 1 over the strategy of raising taxes. Person 2 thinks that the government propensity to waste and corruption makes this strategy imprudent without certain safeguards, or thinks other economic strategies can help the poor more effectively. Provided that Person 2 does not contradict Church teaching on Social Justice, there is nothing wrong with his/her position either. One of their strategies may be more effective and our leaders should seek out the most effective way to carry out social justice.
Now, if Person 1 begins to insist that Church teaching requires support for higher taxes and claims that Person 2 is rejecting Church teaching because he/she disagrees with Person 1, then Person 1 is creating a counterfeit magisterium and is hijacking Magisterial authority to give his/her personal opinion an authority it does not have. Person 1 is then doing wrong—quite possibly causing scandal by leading Catholics and non-Catholics alike into the wrong belief that the Church teaches what she actually does not.
We can substitute “taxes” with “the extraordinary form of the Mass” or “banning firearms” or other opinions. In all of these cases, we must give our assent to the teaching of the Magisterium. But when two people agree with the Church teaching but disagree on the way of best carrying out that teaching, then the person who insists that their personal policy preference is the teaching of the Church, then that person is hijacking Church authority.
The Sin of Scandal
This is becoming a serious problem. I know of bloggers and Facebook personalities who are indicting the people they disagree with as being bad Catholics solely on the basis of the disagreement over a preferred policy which has not been taught by the Church as the only way to follow. Such behavior causes scandal because they mislead people into thinking that the Church teaches something she does not.
Think about it. If a Catholic with some renown supports a partisan political policy and accuses those who disagree with that policy of being bad Catholics, does that not lead sincere people to believe that the Church teaches error when in fact the error is on the part of individual who claims more than he or she has a right to? Might not that misconception lead people to reject the truth of the Catholic because they have been deceived about what she teaches?
Conclusion: Avoiding Turning the Magisterium into a Me-gisterium
Those of us who write about the Catholic faith have an obligation to write about it accurately, saying of what is, that it is and saying of what is not, that it is not. If we wish to advocate for a particular piece of legislation or political program that we think logically follows from Catholic teaching, we must make clear that this is our opinion and must NEVER use our reputation as a Catholic blogger to give the impression that our preference is mandated by the Church.
This is crucial to remember. As Catholic bloggers, we have no authority of our own. We can only point to the teaching of the Church, doing our best as co-workers for the truth to help make clear what the Church teaches and why she teaches. We can never make our preference appear to be her teaching. Otherwise we set ourselves up as a “Me-gisterium” centering on ourselves and not on the teaching of Our Lord as preserved by His Church.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
TFTD: In Case You Thought the Battle Was Over
Article: "Judge Rules Missouri Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - NBC News.com."
Just a reminder that the battle in standing up for what is right in the face of those who call evil good is not over. The president can still abuse the executive order and judges can still legislate from the bench. All the change of power in Congress will accomplish is preventing some appointments that would enable evil and reducing the number of bills from Congress seeking to expand immoral acts as “rights” from making it to the President’s desk.
Personally I think politicians who are lukewarm in their support of Christian morality are better than politicians who openly advocate what we call evil. But it’s still inferior to the politicians who take their Christian beliefs seriously and view their office as a vocation to do right.
But of course, the lukewarm politicians are not likely to become fervent unless we become vessels bringing God’s grace.
So, no, the battle is not over. We can’t relax just because the majority of members of Congress have changed the letter of their party affiliation from a D to an R.
The battle’s not over until God calls us home.
TFTD: In Case You Thought the Battle Was Over
Article: "Judge Rules Missouri Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - NBC News.com."
Just a reminder that the battle in standing up for what is right in the face of those who call evil good is not over. The president can still abuse the executive order and judges can still legislate from the bench. All the change of power in Congress will accomplish is preventing some appointments that would enable evil and reducing the number of bills from Congress seeking to expand immoral acts as “rights” from making it to the President’s desk.
Personally I think politicians who are lukewarm in their support of Christian morality are better than politicians who openly advocate what we call evil. But it’s still inferior to the politicians who take their Christian beliefs seriously and view their office as a vocation to do right.
But of course, the lukewarm politicians are not likely to become fervent unless we become vessels bringing God’s grace.
So, no, the battle is not over. We can’t relax just because the majority of members of Congress have changed the letter of their party affiliation from a D to an R.
The battle’s not over until God calls us home.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Unlearn
“You must unlearn what you have learned.”
--Yoda
Introduction
As I follow more social media, I increasingly see that people no longer seek to understand the meaning of words. They automatically associate certain words with certain ideologies. Then, when someone uses one of these words, they are either praised or condemned depending on whether the word is associated with something they favor or something they despise.
The result is, people no longer listen. They assume that they know when they do not.
The problem is, the more important the words, the more serious the misunderstanding. Thus, when it comes to the Church teaching -- which deals with the fate of the immortal soul, the words are vitally important, and misunderstanding them can have the gravest results.
Unlearning
Since this modern assumption pushes us further away from truth, we must get rid of it. We have to stop thinking we know what a word means and go beyond our assumptions.
I believe the biggest stumbling block are the political assumptions we carry about. Say "Right to Life" and people automatically think you're a conservative. Say "Social Justice" and people automatically assume you're liberal.
