“Once the meeting is over, power will rest entirely in the hands of the Pope.”

“So this guy (the heretic, Marx) who threatened as above is now basically saying “Oh we are unified with the Pope and whatever the Pope decides, everybody must go along with. You know, for unity’s sake.”

"if the Pope comes out and asserts that divorcees can receive communion..."

GPH, there is no problem with Catholics who have gotten a civil divorce receiving Communion, and to my knowledge never has been. Divorcees lawfully receive Holy Communion now. What would bar one from Holy Communion, would ongoing cohabitation with a person who is not your lawful spouse per Catholic marriage.

Or how about this:

"You are saying that if the Pope comes out and asserts [heresyxxx], that you have no obligation to believe official church teaching? "

No, exactly the opposite. If the Pope asserts heresyxxx, I would still be obliged to be faithful as always to official Church teaching.

"The Catholic Church can't change any of these official doctrines [?...] they do it all the time! See Vatican II."

The Catholic Church has not in fact changed official doctrines of the faith via Vatican II. If you think it has, you will perhaps find more agreement with the sedevacantists and others who are in schism, than with me. I think those in schism have (probably in all sincerity) failed to distinguish between dogmas and disciplines, and/or failed to distinguish between the legitimate development of doctrine and the outright contradiction of doctrine.

"The trick is that they just assert that their obvious changes are really in continuity with the past, even the whole kissing of Korans fad, despite previous Popes calling such activity anathema."

This exposes what seems to be a misconception on your part: the idea that kissing a Koran is a doctrine of the Church.

The Catholic Church has never been so foolish as to propose that the Pope is intellectually or morally faultless, flawless, or foolproof, let alone impeccable, personally ---- but only that he will never be able to bind the Catholic Church to falsity in matters of faith and morals.

That means the Pope could be stupid or sinful (some of them, esp. during the Renaissance, were notoriously so) but cannot make an erroneous doctrine binding on the whole church. Thus "infallibility" is more a divine protection from the Pope than a personal quality of the Pope, since it constitutes a divine promise that no matter how screwed-up some opinion or practice of a Bishop of Rome may be, he will not be able to make a binding dogma out of it to mislead the whole Church. (Keywords "gates" "hell.")

So whatever it was that St. Pope John Paul was doing in the famous 16-year-old picture that has been around the world 10,000 times on the Internet, it was at worst a cringe-making personal gaffe and not an erroneous definition of dogma.

Yeesh.

I would want to add that Pope John Paul was Polish after all, and therefore a kisser.

Any time anybody gave him anything, he kissed it as a sign of thanks. He kissed sombreros. CD's. Guitars. Sweatshirts. Soccer balls. Sandwiches. Photographs. Baseball caps. Pineapples. Personal correspondence (letters). Cheeks. Foreheads. Hands. Walls (in Jerusalem.) He's famous for even getting on his knees and kissing the ground for godsake, and literally for God's sake because he was the kind of guy who easily and spontaneously expressed gratitude for gifts all the time.

It's pretty clear he was kissing the book "as gift" ("as soccer ball") and not as a liturgical gesture canonizing Islamic scripture.

I might render a different opinion if it had been Rowan Williams, GOL (for Groaning Out Loud); but, not unfairly, I'm going to give our Lolek the Mensch the benefit of the doubt because this is the same guy who commissioned Cardinal Josef ("the Enforcer") Ratzinger to write "Dominus Iesus," which clarified that nobody is saved by anybody except by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

"Dominus Iesus." Ya could look it up. (LINK)

I don't read Arabic, so I don't know. But if it turns out, as one FReeper suggested, that it might have been what it looked to be, the Sharif Bible, an Arabic-language edition of the the Jewish/Christian Sacred Scriptures--

...if so, well, Holy Moses, brother, get a grip.

Oh. And here's a relevant and wacky cartoon featuring a Pope who croaks, for your edification:

"How to Explain Papal Infallibility in Under Two Minutes (YouTube)

Enjoy!

