Obeying The Pope

[XIX]

Dude, the Pope isn't perfect.

Neither is a brain surgeon. But I sure as heck would rather trust him with my life than some teenage student who think he knows what he is doing.

[Socrates]

For a detailed, point-by-point refutation of the arguments made in [i]The Great Facade[/i], please read the [i]Wanderer[/i] articles suggested earlier by Dave, particularly [url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-15-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-15-03.htm[/url], which includes the issue about the husband and wife, and [url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm[/url], which deals with the ecumenism issue. Yes, it's long, but it's a more thorough rebuttal than there is room for here. (The Wanderer is a very conservative, orthodox, Catholic paper, by the way.)

It is shown that Pope John Paul II has said absolutely nothing which contradicts prior Church teaching. The authors of that book offer twisted sophistical misinterpretations of words in order to "prove" that the current Pope is a heretic.

Again I ask, who should Catholics follow, the Vicar of Christ, or a couple self-styled "trads" with a negative agenda? I, for one, prefer to stay on board the Bark of St. Peter!

[cmotherofpirl]

As a Catholic, one starts with the understanding that the Church is the Bride of Christ, and any apparent error is in OUR own understanding, not in the Church.
Our task is to educate ourselves to either overcome our flawed understanding of a particular topic, wait until the Holy Spirit enlightens us, or simply accept in obedience that the Church knows more than we do, and let it go at that.

God will not test on our thelogy, only on our love.

Edited September 6, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Guest JeffCR07]

The articles there are phenomenal. Hartford, if you do not have time to read them in their entirety (which I strongly encourage all to do) then I suggest at least reading the following, which I have taken from the article, as it pertains directly to the issue at hand:

[quote]On page 52 the following claim is made after a long list of so-called novelties adopted by the Church and our Pope:


  The preconciliar Popes, following the teaching of St. Paul, taught that the wife was subject to the authority of the husband and must obey him as the Church obeys Christ (assuming the husband’s commands are just and moral), but John Paul II has taught that St. Paul meant that this subjection was mutual and that he was merely speaking in a way suited to the culture of his time.


  This statement with the following three pages is perhaps the most egregious example of the authors’ blind zeal to find error in everything, a zeal that causes them to create error where there has never been any. The authors claim that Pope John Paul II "flatly contradicts" Pope Leo XIII by asserting that subjection is not required on the part of the wife for it is only required on the part of the Church to Christ. To come to this conclusion is to read contradiction into the text.

  Mulieris dignitatem, the text that pits John Paul II against the teaching of St. Paul and the preconciliar Popes, appears on page 53 of The Great Façade, after a portion of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Arcanum, and reads in the authors’ text:


  "The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: ‘Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife’ (Eph. 5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a ‘mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ’ (cf. Eph. 5:21). . . . 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."


  On page 54 the authors then comment:




  To all appearances, this meditation on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians flatly contradicts the teaching of Leo XIII, who emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5:22-23 — which is to say, God Himself — teaches that subjection is required not "only on the part of the Church" to Christ, as John Paul II asserts, but also on the part of the wife to her husband, because in the order of familial authority the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo taught explicitly in the above-quoted passage. It is significant that John Paul II quotes only the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians — "For the husband is the head of the wife" — while omitting the conclusion: "as Christ is the head of the Church."


  Now that as much context has been given, I must express how astounded I was to read the authors’ accusation. This accusation is an example of either a complete breakdown in logic or a wholly sinister attempt to sully the name of the Pope.

  The Holy Father writes that the one-sided subjection in the relationship between Christ and the Church is to be distinguished from the relation between husband and wife where "the subjection is not one-sided but mutual." This notion of mutual subjection disturbs the authors. They write, "This 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 two heads." While the authors may think it telling that the Pope omitted the second half of what they consider "the key sentence from Ephesians," they may need to be reminded of the words of the Apostle at the very beginning of this catena. 3 These words are quoted by John Paul II, and they color the entirety of his "meditation." In fact one could argue that since these words of St. Paul appear at the beginning of the catena they color the entirety of the biblical text in question. These words are, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ."