The Church, however teaches about our obligations concerning both issues. Are we to think that the Church is some sort of "right wing liberal" organization? Hardly.
Unfortunately, most people either want to use the Church authority in a sort of "capture the flag" when her approval is desired to give an ideology credibility, or they want to slap a label on the Church which allows them to ignore what they dislike.
Either Or? Neither Nor? Both And?
But this does not mean that the Church is "middle of the road" either. When truth is either-or, a compromise cannot exist. Either the unborn child is a human person or is not. If the unborn child is a person, abortion can never be justified. Appeals to "reproductive freedom" become asinine when what is at stake is a human right to exist.
In other areas, the moral obligation may be absolute, but the ways the obligation can be met are varied. The Church teaches on moral obligations in social justice. But the solution is not limited to socialism -- something that the Church rejects. Reforming health care does not make the support of Obamacare mandatory. In fact the Bishops are opposing it.
The Church doesn't have a "party platform." She teaches what way Christians are obliged to live, but doesn't say "You must embrace this specific political plan to do so."
In every age, the Church has spoken in teaching what is required, but leaves it to the people to implement policies reflecting the teachings... correcting the people when they go astray.
The Pervasive Perversion of Ideology
I'm always amazed that people who wouldn't trust a person of a disliked political faction to evaluate the weather, let alone the meaning of events, seem to have no trouble accepting and being scandalized by that faction's interpretation of Church teaching. The knee-jerk reaction to certain words mentioned seems to be enough to accuse the Church of being "The Republican party at prayer" according to liberals and "collectivist" or "socialist" according to conservatives.
Sometimes a particular party gets things very wrong. Abortion is an obvious example here in America. The Democratic party actively supports it, and the Catholic Church absolutely condemns it (and has condemned it long before America was even discovered, let alone established). Therefore, to the ideologue, the Catholic Church is against the Democratic party and therefore supports everything the Republican party stands for.
On the other side, when the Church speaks out on economic injustice, the Republican party treats it as if it was a ringing endorsement of the Democratic party platform in entirety.
This can lead the individual confused. "Is the Catholic Church pro-Democrat or pro-Republican?"
That's when I want to pound my head on a desk. The Church is neither in favor of one party or the other. It is only the pervasive ideologies perverting thinking that leads people to ask this, assuming either A or B without asking whether that is the only way to think on the issue. That's the fallacy of the false dilemma.
Contradictory or Contrary?
A problem we Americans have is the inability to distinguish between contradictory and contrary ideas.
Contradictory ideas are two ideas where they can't both be true, but one must be true. For example, it can't be raining and not raining at the same time and place. It either is or it isn't.
Contrary ideas are ideas can't both be true BUT both can be false. For example Red vs. Blue. An object can't be both all red and all blue. But it can be yellow, making the red vs. blue theory false.
So saying "Catholicism is either the True Religion or is not the True Religion" is an example of contradictory claims. One of them must be false and one must be true. A thing cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same way.
Saying "Either conservative or liberal" is an example of contrary claims. Their philosophies are in opposition and both cannot be true. But the rejection of elements of one does NOT mean the endorsement of the other. One could reject both ideologies as being false in some ways.
This is a vital point. Too many people argue that the bishops, being pro-life, must have a conservative bias. Too many people think that the Pope, speaking on moral flaws in capitalism must be liberal.
Never mind the fact that the Church has spoken on such issues since the 1st century AD.
Conclusion
Jesus won't ask us about our political affiliations when the final judgment comes. He'll ask us if we kept His commandments (John 14:10).
If our ideologies blind us to the holiness we are required to seek, they are a threat to our salvation. If we begin judging whether the teaching of the Church is conservative/liberal enough or too conservative/liberal, our ideology is a stumbling block to loving and serving Christ.
We'd better start unlearning our political factionalism and start learning to seek first the Kingdom of God.
Unlearn
“You must unlearn what you have learned.”
--Yoda
Introduction
As I follow more social media, I increasingly see that people no longer seek to understand the meaning of words. They automatically associate certain words with certain ideologies. Then, when someone uses one of these words, they are either praised or condemned depending on whether the word is associated with something they favor or something they despise.
The result is, people no longer listen. They assume that they know when they do not.
The problem is, the more important the words, the more serious the misunderstanding. Thus, when it comes to the Church teaching -- which deals with the fate of the immortal soul, the words are vitally important, and misunderstanding them can have the gravest results.
Unlearning
Since this modern assumption pushes us further away from truth, we must get rid of it. We have to stop thinking we know what a word means and go beyond our assumptions.
I believe the biggest stumbling block are the political assumptions we carry about. Say "Right to Life" and people automatically think you're a conservative. Say "Social Justice" and people automatically assume you're liberal.
The Church, however teaches about our obligations concerning both issues. Are we to think that the Church is some sort of "right wing liberal" organization? Hardly.
Unfortunately, most people either want to use the Church authority in a sort of "capture the flag" when her approval is desired to give an ideology credibility, or they want to slap a label on the Church which allows them to ignore what they dislike.
Either Or? Neither Nor? Both And?
But this does not mean that the Church is "middle of the road" either. When truth is either-or, a compromise cannot exist. Either the unborn child is a human person or is not. If the unborn child is a person, abortion can never be justified. Appeals to "reproductive freedom" become asinine when what is at stake is a human right to exist.
