Obeying The Pope

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Sep 4 2004, 11:36 PM'] ok First of all, who are we to question the Successors to Peter?? Are you trying to teach the teachers????? Dissenters are bunk. [/quote]
Well, I am not one to do so.. that is what John Paul II did. He questioned and contradicted what Pope Leo XIII and Pius XI taught (according to The Great Facade). I am open minded about the issue 100%, but I WILL consider both sides. So far, no one has reconciled what he has said effectively to what Woods and Ferrara contend. I will follow what makes logical sense: The Great Facade is correct. Moreover, you asked who are we to question the Vicar of Christ? I answer with the quote I have already written from a theologian from Trent, repeated by POPE St. Pius V: "Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff anre the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See--they destroy instead of strengthen its foundations." Those who follow indiscriminately are not truly obedient. They are giving lies and flattery. Moreover, Vatican I does not say the Pope is infallible in this manner. Are we to promise to him and others what Christ has NOT promised to him, which is complete infallibility? We dare not.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hartford, please read my above reply, as I fail to see any form of legitimate argument that has yet to be addressed.

[Dave]

HartfordWhalers, please go to the links I posted earlier in this thread.

[MC Just]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 4 2004, 11:58 PM'] Well, I am not one to do so.. that is what John Paul II did. He questioned and contradicted what Pope Leo XIII and Pius XI taught (according to The Great Facade). I am open minded about the issue 100%, but I WILL consider both sides. So far, no one has reconciled what he has said effectively to what Woods and Ferrara contend. I will follow what makes logical sense: The Great Facade is correct. Moreover, you asked who are we to question the Vicar of Christ? I answer with the quote I have already written from a theologian from Trent, repeated by POPE St. Pius V: "Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff anre the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See--they destroy instead of strengthen its foundations." Those who follow indiscriminately are not truly obedient. They are giving lies and flattery. Moreover, Vatican I does not say the Pope is infallible in this manner. Are we to promise to him and others what Christ has NOT promised to him, which is complete infallibility? We dare not. [/quote]
and you really think you know better? I do not think so.

[HartfordWhalers]

I am sorry I completely mistyped something... I was writing so many "subject to" 's that I mixed up completely what I was trying to say:

"First they point out of John Paul II says that ONLY the Church is subject not the wife, but Pope Leo XIII emphasizes the point in Ephesians that just as the Church is subject SO TOO THE WIFE IS SUBJECT. John Paul II blatantly contradicts that, saying only the [u][b]Church and NOT the[/b][/u] wife is subject."

That is how it should have read. I am sorry I said what I meant backwards.


You said he wrote nothing that contradicts Pope Leo XII, right here he wrote that the Church only and not the wife is subject: "However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual."

[quote]Lets consider the most glaring falsity: The first sentence. Now, as you quoted, John Paul wrote "in the relationship between husband and wife the 'subjection' is not one- sided but mutual." In order for the subjugation to be mutual, the wife must be subject thus making the first sentence of the above an utter lie. [/quote]

Mutual subjection is no subjection at all, as I quoted from the book itself: "it is impossibnle to see how authority could exist any more in the family than in the Church if there were a 'mutual subjection' and o ruller-subject realtion between the two spouses. The whole notion of mutual subjection" is a conundrum, since there cannot be a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have to heads."


Me: "He writes "For the husband is the head of the wife", but he leaves off "as Christ is the head of the Church", which clearly shows that the husband is the role of Christ and the wife is the role of the submissive Church to him." "

[quote]Now we are getting somewhat ridiculous. If you go back and read your own quote from John Paul's writing, he clearly and explicitly relates the husband to Christ, saying "This is especially true because the husband is called the 'head' of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give 'himself up for her' (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life."[/quote]

No, it is not ridiculous because he recognizes the fact that the husband must sacrifice but completely leaves out the part where he is the "ruler" or "head" of the family to whom the wife MUST be subject.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Sep 5 2004, 12:09 AM'] and you really think you know better? I do not think so. [/quote]
What do you mean..??