  One wonders how the notion of mutual subjection could be such a "conundrum" for our authors when it is clear that St. Paul calls for just this at the very start of his words on marriage. In the footnote on page 55 they admit that "there is certainly a sense in which husband and wife, unlike Christ and the Church, are subject to each other — in the order of charity. But the precise teaching of St. Paul in Ephesians relates to the order of authority, as Leo XIII and Pius XI made clear." Before we turn to the words of the preconciliar Popes, let us turn to the Holy Father’s original text from Mulieris dignitatem.  The authors admit that in the order of charity husband and wife are to subject themselves to one another. Do the words of John Paul II reflect that this is his understanding here? In point of fact they do. In paragraph 23 of Mulieris the Pope writes that Ephesians expresses the truth of Genesis where we find the first scriptural teaching on marriage. The two are called to a love that unites them. The Pope writes, "The Letter to the Ephesians once again confirms this truth, while at the same time comparing the spousal character of the love between man and woman to the mystery of Christ and of the Church" (emphasis mine). After this sentence the word "love" appears 12 times and "compassion" three more in paragraph 23 alone. The entire context of this meditation on Ephesians is the similarity and difference between the love God has for His people, the love Christ has for His Church, and the love that a couple has for each other.

  The authors quote from paragraph 24. In quoting the Holy Father they omit the following, "This is especially true because the husband is called the ‘head’ of his wife as Christ is 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." One is immediately reminded of the words of our Lord when He says that there is no greater love than to give one’s self up for one’s friends (John 15:13). It is stupendously clear that the order within which the Holy Father is speaking regarding this subjection between man and wife is the order of charity not authority. This order of charity is pointed out in the Pauline text itself (5:21, 25, 28-29). The Holy Father in no way denies that in the order of authority the wife is only subject to the husband, because he is not concerning himself with the order of authority in this document. If the authors think he ought to, that is one thing. It is quite another to state that the current Pope "flatly contradicts the teaching of Leo XIII" and "apparently contradicts Pius XI on the same point." Let us turn to the teaching of these Popes.

  When one turns to the pertinent texts from Arcanum and Casti connubii one does not find the contradiction that the authors are so eager to discover. The authors quote from section 11 in Arcanum, ignoring the first two sentences which read, "Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help." In the words of John Paul II this mutual subjection through unfailing and unselfish help is to be distinguished from the relationship between Christ and the Church, for Christ is never subject to the Church. Further, Leo XIII addresses the order of authority in paragraph 11 only after spending paragraphs nine and ten on the nature of the order of love that makes the order of authority possible. The subjection in authority according to Leo XIII is only possible through the "very great mutual love" that exists there in marriage.

  When we turn to Casti connubii we find that Pius XI has taught that the order of authority, which the authors feel is the primary understanding for verses 22 and 23, is understandable first in the order of charity, for this order of authority is an "order of love." We read:


  25. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband" [1 Cor. 7:3], express not only a law of justice but of charity.

  26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church" [Eph. 5:22-23].


  The authoritative order is understandable only in the context of charity. We read in the following paragraph in Casti:


  But it [the subjection] forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.


  Once again, this subjection in the order of authority is not to overshadow the mutual subjection which the two are to have toward one another. In both Leo XIII and Pius XI the order of charity comes before the order of authority. The latter is possible only through the reality of the former. In the Pauline text itself, the first words are in favor of that mutual subjection John Paul II speaks of. There is no reason to doubt that the Holy Father would agree that in the order of authority the subjection in a marriage is one-sided. Still, as the text from Eph. 5:21 — that is God Himself — states, the couple is called to mutual subjection, and this is the overriding theme for the larger catena. The meaning of the catena must include both senses. The authors’ apparent lack of careful reading and reckless accusation against John Paul II on this matter is inexcusable.

  The authors’ statement that the Pope claims that St. Paul "was merely speaking in a way suited to the culture of his time" is simply false. The word "merely" does not appear in the Pope’s text. And would the authors deny that St. Paul’s words were "rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time"? Did the Apostle write this epistle in French? If St. Paul did not speak in the customs and religious traditions of his time he would have been a poor Apostle. The Holy Father is not saying that because these words of St. Paul are rooted in customs and traditions that they are to be dismissed or are now inaccessible but to experts in historical archaeology. Rather, the Holy Father suggests that St. Paul’s contemporaries would have easily accepted the notion that the husband is head of the wife and that St. Paul is attempting to take this commonly held view and add to it a specifically Christian understanding.