In other areas, the moral obligation may be absolute, but the ways the obligation can be met are varied. The Church teaches on moral obligations in social justice. But the solution is not limited to socialism -- something that the Church rejects. Reforming health care does not make the support of Obamacare mandatory. In fact the Bishops are opposing it.
The Church doesn't have a "party platform." She teaches what way Christians are obliged to live, but doesn't say "You must embrace this specific political plan to do so."
In every age, the Church has spoken in teaching what is required, but leaves it to the people to implement policies reflecting the teachings... correcting the people when they go astray.
The Pervasive Perversion of Ideology
I'm always amazed that people who wouldn't trust a person of a disliked political faction to evaluate the weather, let alone the meaning of events, seem to have no trouble accepting and being scandalized by that faction's interpretation of Church teaching. The knee-jerk reaction to certain words mentioned seems to be enough to accuse the Church of being "The Republican party at prayer" according to liberals and "collectivist" or "socialist" according to conservatives.
Sometimes a particular party gets things very wrong. Abortion is an obvious example here in America. The Democratic party actively supports it, and the Catholic Church absolutely condemns it (and has condemned it long before America was even discovered, let alone established). Therefore, to the ideologue, the Catholic Church is against the Democratic party and therefore supports everything the Republican party stands for.
On the other side, when the Church speaks out on economic injustice, the Republican party treats it as if it was a ringing endorsement of the Democratic party platform in entirety.
This can lead the individual confused. "Is the Catholic Church pro-Democrat or pro-Republican?"
That's when I want to pound my head on a desk. The Church is neither in favor of one party or the other. It is only the pervasive ideologies perverting thinking that leads people to ask this, assuming either A or B without asking whether that is the only way to think on the issue. That's the fallacy of the false dilemma.
Contradictory or Contrary?
A problem we Americans have is the inability to distinguish between contradictory and contrary ideas.
Contradictory ideas are two ideas where they can't both be true, but one must be true. For example, it can't be raining and not raining at the same time and place. It either is or it isn't.
Contrary ideas are ideas can't both be true BUT both can be false. For example Red vs. Blue. An object can't be both all red and all blue. But it can be yellow, making the red vs. blue theory false.
So saying "Catholicism is either the True Religion or is not the True Religion" is an example of contradictory claims. One of them must be false and one must be true. A thing cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same way.
Saying "Either conservative or liberal" is an example of contrary claims. Their philosophies are in opposition and both cannot be true. But the rejection of elements of one does NOT mean the endorsement of the other. One could reject both ideologies as being false in some ways.
This is a vital point. Too many people argue that the bishops, being pro-life, must have a conservative bias. Too many people think that the Pope, speaking on moral flaws in capitalism must be liberal.
Never mind the fact that the Church has spoken on such issues since the 1st century AD.
Conclusion
Jesus won't ask us about our political affiliations when the final judgment comes. He'll ask us if we kept His commandments (John 14:10).
If our ideologies blind us to the holiness we are required to seek, they are a threat to our salvation. If we begin judging whether the teaching of the Church is conservative/liberal enough or too conservative/liberal, our ideology is a stumbling block to loving and serving Christ.
We'd better start unlearning our political factionalism and start learning to seek first the Kingdom of God.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Monday, December 6, 2010
Reflections on Infallibility (Article IVb): Preliminaries on Sources
The Series so Far
- Article I
- Article IIa
- Article IIb
- Article IIc
- Interlude
- Article IId
- Article IIe
- Article IIIa
- Article IIIb
- Interlude II
- Article IVa
- Interlude III
On Using Protestant Sources for Consideration
Before discussing Scripture and Sola Scriptura, which involves looking at what Protestants have to say on the subject, it seems I should first discuss my own criteria for sources I choose. Obviously to have a true dialogue, we need to be clear on what is believed, and not take a bad argument or a misrepresentation of an argument and treat this as the best Protestantism can come up with.
Trying to Understand What They Mean, Not What I Think They Mean
While it would be tempting to take a Protestant source and give it my own interpretation and claim in a smart-aleck way that "I was taking the plain sense of what he said," this would not be a just way to interpret it. If I take the words of an author in a way which he did not intend, I am not responding to what he in fact intended to say. Instead I would be distorting his words.
While it might be partially the fault of the author for not expressing himself clearly, it would be wrong of me to try to hold the author to a view he never claimed to believe. Since I believe it is unjust to misrepresent the Catholic Church this way and have protested anti-Catholics using this tactic, it morally follows that I must not misrepresent the belief of another in this way.
Recognition that these Individuals Do Believe and are Trying to Be Faithful
One thing I want to make clear is that even though I disagree with some of their positions, I do recognize they are trying to be faithful Christians. It is true I believe men like TD Jakes and RC Sproul make errors where they differ from the Catholic faith. However it is also true I believe they do not hold to these errors out of obstinacy but because they believe them to be true.
Who Speaks for Protestantism?
Before I begin, there is one problem to be aware of. Certain Protestant denominations do hold to different beliefs on different things. Some believe Baptism to be necessary and others believe it to be merely a symbol for example. Since there is not a universal arbitration as Catholics have, I will not be able to point to one definition and say “This is what all Protestants hold.” So the question is: What makes up a position which is representative?