If you had a grasp of history (which I think you do, some, like all of us), you would know the limitations on that sort of statement. To put it briefly, it's like what Pope John Paul II said in his Ordinatio Sacramentalis on a particular disputed topic: "We 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." Get that? There are areas in which the Pope has no authority whatsoever. That would be (in the case above) changing the matter or form of a Sacrament, or anything else was handed down to us by Christ through the Apostles.

But you are quoting from a non-infallible document asserting that this position is infallible teaching, being from the beginning. Yet, while female pastors/leadership with its direct authority men is unBiblical , yet the NT knows nothing at all of a class of clergy distinctively titled "priests," having a unique sacerdotal function, while Rome allows women in various administrative functions over men.

Meanwhile, another teaching held as infallible is that "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered," (CCC 882)

And which exercise does not need the sanction of the bishops, while the pope cannot be disposed without his consent. The RC Church thus has no authority whatsoever to deny this autocratic power, and consistent with the claims of the power of binding and loosing, a pope could declare the church now has the power to confer priestly ordination on women, perhaps invoking the many Caths who speak of Mary as a divine priestess.

This would be more extreme than the redefinition of an infallible teaching that V2 engaged in, taking "We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” as meaning that Scripture Protestants, whom Rome used to separate with the sword of men, are now "separated brethren" with RCs, who are

In such a case of papal power confer priestly ordination on women, traditional RCs, many of whom already take exception to aspects of V2, even as heretical, while calling their liberal brethren "cafeteria Catholics," and condemning evangelicals for ascertaining the validity of teaching by examining Scripture, would quickly declare such as heretical.

Which division is just what the papacy is promoted as providing, and requires Caths doing what they condemn others for doing, that of ascertaining the validity of teaching based upon examination of historical established teaching, and or the non-infallible judgment of present prelates.

And while confer priestly ordination on women is extreme and highly implausible, the issue of which teachings require assent is a real issue which pertains to this, and to unity.

RCs are divided over how many infallible teachings (not just by popes) there are, and what they all are, as well as whether assent (at least religious assent) is due to even all encyclicals, while what they mean can also be subject to interpretation. As is canon law regrading excommunication and the application of it.

Some hold that all encyclicals are infallible, and i provide papal teaching which broadly requires assent to all public teaching to the church, while others deny that all encyclicals, esp. the latest of Francis require even religious assent, which excludes public dissent.

When the Prophet speaks: the thinking has been done.

Substitute pope ands papal sanctioned teaching for prophet and you would have substantial RC support [emp. mine throughout]:

- VEHEMENTER NOS: It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law ; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter...Providentissimus Deus, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, dated November 18th, 1893.

...having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation? Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived....”

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ;

Which type of submission has some weighty endorsement:

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed . No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope's word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience. - Life of Cardinal Newman, Vol. 2; Chapter 26. The Deadlock in Higher Education (1867); http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html

when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor....

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent , since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

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.- POPE PAUL VI, LUMEN GENTIUM; http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html-

The authority of papal encyclicals is understood as being "undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Encyclicals: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

As a RC commentator states,

Human beings are by nature social animals. If our lives are to be led within society, then it surely would be odd if the Church, whose precepts we must follow if we hope to reach eternal life, could have nothing to say about one of the central aspects of human social life, our economic conduct. Those who endeavor to restrict the Church’s teaching are trying to erect an arbitrary and artificial limitation on her authority. This is not compatible with Catholic orthodoxy. As Pius XI wrote in his first encyclical, Ubi Arcano (1922), concerning those who do not conform their thinking and writing to the social teachings of the popes: “In all this we recognize a kind of moral, judicial, and social Modernism, and We condemn it as strongly as We do dogmatic Modernism” (#61). - https://ethikapolitika.org/2014/09/29/authority-catholic-social-teaching/

The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states,

80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it. - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2037.