  In Christian marriage the wife is to obey the husband (a commonly held idea), but the two are to "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" as well (a specifically Christian idea)! The husband is the head (a common opinion), but he is to love his wife "as Christ loved the Church" (a Christian opinion)! She must subject herself to him (commonly held), but he is to be willing to "hand himself over for her" (held by Christians)! St. Paul is consciously taking the commonly held position of the time regarding marriage, a position "so rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time," and adding onto it the Christian understanding of love, of charity, of the agape selfless-love that Christ embodied.

  This is what the Pope means in Mulieris dignitatem when he writes: "The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a ‘mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ’ (cf. Eph. 5:21)" (emphasis mine). The authors twist and obfuscate the Pope’s words in order to paint him into a corner and score rhetorical points with the "casual reader." The sinister nature of their project comes out too clearly here.

  They even go so far in their criticism of the Pope as to say that the religious tradition of the time of St. Paul was Christianity.4 This is a marvelous revelation. I imagined that the reason St. Paul found it necessary to be the Apostle to the Gentiles was because the religious traditions of the Gentiles were decidedly not Christian. Though certainly St. Paul was writing to a Christian community, this community could not have been older than five or so years, and it certainly would have existed demurely within the wider pagan and Jewish-Greek world. A tradition of the reader may have been Christianity, but the greater traditions of the readers at the time were not Christian.[/quote]

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 5 2004, 02:48 PM'] For a detailed, point-by-point refutation of the arguments made in [i]The Great Facade[/i], please read the [i]Wanderer[/i] articles suggested earlier by Dave, particularly [url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-15-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-15-03.htm[/url], which includes the issue about the husband and wife, and [url="http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm"]http://thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm[/url], which deals with the ecumenism issue. Yes, it's long, but it's a more thorough rebuttal than there is room for here. (The Wanderer is a very conservative, orthodox, Catholic paper, by the way.)

It is shown that Pope John Paul II has said absolutely nothing which contradicts prior Church teaching. The authors of that book offer twisted sophistical misinterpretations of words in order to "prove" that the current Pope is a heretic.

Again I ask, who should Catholics follow, the Vicar of Christ, or a couple self-styled "trads" with a negative agenda? I, for one, prefer to stay on board the Bark of St. Peter! [/quote]
OK it seems clear no one here is willing to change on the issue of the wife's necessity of being submissive, so I will address a much larger and more clear contradiction, what I noted above: "How about his position on being able to read at a protestant service. Pius XI said that NO CATHOLIC could attend, let alone 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."

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]OK it seems clear no one here is willing to change on the issue of the wife's necessity of being submissive[/quote]

I do not appreciate the above comment. Everyone here is in agreement (I believe) with the fact that, in the order of authority, the wife is submissive to the husband. However, as have been saying, and as the excerpt from the article that I have posted above shows, John Paul II's writing is clearly dealing with regards to the order of charity, in which there is mutual subjection of one to another.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 6 2004, 11:08 AM']
I do not appreciate the above comment. Everyone here is in agreement (I believe) with the fact that, in the order of authority, the wife is submissive to the husband. However, as have been saying, and as the excerpt from the article that I have posted above shows, John Paul II's writing is clearly dealing with regards to the order of charity, in which there is mutual subjection of one to another. [/quote]
I am sorry. I did not mean that how I said it... I suppose I am bad with words. That has happened to me many times on this message board. I meant that no one was going to accept that the Pope is contradicting the previous Popes, not that the wife must be submissive (which you all agree on as far as I can tell for the most part).

However, how is it that this verse now addresses charity when in the past the Popes have made it clear that it addresses AUTHORITY. (I would prefer you answer this but AFTER you address the comment on the Pope's contradiction of all Popes of the past--except possibly Paul VI--regarding the Church's teaching of ALL ages that no Catholic can attend a non-Catholic service, for any reason, as Pope Pius XI made clear.)