90%? 75%? 50%+1? The largest plurality? How representative of Protestantism is Fundamentalism? Evangelicalism? Pentecostalism? Mainline Protestantism? Non-Denominationalism? Any attempt to deal with one will no doubt result in people saying "They don't speak for me!"
Trying to ascertain what is widely held can be difficult indeed, and it seems that I can really do no more than to speak in the most general terms about what Protestantism believes as a whole, and when necessary discuss different offshoots of the same general term when it seems the same term is understood in different ways by different groups.
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide appear to be the two beliefs which all Protestants accept, though the firmness with which they hold it and what is understood by it seems to vary from group to group
Sources Widely Respected and Considered Informed
With this in mind, I do my best to find educated sources, not some of those odd fringe churches who make outlandish claims and wind up in the headlines or cited by atheists to "prove" how dumb Christians are. Dialogue requires finding out how the educated member of the faithful understands the claim, and not how an uninformed individual would understand it. I'm sure all of us have encountered fellow believers speaking in a way so embarrassing that you just want to say, "Will you shut up and stop 'helping' me?" Also I think it would be wrong to take the understanding a teenager might have and treat it as if this is what people with a degree in theology might hold. People do deepen in their faith over time.
I also wish to avoid things which are contentious between groups of Protestants. It would be seen as inaccurate if I chose to apply TD Jakes' views of the Trinity and claim all Protestants believe this. It would be inaccurate to claim that all Protestants hold to the Once Saved Always Saved view or the view of Oneness Pentecostalism. Certainly, I have no interest in taking sides between Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Pentecostal or Mainline.
With these things in mind, I have done my best to consult works available to me which seem to be mainstream sources (which I define in opposition to obscure fringe groups), educated, and not those which are controversial between denominations. However, this cuts both ways. Even if there is a denominational dispute, my interest is seeing what seems to be most widely held even if a particular reader may disagree with it.
Intention to Understand what is Believed by Believers
Finally, my interests are in what believing Protestants hold and not the beliefs of those who so water down the faith that one wonders if they think Christ is anything more than a "nice guy" and a social worker. As Christians we believe that Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins and rose again and that only through His salvific act can we reach Heaven (Yes, Catholics believe this too).
Looking for What Is Believed, Not What is "Easy to Refute"
In short, while I shall do my best to make an accurate assessment, any choices which may seem out of mainstream are not done with the intention of creating a Straw Man argument or to make Protestantism look foolish. While some readers may disagree with the sources cited, please keep in mind this use is not done maliciously but done with good will intended.
For example, I have made reference to Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary. Not because I think a Dictionary is something which will fully explain a belief, but because it is a source which seems to be widely respected and seems to define certain beliefs in a way which tend to be widely held. I may choose to cite people like Luther and Calvin, when relevant to do so, because of the influence they have held among Protestants. However, I don't intend to cite them to make them look ridiculous or evil (in the 16th and 17th century, Catholics and Protestants both expressed themselves forcefully and sometimes uncharitably). Other cited theologians will be ones who seem to hold respect among most Protestants.
A Caveat and a Plea for Fairness
Of course, since I have clarified where I am coming from, I believe I should make this clear: The reader owes the Catholic Church the same consideration that I am trying to give to the Protestant claims. This means considering what we actually believe and not assume that the tired old propaganda dating back to the 17th century is true. We don't worship statues, we don't think we can earn Heaven and we don't think the Pope is God. (Yes I have encountered all of these accusations).
Just as I am doing my best to represent accurately what Protestants believe about themselves, justice and charity requires that the reader do the same for Catholicism.
The Article Next Time
With this in mind, the next article will discuss the issues of how Catholics and Protestants view the Bible, on the meaning and implications of the Inspiration of Scripture, and try to explain why the Catholic cannot accept the idea of Sola Scriptura but does not deny the authority of Scripture in any way (See Interlude III).
Reflections on Infallibility (Article IVb): Preliminaries on Sources
The Series so Far
- Article I
- Article IIa
- Article IIb
- Article IIc
- Interlude
- Article IId
- Article IIe
- Article IIIa
- Article IIIb
- Interlude II
- Article IVa
- Interlude III
On Using Protestant Sources for Consideration
Before discussing Scripture and Sola Scriptura, which involves looking at what Protestants have to say on the subject, it seems I should first discuss my own criteria for sources I choose. Obviously to have a true dialogue, we need to be clear on what is believed, and not take a bad argument or a misrepresentation of an argument and treat this as the best Protestantism can come up with.
Trying to Understand What They Mean, Not What I Think They Mean
While it would be tempting to take a Protestant source and give it my own interpretation and claim in a smart-aleck way that "I was taking the plain sense of what he said," this would not be a just way to interpret it. If I take the words of an author in a way which he did not intend, I am not responding to what he in fact intended to say. Instead I would be distorting his words.
While it might be partially the fault of the author for not expressing himself clearly, it would be wrong of me to try to hold the author to a view he never claimed to believe. Since I believe it is unjust to misrepresent the Catholic Church this way and have protested anti-Catholics using this tactic, it morally follows that I must not misrepresent the belief of another in this way.
