3 ms·

Here's the issue: the documents are deliberately vague, so for many years it's been said they can be read "through the light of Tradition" to mean things like y

by erelong 5mo ago

Here's the issue: the documents are deliberately vague, so for many years it's been said they can be read "through the light of Tradition" to mean things like you say which sound "traditional". However, the documents themselves do not speak clearly in a traditional way, but must be evaluated as "objectively ambiguous". Consider some teaching could be of three options: clearly Catholic, ambiguous, or clearly non-Catholic; what category are we to put ambiguous statements in, if we collapse this to either "clearly Catholic" or "clearly not Catholic"? It seems they must be considered as "clearly non-Catholic" then, since they cannot be in the category of "clearly Catholic". Or else ambiguous teachings would have to be considered to be equivalent to clearly Catholic teachings, which makes no sense. It's kind of like "pass / fail" in school: do we "pass" the ambiguous teachings, or "fail" them? They seem to "fail" when considered rigorously: if we ask - Catholic or not? They are judged as "Not Catholic". Can even someone claiming to be a pope make something ambiguous into a Catholic statement? It doesn't seem that's possible. Hence, the Vatican 2 statements, being "objectively ambiguous", are judged as "clearly Not Catholic", logically implying a pope could not have taught them. (This is something of the reasoning process I propose when trying to evaluate these ambiguous statements which defy simple binary categorization; it is an ongoing effort of "research and dialogue")

hackyhacky 5mo ago
If you're a Catholic, then the choice of interpretation is clear: you must accept the Pope's interpretation. That's what it means to be Catholic. The Pope is God's representative on Earth. To defy him is to defy God. The alternative would be to declare him a False Pope and to select an alternative divine representative. Of course, that would make you a heretic. If you ditch the pope as soon as he says something you don't like, you're not much of a Catholic. The Church is not a democracy.
- michaelsbradley 5mo ago
  > If you're a Catholic, then the choice of interpretation is clear: you must accept the Pope's interpretation… cf. Hyperpapalism Thankfully, Hyperpapalism is a misunderstanding of the role of the teaching-governing authority of the Bishop of Rome, and Catholics can be and remain good Catholics while disagreeing with the Pope on a variety of matters.
  - hackyhacky 5mo ago
    I never said that you can't disagree with him. I said you can't defy him. You have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to apply your interpretation of doctrine in place of the Holy See's. That's heresy.
    - michaelsbradley 5mo ago
      Pope John XXII publicly taught erroneously re: death and the Beatific Vision. Jean Gerson threatened to burn him at the stake and in general there was much public resistance, from royalty to common folk.
      - hackyhacky 5mo ago
        "Erroneous" is an opinion. Papal doctrine is the word of God until a subsequent pope says otherwise. Jean Gerson is entitled to his opinion, even if speaking that opinion made him a heretic.
        michaelsbradley 5mo ago
        > Papal doctrine is the word of God until a subsequent pope says otherwise No, that’s Hyperpapalism, which is an error. The Pope does not have the authority-power to transform error into truth, nor can he make “new truths” (of the Faith), whatever that might mean. He does have the solemn duty to faithfully hand on and explain the Apostolic Tradition. In an extra-ordinary act of his office, the Pope can, without error, define the proper understanding of Catholic teaching on a matter of faith or morals. In the case of John XXII he proposed something false as pertains to Catholic doctrine, repeatedly, in public sermons. He was rebuked for it and recanted before he died. What he taught was not somehow “intermittently true”, it was an error through and through, and it was completely right that his subjects called him out on the matter.
        hackyhacky 4mo ago
        > No, that’s Hyperpapalism, which is an error. > The Pope does not have the authority-power to transform error into truth, The problem with your argument is that it is "left as an exercise for the reader" to determine what is actually true. If that were the case, then the Pope, as the representative of God on Earth, serves no purpose: everyone can individually determine what is true and what is an error. That does not agree historically with the role of the papacy. If everyone has a right to their own interpretation of doctrine, what does the Pope do, and why should anyone listen to him? Your position that absolute faith in the word of the pope is a fallacy is itself a self-supporting fallacy, which you hold only because you don't believe in the correctness of the pope. > he taught was not somehow “intermittently true” Yes, it was. God would not allow a Pope who spoke in error.

by erelong 5mo ago

hackyhacky 5mo ago

If you're a Catholic, then the choice of interpretation is clear: you must accept the Pope's interpretation. That's what it means to be Catholic. The Pope is God's representative on Earth. To defy him is to defy God. The alternative would be to declare him a False Pope and to select an alternative divine representative. Of course, that would make you a heretic. If you ditch the pope as soon as he says something you don't like, you're not much of a Catholic. The Church is not a democracy.

michaelsbradley 5mo ago
> If you're a Catholic, then the choice of interpretation is clear: you must accept the Pope's interpretation… cf. Hyperpapalism Thankfully, Hyperpapalism is a misunderstanding of the role of the teaching-governing authority of the Bishop of Rome, and Catholics can be and remain good Catholics while disagreeing with the Pope on a variety of matters.
- hackyhacky 5mo ago
  I never said that you can't disagree with him. I said you can't defy him. You have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to apply your interpretation of doctrine in place of the Holy See's. That's heresy.
  - michaelsbradley 5mo ago
    Pope John XXII publicly taught erroneously re: death and the Beatific Vision. Jean Gerson threatened to burn him at the stake and in general there was much public resistance, from royalty to common folk.
    - hackyhacky 5mo ago
      "Erroneous" is an opinion. Papal doctrine is the word of God until a subsequent pope says otherwise. Jean Gerson is entitled to his opinion, even if speaking that opinion made him a heretic.
      - michaelsbradley 5mo ago
        > Papal doctrine is the word of God until a subsequent pope says otherwise No, that’s Hyperpapalism, which is an error. The Pope does not have the authority-power to transform error into truth, nor can he make “new truths” (of the Faith), whatever that might mean. He does have the solemn duty to faithfully hand on and explain the Apostolic Tradition. In an extra-ordinary act of his office, the Pope can, without error, define the proper understanding of Catholic teaching on a matter of faith or morals. In the case of John XXII he proposed something false as pertains to Catholic doctrine, repeatedly, in public sermons. He was rebuked for it and recanted before he died. What he taught was not somehow “intermittently true”, it was an error through and through, and it was completely right that his subjects called him out on the matter.
        hackyhacky 4mo ago
        > No, that’s Hyperpapalism, which is an error. > The Pope does not have the authority-power to transform error into truth, The problem with your argument is that it is "left as an exercise for the reader" to determine what is actually true. If that were the case, then the Pope, as the representative of God on Earth, serves no purpose: everyone can individually determine what is true and what is an error. That does not agree historically with the role of the papacy. If everyone has a right to their own interpretation of doctrine, what does the Pope do, and why should anyone listen to him? Your position that absolute faith in the word of the pope is a fallacy is itself a self-supporting fallacy, which you hold only because you don't believe in the correctness of the pope. > he taught was not somehow “intermittently true” Yes, it was. God would not allow a Pope who spoke in error.