Do YOU think YOU know better than Popes Leo XII and Pius XI??

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Dave' date='Sep 5 2004, 12:06 AM'] HartfordWhalers, please go to the links I posted earlier in this thread. [/quote]
I don't have nearly enough time to read all of those links through. That is almost a small book, considering it would be probably the main story for 5 different issues. In any event, I am not discussing the merit of the book as of this time but rather the issue of the apparant contradiction here of John Paul II and two previous Popes.

[qfnol31]

The Popes don't contradict as often as it seems. Oftentimes, they only contradict when what they've said is misunderstood.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 5 2004, 12:19 AM'] The Popes don't contradict as often as it seems. Oftentimes, they only contradict when what they've said is misunderstood. [/quote]
If I misunderstand, then please explain what John Paul II means and how that doesn't contradict what previous Popes have said. How about his position on being able to read at a protestant service. Pius XI said that NO CATHOLIC could participate in the services of non-Catholics and that the Church has NEVER allowed any Catholic to do so. So, then, I would say he has contradicted right there over 350 Popes.

[Apotheoun]

In his comments on Ephesians the present Pope has said nothing shocking, nor has he taught anything in opposition to the previous teaching of the Papal Magisterium. No Pope has ever taught that a wife must give the same kind of submission to her husband that the Church gives to Christ, because to say that would be to fall into a form of idolatry. Christ is God, and so the Church owes Him absolute submission, but a wife's submission to her husband is relative, because he is merely a created being, and to say otherwise is idolatrous. Moreover, the section of Ephesians on submission begins with the verse which says, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ," [Eph. 5:21] and so it follows that everyone must be subject to those around them for Christ's sake, and not simply wives in subjection to husbands. The text goes on to point out the nature of the submission given, i.e., that wives are subject to their husbands because man is the head of woman, but text continues by saying that husbands must love their wives and must die for them as Christ died for the Church. Now, to die for someone is also a form of subjection, and in fact it is the ultimate form of subjection that one person can give to another person. [cf. St. Ignatius, Trallians, chap. 11] The problem with the socalled "traditionalists" is that they fail to take into account the integral nature of Catholic tradition; instead, they try to isolate individual elements of the tradition and in the process they fall into a form of Protestant reductionism. No Catholic would ever try to pit the teaching of one Pope against another. The Papal Magisterium is a diachronic reality, and so in a mysterious way the Popes (all 264 of them and however many more are yet to come) are a single corporate person acting as the visible head of the Church until Christ's Parousia.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 5 2004, 01:17 AM'] In his comments on Ephesians the present Pope has said nothing shocking, nor has he taught anything in opposition to the previous teaching of the Papal Magisterium. No Pope has ever taught that a wife must give the same kind of submission to her husband that the Church gives to Christ, because to say that would be to fall into a form of idolatry. Christ is God, and so the Church owes Him absolute submission, but a wife's submission to her husband is relative, because he is merely a created being, and to say otherwise is idolatrous. Moreover, the section of Ephesians on submission begins with the verse which says, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ," [Eph. 5:21] and so it follows that everyone must be subject to those around them for Christ's sake, and not simply wives in subjection to husbands. The text goes on to point out the nature of the submission given, i.e., that wives are subject to their husbands because man is the head of woman, but text continues by saying that husbands must love their wives and must die for them as Christ died for the Church. Now, to die for someone is also a form of subjection, and in fact it is the ultimate form of subjection that one person can give to another person. [cf. St. Ignatius, Trallians, chap. 11] The problem with the socalled "traditionalists" is that they fail to take into account the integral nature of Catholic tradition; instead, they try to isolate individual elements of the tradition and in the process they fall into a form of Protestant reductionism. No Catholic would ever try to pit the teaching of one Pope against another. The Papal Magisterium is a diachronic reality, and so in a mysterious way the Popes (all 264 of them and however many more are yet to come) are a single corporate person acting as the visible head of the Church until Christ's Parousia. [/quote]
If that is what he meant by subjection, why didn't he make a note to St. Ignatius to make it clear that that is what he was talking about? It seems very clear to me that the discussion of submissiveness is dealing with AUTHORITY, not dying for another person. Yes, both are subject to one another in charity, which the highest form is death for another, but that does not change the fact that this is a discussion on authority, which Popes of the past have quoted that passage to mean.