Recognition that these Individuals Do Believe and are Trying to Be Faithful
One thing I want to make clear is that even though I disagree with some of their positions, I do recognize they are trying to be faithful Christians. It is true I believe men like TD Jakes and RC Sproul make errors where they differ from the Catholic faith. However it is also true I believe they do not hold to these errors out of obstinacy but because they believe them to be true.
Who Speaks for Protestantism?
Before I begin, there is one problem to be aware of. Certain Protestant denominations do hold to different beliefs on different things. Some believe Baptism to be necessary and others believe it to be merely a symbol for example. Since there is not a universal arbitration as Catholics have, I will not be able to point to one definition and say “This is what all Protestants hold.” So the question is: What makes up a position which is representative?
90%? 75%? 50%+1? The largest plurality? How representative of Protestantism is Fundamentalism? Evangelicalism? Pentecostalism? Mainline Protestantism? Non-Denominationalism? Any attempt to deal with one will no doubt result in people saying "They don't speak for me!"
Trying to ascertain what is widely held can be difficult indeed, and it seems that I can really do no more than to speak in the most general terms about what Protestantism believes as a whole, and when necessary discuss different offshoots of the same general term when it seems the same term is understood in different ways by different groups.
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide appear to be the two beliefs which all Protestants accept, though the firmness with which they hold it and what is understood by it seems to vary from group to group
Sources Widely Respected and Considered Informed
With this in mind, I do my best to find educated sources, not some of those odd fringe churches who make outlandish claims and wind up in the headlines or cited by atheists to "prove" how dumb Christians are. Dialogue requires finding out how the educated member of the faithful understands the claim, and not how an uninformed individual would understand it. I'm sure all of us have encountered fellow believers speaking in a way so embarrassing that you just want to say, "Will you shut up and stop 'helping' me?" Also I think it would be wrong to take the understanding a teenager might have and treat it as if this is what people with a degree in theology might hold. People do deepen in their faith over time.
I also wish to avoid things which are contentious between groups of Protestants. It would be seen as inaccurate if I chose to apply TD Jakes' views of the Trinity and claim all Protestants believe this. It would be inaccurate to claim that all Protestants hold to the Once Saved Always Saved view or the view of Oneness Pentecostalism. Certainly, I have no interest in taking sides between Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Pentecostal or Mainline.
With these things in mind, I have done my best to consult works available to me which seem to be mainstream sources (which I define in opposition to obscure fringe groups), educated, and not those which are controversial between denominations. However, this cuts both ways. Even if there is a denominational dispute, my interest is seeing what seems to be most widely held even if a particular reader may disagree with it.
Intention to Understand what is Believed by Believers
Finally, my interests are in what believing Protestants hold and not the beliefs of those who so water down the faith that one wonders if they think Christ is anything more than a "nice guy" and a social worker. As Christians we believe that Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins and rose again and that only through His salvific act can we reach Heaven (Yes, Catholics believe this too).
Looking for What Is Believed, Not What is "Easy to Refute"
In short, while I shall do my best to make an accurate assessment, any choices which may seem out of mainstream are not done with the intention of creating a Straw Man argument or to make Protestantism look foolish. While some readers may disagree with the sources cited, please keep in mind this use is not done maliciously but done with good will intended.
For example, I have made reference to Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary. Not because I think a Dictionary is something which will fully explain a belief, but because it is a source which seems to be widely respected and seems to define certain beliefs in a way which tend to be widely held. I may choose to cite people like Luther and Calvin, when relevant to do so, because of the influence they have held among Protestants. However, I don't intend to cite them to make them look ridiculous or evil (in the 16th and 17th century, Catholics and Protestants both expressed themselves forcefully and sometimes uncharitably). Other cited theologians will be ones who seem to hold respect among most Protestants.
A Caveat and a Plea for Fairness
Of course, since I have clarified where I am coming from, I believe I should make this clear: The reader owes the Catholic Church the same consideration that I am trying to give to the Protestant claims. This means considering what we actually believe and not assume that the tired old propaganda dating back to the 17th century is true. We don't worship statues, we don't think we can earn Heaven and we don't think the Pope is God. (Yes I have encountered all of these accusations).
Just as I am doing my best to represent accurately what Protestants believe about themselves, justice and charity requires that the reader do the same for Catholicism.
The Article Next Time
With this in mind, the next article will discuss the issues of how Catholics and Protestants view the Bible, on the meaning and implications of the Inspiration of Scripture, and try to explain why the Catholic cannot accept the idea of Sola Scriptura but does not deny the authority of Scripture in any way (See Interlude III).
Friday, November 26, 2010
Reflections on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IIIb): What Catholics DO Believe
Preliminary Notes
I have not forgotten this series. Rather it was a matter of prayer and study in seeking to present the Church teachings as best as I am able to express myself. Hopefully this article will succeed in expressing what Catholics in fact do believe about Infallibility and not lead the reader to a false understanding on the subject which the Church does not intend.
The Series Thus Far:
Introduction
So now we come down to the defining moment. What the Church does in fact believe about infallibility. From what the Church does believe and why, criticisms which are relevant can be made. Those who criticize based on false assumptions, they do not validly challenge our belief.
This becomes especially relevant in light of certain individuals who have recently claimed that the Pope was changing the Church view of condoms on the basis of an interview published by a third party and not released by the Vatican itself. I think enough has been said on that topic, but it remains an interesting example of how Papal Teaching can be misunderstood.
Primacy and Infallibility are Linked
The first thing we need to do is recognize how infallibility is linked to primacy. Contrary to other denominations, Catholicism believes that Jesus intended a visible Church with a visible head which has the authority to make the final determination on what is and is not compatible with following Christ and that determination is binding. Thus, while we may have individuals or groups who disagree with Catholic teaching as passed on by the Magisterium, we believe such individuals/groups have no authority to impose their own interpretations over the whole Church.
Thus, while I am free to read the Bible and to seek to apply the teachings of Scripture to my life, I am not free to declare my own interpretation of the Bible binding and free of error. (later on in the series I will discuss the idea of Church authority vs. Sola Scriptura).
Because Catholics believe that Christ entrusted His mission to the Apostles, with Peter as the head of the Apostles, and because we believe that the Pope and the Bishops are the successors to Peter and the Apostles, we believe they continue to have the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:19; 18:18).
Now, if what is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven, we have three possible scenarios:
- If the Church binds in error, error will be found in Heaven
- If the Church binds in error, and error is not bound in Heaven, then Christ spoke falsely or imprecisely.
- Because God will not bind error in Heaven, He will protect His Church from binding error on Earth.
While non-Catholics may reject the idea that this is the meaning at all, it does follow that, in the Catholic faith, it is not unreasonable for Catholics to believe that God can protect His Church from teaching error.
The Analogy of the Math Test
I think the best analogy I have read for infallibility was given by Karl Keating (Catholicism and Fundamentalism page 215), which I will paraphrase. He offers this scenario. Assume that the Pope was considered infallible in Math rather than in Faith and Morals. Assume he was given a set of 100 problems to solve. How many would he have to get right in order to be infallible.
The answer is not 100. It is actually zero. If the Pope turned in a blank sheet of paper, he would not have gotten any wrong.
Of course turning in a blank sheet of paper would not actually benefit anyone looking to the Pope for instruction, and the same would be true here. There will be constant incidents as long as the Church is on Earth where the faithful will have ideas and questions. Is this war just? Is this behavior with my spouse moral? Do I have a right to steal from a company which unjustly fires me? Does the Bible support Arianism?
Merely Remaining Silent Is a Failure to Follow Christ's Mandate
The Church cannot simply hide away and say nothing when faced with the question of what must I do to be faithful to Christ?. The great commission of Christ commands us…
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20)
… and requires the Church to face the challenges of the world pointing out what is right and what is wrong in relationship to our following Christ. So if a man named Arius comes out with an idea, "There once was a time when the Son was not," and cites Scripture to justify his rule, does the Church stay silent? Or does she admonish the sinner, making use of the authority given her by Christ to determine what is authentic and what is not?
Since I have pointed out that Infallibility is not some sort of prophecy, but rather a protection from error and since I have pointed out above that the Church cannot simply remain silent to avoid error because Christ commands us to make disciples of all nations, it follows that the Church must pray, study and reflect on the teachings of Christ through Scripture and Tradition, and look to how the saints have expressed the relationship of Christ and Man in the past to determine whether or not a proposed view is compatible with this teaching of Christ passed on to us by the Apostles.
What Infallibility Is
The Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus explains what it means to be infallible, though due to the language of the 19th century, it may be harder for the 21st century audience to understand. So let us first look at the text and then seek to explain it:
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
(See also Catechism of the Catholic Church #889-891 for further explanation)
From this description, we can see an infallible teaching has certain conditions:
- The Pope is speaking as the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church, and not as a private individual
- the Pope proclaims by a definitive act
- a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals
- which directed to the entire Church.
This actually excludes a lot which some have pointed to in order to reject infallibility.
What this definition excludes
When the Pope speaks as a private individual (as he did in Light of the World or Jesus of Nazareth), he is not using his Papal authority and such a work is not viewed as a document of the Church. It may repeat doctrines which are held definitively by the Church, but the authority of those doctrines come through the Church teaching and not that private view. These books may indeed offer brilliant insights to further our understanding of the faith, but the point of such a book is not to be an "official teaching."
This is why the media reports of "changing teaching" in Light of the World was false. This sort of medium is not used to make a definition to be binding on the faithful.
Because it limits ex cathedra to a definitive act, we are made aware of what is binding. For example of a definitive act, John Paul II wrote in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the following:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
By his formal declaration, Pope John Paul II has made clear that the Church cannot ordain women and that this must be held by the faithful. Any view which denies this teaching cannot be considered a Catholic belief.
By limiting it to faith and morals, other elements like disciplines and customs are not considered infallible. Limiting the priesthood to unmarried men in the West, whether to permit the vernacular in the Mass, whether to permit or withhold the chalice to the laity or other practices… these are disciplines, not doctrines, and can be changed for the good of the Church at the time without disproving the infallibility of the Pope. This is because such disciplines were never held to be infallible to begin with.
Finally, by directing it to the entire Church, it eliminates obligations which are merely directed to certain areas or groups. If the Pope denounces a behavior in one region (say for example, performing a devotion which is being abused), it does not mean that such a behavior is denounced everywhere.