[CreepyCrawler]

isn't the original question on how far the pope's authority extended? if the Pope tried to make me eat broccoli, which i don't like, i could say no since that has nothing to do with religion or dogma. but if the Pope issues a papal bull or another ex cathedra (is that what you call it?) statement, i have to follow it since i'm catholic. is that what you're asking?

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Sep 6 2004, 03:30 PM'] isn't the original question on how far the pope's authority extended? if the Pope tried to make me eat broccoli, which i don't like, i could say no since that has nothing to do with religion or dogma. but if the Pope issues a papal bull or another ex cathedra (is that what you call it?) statement, i have to follow it since i'm catholic. is that what you're asking? [/quote]
I was speaking of things not ex cathedra. Many people here will claim that no Pope can contradict another on things not ex cathedra, but it is simply absurd, since I have just posted something that does just that (John Paul II vs. Pius XI & the rest of Popes in history on non-Catholic services).

[Socrates]

[quote]However, how is it that this verse now addresses charity when in the past the Popes have made it clear that it addresses AUTHORITY. (I would prefer you answer this but AFTER you address the comment on the Pope's contradiction of all Popes of the past--except possibly Paul VI--regarding the Church's teaching of ALL ages that no Catholic can attend a non-Catholic service, for any reason, as Pope Pius XI made clear.) [/quote]

About St. Paul, is it inconcevable that this scripture passage can address [i]both[/i] authority and charity? This is not contradiction - Scripture can address things on different levels at the same time. This has been Church teaching regarding Scripture. These Popes do not contradict one another. These Woods and Ferrari (or whatever his name is) characters are falling all over themselves to try to "prove" their devious thesis!

And you've never said specifically (with exact quotes, not just an accusation) what the Pope said about non-Catholic services that you find so offensive.

[HartfordWhalers]

The fact that you can attend them! That is what is offensive. What's worse is what someone else quoted to "correct" someone who said you can't read at a non-Catholic service with what John Paul II wrote in 1992 (I think) saying you CAN read at a non-Catholic service... that is a direct contradiction, plain and simple.

[Donna]

(PedroX, yes indeed: reply coming soon)

I cannot figure out how to paste the website link, but here follows pertinent parts from [i]Mortalium Animos (On Fostering True Religious Unity[/i]), and it's on the Vatican's Webpage. It was written in 1928.

I've edited out quite a bit....otherwise no one'd read it. It's very short and of course should be read in its entirety.[i] I've [/i][b]also[/b] [color=purple]added[/color] emphasis...



2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, [i]they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life[/i].

[b]For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission.[/b]

Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy...

[color=red]3. ... some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians[/color].

[i]4. ... [b]All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion,[/b] ... These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify... [b]But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which [color=red]the foundations of the Catholic faith [/color]are completely destroyed. [/b]

6... Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race...

Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies ... although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: [color=green]but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.[/color] [/i]

8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.

[color=purple]10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it[/color]...

13... We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us:[color=purple] if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. [/color]

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='XIX' date='Sep 5 2004, 04:22 PM'] Dude, the Pope isn't perfect.

Neither is a brain surgeon. But I sure as heck would rather trust him with my life than some teenage student who think he knows what he is doing. [/quote]

[HartfordWhalers]

Thanks Donna

[Apotheoun]

I find it interesting when people try to pit one Pope against another Pope. The disciplinary directives of a Pope cannot bind his successors, for it is a principle of canon law that "equal cannot bind equal." Now, this holds for all the disciplinary directives issued by the Holy See. So when one Pope discourages ecumenical activity, which is perfectly within his rights and powers as Supreme Pontiff, while another Pope encourages it, one must accept the directives of the reigning Pontiff as binding in conscience. Do not confuse dogmatic and doctrinal decisions of the Pope, which are irreformable by definition, with disciplinary laws.