Moreover, "it follows that everyone must be subject to those around them for Christ's sake, and not simply wives in subjection to husbands." None of the other Popes said any of that. Yes, submissive in charity, but, as I said, the previous Popes have said this deals with authority.

"No Pope has ever taught that a wife must give the same kind of submission to her husband that the Church gives to Christ"

The Pope's have said that the relationship of husband to wife is likened to Christ to Church. That is what both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI stated.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 4 2004, 11:22 PM'] If that is what he meant by subjection, why didn't he make a note to St. Ignatius to make it clear that that is what he was talking about? It seems very clear to me that the discussion of submissiveness is dealing with AUTHORITY, not dying for another person. Yes, both are subject to one another in charity, which the highest form is death for another, but that does not change the fact that this is a discussion on authority, which Popes of the past have quoted that passage to mean.

Moreover, "it follows that everyone must be subject to those around them for Christ's sake, and not simply wives in subjection to husbands." None of the other Popes said any of that. Yes, submissive in charity, but, as I said, the previous Popes have said this deals with authority.

"No Pope has ever taught that a wife must give the same kind of submission to her husband that the Church gives to Christ"

The Pope's have said that the relationship of husband to wife is likened to Christ to Church. That is what both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI stated. [/quote]
You'd have to ask the Pope why he didn't give the reference to St. Ignatius. But regardless, your position makes the relative submission of a wife to her husband into a form of idolatry, and no Pope, not Leo XIII, or any other, would have ever argued that a wife's submission is identical to that given by the Church to Christ.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 4 2004, 11:22 PM'] The Pope's have said that the relationship of husband to wife is likened to Christ to Church. That is what both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI stated. [/quote]
So, it is your opinion that the Popes of the past were recommending a form of idolatry, now that is interesting. But I see this as another of the forms of anti-intellectual reductions common among the "traditionalists." Don't forget that analogies by definition include dissimilarity as well as similarity.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]The Pope's have said that the relationship of husband to wife is likened to Christ to Church. That is what both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI stated.[/quote]

That is precisely correct, and it is precisely what they taught, but it is not what you seem to be asserting. Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI spoke on the similarity of the relationship, what you seem to be trying to do is make the two coincident with each other.

Moreover, John Paul II's writings don't in any way compromise the authority of the man over the women, but instead merely assert that the position of authority that he has necessitates a subordination of himself below all.

Also, it seems to me that the fundamental claim that you quoted in the book is a flagrant misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the issue. I will quote it again:

[quote]it is impossibnle to see how authority could exist any more in the family than in the Church if there were a 'mutual subjection' and o ruller-subject realtion between the two spouses. The whole notion of mutual subjection" is a conundrum, since there cannot be a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have to heads."[/quote]

The Pope is known as "The Servant of the Servants of God." Now, either the people writing the book are making the claim that this is simply a name and is untrue in any other sense, or they must acknowledge that the Holy Father is really and truly a servant of others in all things, and that this does not compromise his authority, but rather, his authority furthers his service.

If the latter is true, then there is no issue whatsoever, for this is in perfect conformity with the teachings of all the Pope's including John Paul II, Leo XIII, and Pius XI.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Apotheoun]

Authority is service.

[Guest JeffCR07]

amen!

[Donna]

To all who actually discussed the subject, thank you.

But I have not read the latest exchanges yet between Hartford and Appo, so won't be commenting on that Duh... .

IMO, it is no apologia to suggest "dissent" when one has a legitimate question. It might even be [b]you[/b] one day asking something in good will...and not only not being given light and discussion, but being accused.