For example, in Medieval France, there was a heretical group known as the Cathari or Albigensians who had a rather warped view of God and Jesus Christ. To prevent the errors of the Albigensians from spreading, the laity in that region were forbidden from reading Scripture on their own. It does not follow from this that the Catholic Church "forbade the laity everywhere" from reading the Bible. The limited time frame and limited region demonstrate that such an obligation was not infallible, and was never considered to be a universal ban (in all times and places) on reading the Bible .
Ordinary Authority of the Magisterium
Now there is an unfortunate view among certain Catholics that anything which is not explicitly bound by an infallible decree is merely an opinion. This is false however.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about the Ordinary magisterium:
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
So it isn't a case of "either infallible or opinion." The ordinary teachings of the Magisterium in terms of faith and morals lead to a deeper understanding of Revelation. The difference is that the Church does not intend a formal definition (which is usually used to define the difference between what view is inside the Church and what view is outside the Church), but rather a deepened understanding where a formal ex cathedra definition is seen as unnecessary. Far from being "an opinion" such a teaching requires "religious assent" (must be firmly believed)
Lumen Gentium #25 tells us:
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Donum veritatis #23 tells us:
When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)
When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.
In other words, even when the intent is not to define something in an infallible manner, when the Church teaches in a way to show how an aspect of faith and morals is conformity with the truth or to show how an attitude is not compatible with the faith, this is not an opinion, but rather still within the prerogative of Peter to bind and loose in a way obligatory for the faithful.
Such a teaching may be further refined, but will never contradict what the Church teaches already has taught.
Conclusion: It All Leads Back to Primacy
It is crucial to keep in mind that this is not some sort of charism which makes the Pope a sinless prophet, but is our faith that God will not let the gates of Hell prevail over His Church by authoritatively teaching error when Christ has made obedience to the Church necessary (See Luke 10:16). Catholics believe that God would not make a declaration that those who will not listen to the Church are to be treated as tax collectors (Matt 18:17) without protecting the Church from teaching what is wrong.
Now I recognize that certain non-Catholics who deny Papal primacy will point to certain teachings and say "What about [X]? That contradicts the Bible!" This is an issue of interpretation and the authority to interpret the Bible in a binding way.
I hope to address this issue of Church Authority and Sola Scriptura beginning in article IVa.
Reflections on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IIIb): What Catholics DO Believe
Preliminary Notes
I have not forgotten this series. Rather it was a matter of prayer and study in seeking to present the Church teachings as best as I am able to express myself. Hopefully this article will succeed in expressing what Catholics in fact do believe about Infallibility and not lead the reader to a false understanding on the subject which the Church does not intend.
The Series Thus Far:
Introduction
So now we come down to the defining moment. What the Church does in fact believe about infallibility. From what the Church does believe and why, criticisms which are relevant can be made. Those who criticize based on false assumptions, they do not validly challenge our belief.
This becomes especially relevant in light of certain individuals who have recently claimed that the Pope was changing the Church view of condoms on the basis of an interview published by a third party and not released by the Vatican itself. I think enough has been said on that topic, but it remains an interesting example of how Papal Teaching can be misunderstood.
Primacy and Infallibility are Linked
The first thing we need to do is recognize how infallibility is linked to primacy. Contrary to other denominations, Catholicism believes that Jesus intended a visible Church with a visible head which has the authority to make the final determination on what is and is not compatible with following Christ and that determination is binding. Thus, while we may have individuals or groups who disagree with Catholic teaching as passed on by the Magisterium, we believe such individuals/groups have no authority to impose their own interpretations over the whole Church.
Thus, while I am free to read the Bible and to seek to apply the teachings of Scripture to my life, I am not free to declare my own interpretation of the Bible binding and free of error. (later on in the series I will discuss the idea of Church authority vs. Sola Scriptura).
Because Catholics believe that Christ entrusted His mission to the Apostles, with Peter as the head of the Apostles, and because we believe that the Pope and the Bishops are the successors to Peter and the Apostles, we believe they continue to have the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:19; 18:18).
Now, if what is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven, we have three possible scenarios:
- If the Church binds in error, error will be found in Heaven
- If the Church binds in error, and error is not bound in Heaven, then Christ spoke falsely or imprecisely.
- Because God will not bind error in Heaven, He will protect His Church from binding error on Earth.
While non-Catholics may reject the idea that this is the meaning at all, it does follow that, in the Catholic faith, it is not unreasonable for Catholics to believe that God can protect His Church from teaching error.
The Analogy of the Math Test
I think the best analogy I have read for infallibility was given by Karl Keating (Catholicism and Fundamentalism page 215), which I will paraphrase. He offers this scenario. Assume that the Pope was considered infallible in Math rather than in Faith and Morals. Assume he was given a set of 100 problems to solve. How many would he have to get right in order to be infallible.
The answer is not 100. It is actually zero. If the Pope turned in a blank sheet of paper, he would not have gotten any wrong.
Of course turning in a blank sheet of paper would not actually benefit anyone looking to the Pope for instruction, and the same would be true here. There will be constant incidents as long as the Church is on Earth where the faithful will have ideas and questions. Is this war just? Is this behavior with my spouse moral? Do I have a right to steal from a company which unjustly fires me? Does the Bible support Arianism?