As far as it concerns ecumenism two things are to be avoided: (1) the heresy of indifferentism, which holds that one religion is as good as another; and (2) a triumphalism, which holds that the Church must not attempt to bring her errant children back into the fullness of truth that is found only in the Catholic Church, but must constantly condemn those outside the visible body of the Church. Moreover, the manner in which the latter activity is done, is for the supreme authority of the Church to decide, it is not a matter to be decided by the lay faithful. Vatican 1 defined as a dogma of Divine and Catholic faith the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and so no one is to dissent from his governing directives even in matters that are not [i]de fide[/i], for as the Fathers of the First Vatican Council said, "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world." [Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u], Chapter 3, no. 2]

[cmotherofpirl]

Ap can you send that answer to the apologetics section?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 7 2004, 04:53 PM']Ap can you send that answer to the apologetics section?[/quote]
I don't actually know how to do that.

[cmotherofpirl]

its called cut and paste

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 9 2004, 02:48 AM']
its called cut and paste [/quote]

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2004, 06:37 PM'] I find it interesting when people try to pit one Pope against another Pope. The disciplinary directives of a Pope cannot bind his successors, for it is a principle of canon law that "equal cannot bind equal." Now, this holds for all the disciplinary directives issued by the Holy See. So when one Pope discourages ecumenical activity, which is perfectly within his rights and powers as Supreme Pontiff, while another Pope encourages it, one must accept the directives of the reigning Pontiff as binding in conscience. Do not confuse dogmatic and doctrinal decisions of the Pope, which are irreformable by definition, with disciplinary laws.

As far as it concerns ecumenism two things are to be avoided: (1) the heresy of indifferentism, which holds that one religion is as good as another; and (2) a triumphalism, which holds that the Church must not attempt to bring her errant children back into the fullness of truth that is found only in the Catholic Church, but must constantly condemn those outside the visible body of the Church. Moreover, the manner in which the latter activity is done, is for the supreme authority of the Church to decide, it is not a matter to be decided by the lay faithful. Vatican 1 defined as a dogma of Divine and Catholic faith the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and so no one is to dissent from his governing directives even in matters that are not [i]de fide[/i], for as the Fathers of the First Vatican Council said, "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world." [Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u], Chapter 3, no. 2] [/quote]
"They make a point that "conservatives" (name neo-Catholics) blindly follow all the Pope says, stating that everything the Pope says is "de facto" in line with Tradition. He goes ahead to point out places that this is not true"

That was the first post. This is consiering not whether a Pope can bind another but if a Pope can be out of line with Tradition in his actions.

"one must accept the directives of the reigning Pontiff as binding in conscience"

Not if they are not in line with [b]T[/b]radition, or even if they are not in line with the [i]t[/i]radition of every Pope (except MAYBE one before him), then ther is NO obligation to follow what he says! Unless you claim that it's wrong to follow what every Pope in history has taught, save one or two.

"As far as it concerns ecumenism two things are to be avoided: (1) the heresy of indifferentism, which holds that one religion is as good as another; and (2) a triumphalism, which holds that the Church must not attempt to bring her errant children back into the fullness of truth that is found only in the Catholic Church, but must constantly condemn those outside the visible body of the Church."

Neither of these are avoided at 99% of ecumenical services/talks, etc. The other 1% only one of them is avoided...

"Vatican 1 defined as a dogma of Divine and Catholic faith the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and so no one is to dissent from his governing directives even in matters that are not [i]de fide[/i], for as the Fathers of the First Vatican Council said, "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world." [Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u], Chapter 3, no. 2]"

That doesn't mean NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS. How about when John XXII said that there is no actual judgment? What were they to do then, submit without a peep? Of course not! Heresy is heresy no matter who its from, whether or not it's the Pope and whether or not he is a formal or material heretic. It is a HERESY to say there is no actual judgment. John XXII said there was none (then he rejected it on his death bed). So, that was regarding FAITH. This ecumenism is not even regarding Faith. Maybe John Paul II will reject it on his deathbed. What would you think then? And if he doesn't, how can you answer that if a Pope is outside of Tradition or tradition as taught throughout history, how can you say you must submit to that? As you can see, a Pope can personally teach and believe a heresy, just look at John XXII. If he can do that, then certainly his views on practices with non-Catholics can be completely wrong, as well!