And it is evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. For the pope presents his teaching as based upon Catholic teaching.

While some hold that dissent is allowed, that is not what is conveyed in RC arguments against evangelicals who overall hold to a common faith and values (more so than Caths overall) despite disagreements in other areas, and are censured for such, and told the RC papacy and magisterium is the solution to this problem.

Yet under such RCs can have disagreement, including on what Scripture says within the parameters of RC teaching, as well as those who deny the latter, but Rome shows what she believes about essential faith by treating them as members in life and in death.

No-infallible modern teaching on this issue includes,

http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html , there are three kinds of magisterial statement, three levels of authoritative teaching which establish the “the order of the truths to which the believer adheres.”[1] They are (1) truths taught as divinely revealed, (2) definitively proposed statements on matters closely connected with revealed truth, and (3) ordinary teaching on faith and morals. A fourth category, ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is commonly accepted by theologians and can be inferred from the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis.[2]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM: According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority.

Donum Veritatis also allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching."

In such "even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions," and is to "refrain from giving untimely public expression to them," and "avoid turning to the mass media," but with a humble and teachable spirit it is his duty "to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented," with "an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him." prayerfully trusting "that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail."

The theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, and Joseph Ratzinger (as Archbishop) taught that "over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else,"[2] it cannot be allowed to be determinative of truth, and the Catholic is obliged to form it according to Catholic teaching. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum. cf. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Some (from a Catholic Answers thread) hold,

The faithful can disagree with particular points within the ordinary non-infallible teaching of the Church, including anything in the Catechism that has not been taught infallibly, except that even non-infallible teachings [which call for religious assent=ordinary assent: religious submission of will and intellect] cannot err to the extent that they would lead the faithful away from salvation. So such a disagreement on particular points or in particular respects cannot be on a matter that is essential to salvation.

And others argue,

Religious assent (religiosum obsequium) has never been compatible with what the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith defines as "dissent," that is, "public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church" (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologian, 32). -

To which a Prot responds,

Boy. No disrespect intended...and I mean that honestly...but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn't trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task.

The solution for which is cultic, just obey and don't question:

Praxis [practice] is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That's what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that's what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to "obey your leaders and submit to them." This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1565864#post1565864 Thus cultic implicit faith is called for, otherwise you have the reality of interpretive teachings, including just what magisterial level each teaching falls under, and disparate understandings of them, which is contrary to what Rome expresses as reality but which is really only wishful thinking:

CCC 889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."

This exposes what seems to be a misconception on your part: the idea that kissing a Koran is a doctrine of the Church.

Are you speaking literally, and is that how you area lawyering your way out of it? The fact remains that such endorsements (and kissing a Koran IS an endorsement, as is group prayer with infidels) of a false religion make you accursed. All of Vatican II's endorsements of Islam, Judaism and Ecumenicalism run contrary to what your church has supposedly taught; and, I will add, Scripturally, which the Roman Papist is obliged to read as "conversion to Catholicism" when it clears schismatics or non-believers to be in damnation outside the body of Christ:

Psalms 95:5- “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…”

1 Cor. 10:20- “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”

2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434: “Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all.. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928: “… 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…”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man…– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Joh_3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”

1Jn_2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

COMPARE:

Cardinal Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity: “… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001)

Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?… This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world. Other the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.)

John Paul II, March 21, 2000: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan…” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 244: “There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco…”

Cardinal Walter Kasper: “… the old theory of substitution [that is, the theory of the New Covenant substituting for the Old] is gone since the Second Vatican Council… Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.” (Address at the 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001.)

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), God and the World, 2000, pp. 150-151: “This is another of the paradoxes that the New Testament sets before us. On the one hand, their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

So, does the Roman Catholic church not change its doctrines? LOL

Dear Daniel1212,

I can appreciate the work you have done on these two responses, totaling ~ 3,400 words, since I tend to send longish ones as well. However, your sources are diverse, the levels of authority mixed, each paragraph requiring adequate definition and distinctions in every instance. All this would probably double to triple the whole "word volume" of the discussion. (Ulp!)