Why is it that (for example) Brother Adam can still struggle with Church teaching, but Hartford Whalers cannot?

I agree, Hartford, that the texts are different. However (if anyone can believe it), I am thankful for JPII speaking of the man's subjection to Christ, imitating Him (who lays down His life for His bride). There are too many trads -others', too, I reckon- who contemptuously treat their wives as if they were their daughters. It's sick.

Yes, we see St. Joseph, the most unworthy (so to speak) of the Holy Family being made head of it. I'm sure Joseph treated Our Lady as the Seat of Wisdom that she is. Or mostly anyway, allowing for the differences in their intellects, for hers was never darkened.

I've other comments but I don't think they pertain.

But I will say, Hartford, not having read the book, but familiar maybe w/ its contents, that it probably makes other points. But, look to the fruit of people's lives as well.

[PedroX]

donna,

You are so cool. I think your perspective here is very accurate, expecially when one takes the time to contemplate the Holy Family.

ps did you get my email?

Hartford,

I don't understand really what the fundemental question is. Is it a question on the role of the papacy in our lives, or a question on teachings regarding the family. I ask this in all seriousness and with all due respect.

To others:

Have none of you ever struggled, I mean really struggled, with a teaching of Holy Mother Church? Have you all been blessed with instant insight and deep understanding of the issues and nuances? Yes, perhaps a questioner might be wording their question in a way that implies dissent or pushes one of your buttons, but charity demands that we presuppose the fault is in the manner not the intent. We can not continue to jump down someone's throat simply because they appear to be in dissent. Hartford posed a question; would it really have been so hard to answer the question instead of lumping him/her in with schismatics and gathering wood for a good burning?

peace...

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Sep 5 2004, 06:34 AM'] To others:

Have none of you ever struggled, I mean really struggled, with a teaching of Holy Mother Church? Have you all been blessed with instant insight and deep understanding of the issues and nuances? Yes, perhaps a questioner might be wording their question in a way that implies dissent or pushes one of your buttons, but charity demands that we presuppose the fault is in the manner not the intent. We can not continue to jump down someone's throat simply because they appear to be in dissent. Hartford posed a question; would it really have been so hard to answer the question instead of lumping him/her in with schismatics and gathering wood for a good burning?

peace... [/quote]
I can only speak for myself, but since my conversion to Catholicism from Protestantism in 1988 I haven't had any difficulty assenting to the teaching of the Magisterium. Perhaps my time as a Protestant was a good thing, because it helped me to see the need for obedience to the Magisterium.

I rarely see questions as a form of dissent, but the problem today is that many people are desperately looking to find inconsistencies between the teachings of the various pontiffs over time. I personally think this attitude is destructive to the faith. The Papacy is a living institution, and like the Church herself it is a single corporate personality stretching throughout time, and as a consequence the teachings of the present Pope should not be pitted against the teachings of previous Popes, and anyone who tries to do this shows a failure to grasp the nature of the teaching of Vatican 1 on Papal authority.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Have none of you ever struggled, I mean really struggled, with a teaching of Holy Mother Church? Have you all been blessed with instant insight and deep understanding of the issues and nuances? Yes, perhaps a questioner might be wording their question in a way that implies dissent or pushes one of your buttons, but charity demands that we presuppose the fault is in the manner not the intent. We can not continue to jump down someone's throat simply because they appear to be in dissent. Hartford posed a question; would it really have been so hard to answer the question instead of lumping him/her in with schismatics and gathering wood for a good burning?[/quote]

I have stuggled quite a bit with teachings here and there, though by the Grace of God I have always come to understand why the Church is correct. Hartford, if you feel like I've been placing you in the "dissenters" category, then I desperately want to appologize. If I have offended you or been condescending, then I also want to apologize. My posts have only been attempts to help you understand the teachings of the Magisterium and the Holy Fathers, and if they have been poor attempts then I would like to appologize again.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff