What do you believe

[amarkich]

Ditto to PSPX. Also, in response to the poll, A is the answer (with reservations). As it has been said, the Pope can err in his personal opinions and private teachings.

[Micheal5403]

[quote]I answered A, but choice B is a bit misleading. As Catholics we most certainly should follow our own consciences, that is a well informed conscience not influenced by thoughts or motives contrary to Catholic morality and faith. Also, the pope is not infallible on everything - he goes to confession every week - but is infallible on ex cathedra teachings.[/quote]

that's what i was thinkin'

[CatholicCrusader]

Some have said A is the only option--I see no problem with C: his teachings are either heretical OR SUSPECT. I'm not saying he is heretical per se, but they are at least suspect.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Micheal5403' date='Nov 26 2004, 03:10 AM']
that's what i was thinkin'
[/quote]
However that option is not really Catholic.
Our consciences must be formed WITHIN Church teaching, not just a nod in that general direction. We give assent to all Catholic teaching, including the ordinary Magisterium.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 26 2004, 02:34 AM'] Some have said A is the only option--I see no problem with C: his teachings are either heretical OR SUSPECT. I'm not saying he is heretical per se, but they are at least suspect. [/quote]
I don't think I would use the word "teachings" without clarifying that term, when referring to the Holy Father. In other words, when John XXII "taught" heresy it was not the teachings of the Holy Father, but the opinions being taught by the man who happens to occupy the See of Peter. They were not official papal "Teachings".

I hope that makes sense.

[Guest Aluigi]

makes sense to me

[sortacatholic]

I voted A - and I'm not even a Roman Catholic... yet

-sortacatholic (but not quite... yet)

[Socrates]

Way to go, sortacatholic!

[SirMyztiq]

I actually like the pope. I feel for the guy that he has so many corrupt followers under his watch. That man I respect.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 26 2004, 03:12 PM'] I don't think I would use the word "teachings" without clarifying that term, when referring to the Holy Father. In other words, when John XXII "taught" heresy it was not the teachings of the Holy Father, but the opinions being taught by the man who happens to occupy the See of Peter. They were not official papal "Teachings".

I hope that makes sense. [/quote]
Yes, that makes sense.

His teachings as a private theologian are heretical or suspect--but if they are not, it is at least a viable Catholic option, since the Pope is not infallible in his private teachings.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='flip' date='Oct 18 2004, 02:40 PM'] by this poll, it makes me realize that there are very few non-catholics here. which makes me sad [/quote]
Just for you, I've answered the poll.

[Guest The Questioner]

I have to admitt that I voted B. I dont think that the pope should be held higher then ur con. The pope can give good advise but he is just human and being human he can make thousands of mistakes and has.

[popestpiusx]

Sure he has. But not in his excercising his supreme magisterial authority. You must distinguish between Magisterial acts and the mere acts of the man who occupies the Chair of Peter.

[Myles Domini]

[b]Lumen Gentium para 25[/b]

[quote]25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) 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. [i]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.[/i]

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, [i]gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)[/i]

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. [i]And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.[/i](43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)[/quote]

I did not vote becaused based upon this paragraph from the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church the Pope is not to be obeyed 'in general' as choice 1 says but [b]always[/b]. I dont think the thread starter intended to make it seem like there was some leighweigh in what one must believe as a Roman Catholic. However, the way the statement was presented makes it open to such an interpretation and I wanted to make a point of that. What he teaches as a private theologian is his own business but when the Pope speaks through the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium the Church's Dogmatic Constitution makes it completely clear that all the faithful must assent to his teaching. That has always be the way. The idea that we dont have to follow the Church if our conscience says otherwise is fraudulent:

[b]Gaudium et Spes para 16[/b]
[quote]16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. [i]Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.[/quote][/i]

This document, sometimes errenously called the 'liberal charter' of Catholicism quite clearly illustrates that the refusal of the 'objective norms of morality' found within the bosom of Holy Mother Church is 'sightless' and the attitude of one who 'cares but little for truth and goodness'. Man's true conscience is the law which is written on his heart and this law is the same as the law God gave to His Church. If your heart says one thing and the Church says another rest assured your heart is wrong and the Church is not. As a Catholic there is no room for dissidence: "in for a penny, in for a pound" there is no via media...

[Socrates]

Thanks for the input, Myles.

The reason the first choice was worded as it was (I was trying to keep the options brief and unwordy) was that at the time there were some "ultra-Traditionalists" on here who would not deny Papal infallibility when it was strictly ex-Cathedra, but would go against almost everything else the Pope taught.

Things the Pope teaches on specifs of politics and such are reasoned opionion rather than infallible statements (war, death-penalty, gun control, etc.), so this was why I worded the choice "in general."
So the options were basically between whether we should in general heed what the Pope says, or ignore or fight against his teachings except for those that are strictly "ex-Cathedra."

[MichaelFilo]

I suggest you tell that to the people in the time of Pope Liberius, or Julius II, or even Alexander VI.

The Pope can err, and does. If you don't believe me, read the bible. However, he is the pastor of the Church, and should be obeyed when his directions are not in contradiction with the Catholic Faith and Morals.

God bless,
Mikey

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 18 2005, 12:53 PM'] I suggest you tell that to the people in the time of Pope Liberius, or Julius II, or even Alexander VI.

The Pope can err, and does. If you don't believe me, read the bible. However, he is the pastor of the Church, and should be obeyed when his directions are not in contradiction with the Catholic Faith and Morals.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
And who is to determine when his teachings are "in contradiction to Catholic Faith and Morals"??

[Paphnutius]

Ok here we go to throw another wrench in the debate. Concerning option B CCC 1790 ff:
[quote]1790 A human being must always obey the [b]certain judgment of his conscience[/b]. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." 59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
[/quote]

Just thought that I would show that we are to follow the certian judgment of our conscience, which of course is to formed by seeking the Truth and acting upon moral choices. The conscience is indeed to be formed in line with the Church, but when presented with the option of B, we are always to follow the certain judgment of our conscience.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='May 18 2005, 01:22 PM'] Ok here we go to throw another wrench in the debate. Concerning option B CCC 1790 ff:


Just thought that I would show that we are to follow the certian judgment of our conscience, which of course is to formed by seeking the Truth and acting upon moral choices. The conscience is indeed to be formed in line with the Church, but when presented with the option of B, we are always to follow the certain judgment of our conscience. [/quote]
And read 1791 and 1792.

"Conscience" is often used by liberal dissenters to justify their opposition to the Church's moral teaching.

A true conscience is formed according to the Church's teachings. A poorly formed conscience can can be easily used an excuse to justify anything.

"I decided to follow my consience regarding my abortion, rather than the Pope."

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 18 2005, 01:27 PM'] "Conscience" is often used by liberal dissenters to justify their opposition to the Church's moral teaching. [/quote]
If they are using it is a shield then it is probably not the certain judgment of their conscience. Be careful of the wording. Certian judgment means that there is not a doubt that this is morally correct, you believe it with you innermost being. Those that say well my conscience told me to do so and leave it at that, probably are not acting in certain judgment, but are rather looking for a cop out.

[quote]A true conscience is formed according to the Church's teachings.  A poorly formed conscience can can be easily used an excuse to justify anything.
[/quote]

A properly formed conscience is one that seeks the Truth and conforms itself to it. The Church does this is as well and is responsible for helping to form it, but that is because the Church is also based on Truth. If you say that the conscience must be formed to the Church's teachings, then say you must always act in accord with your conscience you have made a circular argument for obeying the Church's teachings. It is a bit more complex than that. Both the Church and you conscience ought to seek the Truth and conform to it. The Church contains Truth so of course the conscience ought to be in line with the teachings, but to say that it must be grounded in teachings is not really a conscience acting, but a blind obedience to teaching.

It does not say that you will always be right when following the certain judgment, that is why I posted 1791 and 1792. You can be wrong, but to believe something will certain judgment but then to act contrary to that because of Church teaching would be to condemn yourself as the CCC says. It would damage your human dignity to believe in something fullheartedly and then to adandon it. That is what it is saying, not that you are always correct. It even says that it is possible that you will be wrong. It then goes on to clarify how much culpability may be due to the lack of seeking the truth and ignorance.

[quote]"I decided to follow my consience regarding my abortion, rather than the Pope."[/quote]

Is that a certain judgment of your conscience? Do you believe that without a doubt that in that case abortion would be fully justified? Do you think with your innermost being and dignity as a person that abortion is correct? If so then you would condemn yourself to act against that certain judgment of your conscience. You may be wrong that abortion is justified, but if you do not beyond a shadow a doubt (we are talking 100% believe) that believe that in this case abortion is justified you must act with that certain judgment. You could be wrong because of ignorance or failure to seek the truth, but if that is your certain judgment then...