Neither of us has time to write, or read, a 150 paragraph response!

The best I can do is to try to summarize.

”When the Prophet speaks: the thinking has been done.”

This basic Islamic concept (“the thinking has been done”) is incompatible with Catholicism, and if it were true that it would find, (if applied to the Pope) “ considerable RC support,” my conclusion would be that those RC’s have not thought about it very carefully.

The Vehementer Nos and Providentissimus Deus quotes on "authority" refer to formal Church doctrines, not positive canonical regulations, not mere disciplines, not essentially temporary or local rulings, and not even papal opinions.

The absolutism is understood to be “within the law of Christ,” since anything which is not conformed to Christ lacks binding force.

We can see this even in the way “we” (you and I) interpret Scripture, in that seeming absolutes are not absolute if they contradict Christ. For instance:

“Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ…” (Ephesians 6:5)

This looks absolute since in instructs slaves that they owe obedience to their masters “as to Christ”; but obviously if a master commanded “Flog that other slave to death,” or “I want you to have sex with me and my brother,” the slave must not obey, since it would entail disobedience to the Moral Law. The same would apply to ecclesiastical superiors: we owe obedience to them, but only insofar as this is conformable to the Moral Law.

Inasmuch as Graham and Stapleton (writers previously unknown to me) refer to what Christ teaches us through the Church, they echo the message of the Gospels themselves:

Matthew 18:17-18
“ If he refuses to listen to them [two or three witnesses], tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Here Jesus confirms the authority of the Church, linking it to the authority of “heaven.”

And again, referring to the seventy disciples He appointed as messengers of the Gospel (Luke 10:17) :

“ He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

The injunction to "hear" the Gospel isprimary, since any other legitimate authority is dependent on the reliability of the Gospel. Pius XII, of his own encyclicalls, said that they "demand consent,” and yet that itself cannot be an absolute statement, since Pope Francis demurred from it repeated times in his Encyclical, Laudato Si (LS).

Unlike Pope Pius XII, who said in Humani Generis that he wished to provide closure on a topic previously considered “a question of free discussion among theologians.” Pope Francis aimed for the opposite: in LS he is writing to kick open a topic for discussion: this encyclical which was manifestly NOT meant to be authoritative. Here you have it, in Pope Francis' own words (paragraph numbers provided):

(14 )“I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue … We need a new conversation…raising awareness of these challenges…”

(15) “I will advance…proposals for dialogue and action…”

(16) “[This is] the call to seek other ways of understanding… the need for forthright and honest debate…”

(19)”Our goal is… to become painfully aware [of] what is happening to our world…”

(61) “On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion”.

“Dialogue,” “conversation,” “proposals,” “debate,” awareness-raising --- these words establish that the papal intent here is to spark a discussion, not to define some new doctrine.

This bracketing of authoritative claims in LS was, as far as I know, an unprecedented experiment with the concept of Church as one voice in a symposium of many voices. Nevertheless, other Popes have set similar markers to their authority. In 2005 Pope Benedict XVI remarked, "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know". Pope John XXIII once stated it with a humorous twist: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".

Note that this means that even the Pope’s conscience cannot “be allowed to be determinative of the truth,” since the Pope himself is obliged to form his conscience "according to Catholic teaching."

I can appreciate the work you have done on these two responses, totaling ~ 3,400 words,

Well, even the pope last encyclical was almost 44,000 words, while if i do not document it, some RCs can claim i am making things up!

However, your sources are diverse, the levels of authority mixed, each paragraph requiring adequate definition and distinctions in every instance.

Actually, that is the issue with RC teaching, and trying to figure out what magisterial level every teaching belongs to, and what degree of assent is required, is such a task that we have the recourse quoted, that of simply requiring obedience to all that is taught. And which is actually what is taught, requiring at least religious assent (versus solemn assent of faith, which excludes internal doubt) which excludes public dissent, to all encyclicals, etc.