Merely Remaining Silent Is a Failure to Follow Christ's Mandate
The Church cannot simply hide away and say nothing when faced with the question of what must I do to be faithful to Christ?. The great commission of Christ commands us…
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20)
… and requires the Church to face the challenges of the world pointing out what is right and what is wrong in relationship to our following Christ. So if a man named Arius comes out with an idea, "There once was a time when the Son was not," and cites Scripture to justify his rule, does the Church stay silent? Or does she admonish the sinner, making use of the authority given her by Christ to determine what is authentic and what is not?
Since I have pointed out that Infallibility is not some sort of prophecy, but rather a protection from error and since I have pointed out above that the Church cannot simply remain silent to avoid error because Christ commands us to make disciples of all nations, it follows that the Church must pray, study and reflect on the teachings of Christ through Scripture and Tradition, and look to how the saints have expressed the relationship of Christ and Man in the past to determine whether or not a proposed view is compatible with this teaching of Christ passed on to us by the Apostles.
What Infallibility Is
The Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus explains what it means to be infallible, though due to the language of the 19th century, it may be harder for the 21st century audience to understand. So let us first look at the text and then seek to explain it:
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
(See also Catechism of the Catholic Church #889-891 for further explanation)
From this description, we can see an infallible teaching has certain conditions:
- The Pope is speaking as the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church, and not as a private individual
- the Pope proclaims by a definitive act
- a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals
- which directed to the entire Church.
This actually excludes a lot which some have pointed to in order to reject infallibility.
What this definition excludes
When the Pope speaks as a private individual (as he did in Light of the World or Jesus of Nazareth), he is not using his Papal authority and such a work is not viewed as a document of the Church. It may repeat doctrines which are held definitively by the Church, but the authority of those doctrines come through the Church teaching and not that private view. These books may indeed offer brilliant insights to further our understanding of the faith, but the point of such a book is not to be an "official teaching."
This is why the media reports of "changing teaching" in Light of the World was false. This sort of medium is not used to make a definition to be binding on the faithful.
Because it limits ex cathedra to a definitive act, we are made aware of what is binding. For example of a definitive act, John Paul II wrote in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the following:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
By his formal declaration, Pope John Paul II has made clear that the Church cannot ordain women and that this must be held by the faithful. Any view which denies this teaching cannot be considered a Catholic belief.
By limiting it to faith and morals, other elements like disciplines and customs are not considered infallible. Limiting the priesthood to unmarried men in the West, whether to permit the vernacular in the Mass, whether to permit or withhold the chalice to the laity or other practices… these are disciplines, not doctrines, and can be changed for the good of the Church at the time without disproving the infallibility of the Pope. This is because such disciplines were never held to be infallible to begin with.
Finally, by directing it to the entire Church, it eliminates obligations which are merely directed to certain areas or groups. If the Pope denounces a behavior in one region (say for example, performing a devotion which is being abused), it does not mean that such a behavior is denounced everywhere.
For example, in Medieval France, there was a heretical group known as the Cathari or Albigensians who had a rather warped view of God and Jesus Christ. To prevent the errors of the Albigensians from spreading, the laity in that region were forbidden from reading Scripture on their own. It does not follow from this that the Catholic Church "forbade the laity everywhere" from reading the Bible. The limited time frame and limited region demonstrate that such an obligation was not infallible, and was never considered to be a universal ban (in all times and places) on reading the Bible .
Ordinary Authority of the Magisterium
Now there is an unfortunate view among certain Catholics that anything which is not explicitly bound by an infallible decree is merely an opinion. This is false however.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about the Ordinary magisterium:
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
So it isn't a case of "either infallible or opinion." The ordinary teachings of the Magisterium in terms of faith and morals lead to a deeper understanding of Revelation. The difference is that the Church does not intend a formal definition (which is usually used to define the difference between what view is inside the Church and what view is outside the Church), but rather a deepened understanding where a formal ex cathedra definition is seen as unnecessary. Far from being "an opinion" such a teaching requires "religious assent" (must be firmly believed)
Lumen Gentium #25 tells us:
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Donum veritatis #23 tells us:
When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)
When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.
In other words, even when the intent is not to define something in an infallible manner, when the Church teaches in a way to show how an aspect of faith and morals is conformity with the truth or to show how an attitude is not compatible with the faith, this is not an opinion, but rather still within the prerogative of Peter to bind and loose in a way obligatory for the faithful.
Such a teaching may be further refined, but will never contradict what the Church teaches already has taught.
Conclusion: It All Leads Back to Primacy
It is crucial to keep in mind that this is not some sort of charism which makes the Pope a sinless prophet, but is our faith that God will not let the gates of Hell prevail over His Church by authoritatively teaching error when Christ has made obedience to the Church necessary (See Luke 10:16). Catholics believe that God would not make a declaration that those who will not listen to the Church are to be treated as tax collectors (Matt 18:17) without protecting the Church from teaching what is wrong.
Now I recognize that certain non-Catholics who deny Papal primacy will point to certain teachings and say "What about [X]? That contradicts the Bible!" This is an issue of interpretation and the authority to interpret the Bible in a binding way.
I hope to address this issue of Church Authority and Sola Scriptura beginning in article IVa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)