”When the Prophet speaks: the thinking has been done.” This basic Islamic concept (“the thinking has been done”)

It actually was referring to the Mormonic concept, a cult which also basically operates under sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme authority.

is incompatible with Catholicism, and if it were true that it would find, (if applied to the Pope) “ considerable RC support,” my conclusion would be that those RC’s have not thought about it very carefully.

And they say likewise of you.

But Vehementer was occasioned by the French law of 1905 providing for the separation of church and state, which, among other things, "exonerates the State from the obligation of providing for the expenses of worship church." It did abruptly abrogate the Concordat btwn the Rome and state, and enacted restrictions on the former which she termed contrary to the constitution on which the Church, as for one, it assigned "the administration and the supervision of public worship not to the hierarchical body divinely instituted by Our Savior, but to an association formed of laymen," which, among other things, "is to administer the property, regulate collections, and receive the alms and the legacies destined for religious worship," which "hinders the Pastors from exercising the plenitude of their authority and of their office over the faithful."

Which is a main theme and is the context of "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." Which duty is NOT restricted to "formal Church doctrines" as you interpret it as being, but refers to what the laity are to do in general.

Seeing as the laity were so dependent upon the pastors, with their one basic duty being RCs to simply follow them, then it was argued that the suppression of the Budget of Public Worship, under which the state was "supplying the clergy with a revenue sufficient for their decent subsistence and for the requirements of public worship," would be detrimental to the people of France.

And that Pius X was referring to RCs following all that a pope publicly teaches the church is seen in the other quotes provided by RCs, such as

when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed

But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces.

Thus your opinion that Vehementer only refers to formal Church doctrine is contrary to the evidence, while just what formal Church doctrine is or its meaning can be a subject of dispute.

Vehementer itself illustrates interpretive nature of so much RC teaching, and the necessity of RCs to simply follow the present pastors to avoid the division RC deplore in others, versus examination of the warrant for such. For Pius denounced that “the state must be separated from the church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error, and rejected "the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult," that instead "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul,"

Which meant, in part and in praxis, that the state was to restrain souls from acting in accordance with their own beliefs contrary to the church, for Pope Pius IX condemned the proposition that "Every man is free to embrace and to profess that religion which, led by the light of reason, he shall consider to true," (Pope Pius IX, “Syllabus of Modern Errors,”December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09) a

And Pope Gregory XVI said in “Mirari Vos,” (1832) : It is insanity to believe that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship are the inalienable rights of every citizen.

And as words without deeds is dead, Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215, decreed:

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church ; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

This is more the kind of union btwn church and state that Pope Pius IX desired, and under which obedience to the pope in one era could mean required extermination of all the heretics, while in another it would mean opposing it.

For you later have Dignitatis Humanae:

Religious communities have the right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word. (Declaration on Religious Freedom, “Dignitatis Humanae,” December 12, 1965)

And Nostra Aetate:

Therefore, the Church reproves as foreign to the mind of Christ any discrimination against people or any harrassment on the basis of race, color, condition in life, or religion. (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, “Nostra Aetate,” Oct. 28, 1965)

And V2 asserts that not one is "to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."

Seeing this as a contradiction, SSPX respond, "The Church—without ever forcing anyone to believe or be baptized—has always recognized its right and duty to protect the faith of her children and to impede, whenever possible, the public exercise and propagation of false cults. To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious." - http://sspx.org/en/religious-liberty-contradicts-tradition

But which is your opinion, not that of popes such as Pius x

“Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ…” (Ephesians 6:5) This looks absolute since in instructs slaves that they owe obedience to their masters “as to Christ”;

But Scripture makes it clear that all obedience to man is conditional, and excludes the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, while affirming magisterial authority.

However, unlike in Scripture, Rome teaches assent of faith for a certain class of teaching, which excludes even intellectual assent to be faithful, while censoring ascertaining the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). The whole "private interpretation nonsense. For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth, and which they say we need to submit to in order to know what the Truth is.

It is even taught that we cannot assuredly know what Scripture consists of or means apart from faith in her.

Yet doubt and sincere dissent is allowed, if not public dissent, and obeying conscience is held as a duty, even if it means dissent from the pope. But we are dealing with what is required to be a faithful RC.

I will try to deal with the rest of your post later.

Inasmuch as Graham and Stapleton (writers previously unknown to me) refer to what Christ teaches us through the Church, they echo the message of the Gospels themselves: Matthew 18:17-18 “ If he refuses to listen to them [two or three witnesses], tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Here Jesus confirms the authority of the Church, linking it to the authority of “heaven.”

While you invoke this as support for required obedience to formal Church doctrines (versus positive canonical regulations, not mere disciplines, etc.) the context of Matthew 18:17-18 is not that of decreeing doctrines, but of settling disputes btwn brethren, which flows from the OT magisterium.

If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: (Deuteronomy 17:8-9)

While this can extend to settling doctrinal disputes by formal definitions, this text proves too much for you, as the judgments in lesser matters are binding, which is what I showed is the case according to Catholic teachings for lower level magisterial teaching.

And again, referring to the seventy disciples He appointed as messengers of the Gospel (Luke 10:17) : “ He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

That actually applies to all who preach the gospel of grace, which Francis, and Rome, does not.

The injunction to "hear" the Gospel is primary, since any other legitimate authority is dependent on the reliability of the Gospel. Pius XII, of his own encyclicalls, said that they "demand consent,” and yet that itself cannot be an absolute statement, since Pope Francis demurred from it repeated times in his Encyclical, Laudato Si (LS).

Which simply provides more testimony to RC confusion, for besides the disagreements over which teachings are infallible or which allow some kind of dissent, and their meanings, here you just the nature of a papal teaching (such as Pius X says you need to submit to) based upon whether a liberal pope (who seemed to say the blood of Christ saved/made atheists children of God) deviated from it. RCs interpreting their interpreter, since according to their interpretation they can and thus sometimes dissent from him.

14 )“I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue …" We need a new conversation…raising awareness of these challenges…" ” I will advance…proposals for dialogue and action..." "the call to seek other ways of understanding… the need for forthright and honest debate.." "...to become painfully aware [of] what is happening to our world.."

Wrong, as all those statements refer to dealing with a dire crise(s) (which by my count occurs 26 times) which papal authority declares to be a fact, including Climate Change.

“Everyone’s talents and involvement are needed to redress the damage caused by human abuse of God’s creation

It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching, can help us to acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency of the challenge we face.

But we need only take a frank look at the facts to see that our common home is falling into serious disrepair.

will begin by briefly reviewing several aspects of the present ecological crisis

Given the complexity of the ecological crisis

THE HUMAN ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS

If the present ecological crisis

The gravity of the ecological crisis demands that we all look to the common good

human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate...these are sins.

Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.

Carbon dioxide pollution increases the acidification of the oceans and compromises the marine food chain. If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change...

The costs of this would be low, compared to the risks of climate change.

Climate change is a global problem

And which social teaching is set forth as rooted in moral teaching, and such is to be submitted to.

>The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states,

Then there is PIUS XI;

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

You are quoting what i provided, and it is presupposed that a properly formed conscience will, like a docile sheep, follow the pastors, and not only in formal church teaching, and otherwise just what that is can be subject to debate.

Irrelevant, as the issue is not whether the pope is infallible or correct, but whether faithfuls RCs are to follow the pastors even in non-infallible teaching, even if internal dissent is allowed, or whether obedience is to be conditioned upon the judgment of each RC as to whether a teaching is consistent with what has always been taught. Conscience is to obeyed above all, but which does not necessarily make one a faithful RC.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.