Canon 1373

Code of Canon Law ^ | 1983 | Libreria Editrice Vaticana

[ealgeone]

Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

[Campion]

Here's an easy-to-read article on the virtue of obedience and its just limits.

[kosciusko51]

So, in the instance cited, was Luther correct?

[Campion]

Was he correct in believing that human authorities have no right to command him to sin, or correct in the whole argument he made?

[kosciusko51]

That ”the pope’s decretals have thrown utter disorder into Christianity, have surprised, imprisoned, and tortured the faith of the faithful...contrary to the gospel.”

[ealgeone]

By the way, there is no teaching of the Church that says lay people cannot "understand the Scriptures on their own". (Why would we read them at Mass, if they were incomprehensible to the laity?)

It's one thing to call words....but to understand the message of the texts is something else.

The Council of Trent sure seemed to come down against people reading the Scriptures on their own and trying to understand them. Highlights and comments mine.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.

[I like this....Rome admits they don't have the positions of the ECFs on the Scriptures as they weren't published!]

Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established. https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

As the typical Roman Catholic is no where near versed in the myriad of writings of Rome.....how do you know for sure what you're hearing is correct?

We're back to the original question....how can you, a regular Roman Catholic, not a priest, understand the Scriptures on your own?

[Campion]

I'm not sure you can pull that one clause out of what he said and have it stand on its own. Clearly the "sale of indulgences" was a disastrous policy which was objectively simony and may have been attended by the teaching of other errors, like the "indulgences are a permit to sin" error.

[Campion]

wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold

I think that agrees exactly with what I said above.

We're back to the original question....how can you, a regular Roman Catholic, not a priest, understand the Scriptures on your own?

But that wasn't the original question.

I answered your question precisely above: by understanding them in a way consistent with what the Church has taught throughout her history.

I'm not sure why you're setting up a dichotomy between "me, a regular Roman Catholic" and "a priest". A priest isn't any more entitled to interpret the Scriptures "contrary to that sense which holy mother Church ... hath held and doth hold" than a layman is.

[Campion]

I think it's rather odd that you seem to assume that "understanding the Scriptures on your own" and "understanding the Scriptures in a way contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church" are automatically one and the same.

I don't accept that equivalence.

[ealgeone]

>>wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold<

< I think that agrees exactly with what I said above.

To me it says only the Church {RCC} can interpret the Scriptures....not a lay Roman Catholic.

If the pope, that is the Church, is now saying the death penalty is now void....who are you to argue?

It's not the first time Rome has changed things and won't be the last.

[Mark17]

But on what basis does one have the right or ability to determine that the pope is in heresy or sin and they don't have to adhere to doctrine?

YOPIOS?

[Campion]

To me it says only the Church {RCC} can interpret the Scriptures....not a lay Roman Catholic.

Then you need to read it again.

If the pope, that is the Church,

But the Pope is not the Church. I said "the teaching of the Church through the ages," not "what the Pope said today". In an ideal world, those two would be in perfect harmony. This is not that world.

is now saying the death penalty is now void

What he said is that it's "inadmissable". No, I don't know what that means, either.

who are you to argue?

I'm not sure that I am "arguing," precisely. I am observing that, if he's commanding people to believe that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral, he's commanding people to believe heresy.

(It's not at all clear that he said either that the death penalty was intrinsically immoral, or that Catholics are compelled to believe what he said.)

That's simply a statement of fact, but if you like, I can cite other Popes who agree with me. They have the same authority from God that Pope Francis has.

[boatbums]

Yeah...I'm not seeing a whole lot of "reverence toward their pastors" in most of the anti-Pope Francis threads here.

[Campion]

It's not the first time Rome has changed things and won't be the last.

There's "changing things" and there's "changing things".

Things that are matters of administrative competence can be changed today and then changed back tomorrow. That's not "the Faith".

We can come to a deeper understanding of a truth of the Faith, and that's "change". Think of the evolution in the understanding of Christology that took place from Acts to the Council of Chalcedon (a council that all orthodox Protestants accept as defining the correct doctrine of who Jesus is.) There was no negation, only development.

What we can't do is teach X as Divinely revealed dogma today, and then teach not-X as Divinely revealed dogma tomorrow. And I don't think you can come up with any good examples of us doing that.

[Campion]

Reverence implies the virtue of charity and grows out of it. Fraternally rebuking someone in error is an exercise of the virtue of charity. The Cardinals who drew up the dubia were expressing "reverence toward their pastors".

[Campion]

Did you carefully read the article on the virtue of obedience, BTW?

I would like you to note particularly this sentence, quoting Fr. John Hardon, SJ, a very solid, very orthodox, very holy Jesuit theologian and writer. (Someone I was blessed to hear in person when he was on earth.)

. . obedience to God is without limit, whereas obedience to human beings is limited by higher laws that must not be transgressed, and by the competency or authority of the one who gives the orders.

Which is almost exactly what I said.

[ebb tide]

(It's not at all clear that he said either that the death penalty was intrinsically immoral, or that Catholics are compelled to believe what he said.)

But he has now put that in the catechism.

I consider it no different than his publication of his letter in the Apostolic Signatura approving, and congratulating, the Argentinian bishops for their reasoning to give Holy Communion to unrepentant adulterers living outside a state of grace.

[ealgeone]

Yes I did....but I also read the Council of Trent which I would think to a Roman Catholic would take precedence.

[Hieronymus]

I consider it no different than his publication of his letter in the Apostolic Signatura approving, and congratulating, the Argentinian bishops for their reasoning to give Holy Communion to unrepentant adulterers living outside a state of grace.

---

Very good parallel. About 10 months ago I began to make the opening paragraph of Lumen Gentium 25 the cornerstone of my interpretation of a number of things from this papacy. There is a gap between what some people, quite possibly including the Pope, seem to want to teach and what is actually taught through real magisterial channels. That footnotes and things written by others are the “clearest” things in certain directions while the main body of the most official publications by the pope are duplicitous says a great deal—and in the end means that not much is said officially though great chaos is being sown.

[ealgeone]

>>To me it says only the Church {RCC} can interpret the Scriptures....not a lay Roman Catholic.<<

Then you need to read it again.

The charge of YOPIOS is one that a number of your fellow Roman Catholics have accused non-Roman Catholics of doing...saying that only Rome can interpret Scripture.

It was one of the issues the Council of Trent undertook.

Which becomes a problem for the Roman Catholic as Rome has not dogmatically defined but a small handfull of verses mean.

Considering that it is only recently that Rome has encouraged its members to actually read the texts [1943], it seems Rome has left their members ill-equipped to study the Word.

Below is from catholic101.com. They sure make it clear you cannot as a lay Roman Catholic understand the Scripture on your own. [emphasis mine]

And last, we should never put our own personal interpretation on scripture, unless it agrees with the Tradition of the Catholic Church. St. Peter himself warns against this practice in 2 Peter 1 and 2 Peter 3. After over 1600 years of Catholic Biblical history (Pope Damasus I and the Catholic Church approved the canon of the bible in the late fourth Century), the great scholars of the bible like St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas have already got everything figured out for you. Believing that our small 21rst century minds can figure out 4000 year old verses that were written in a very different language and culture, in a very different time, and with very different idiomatic expressions and meanings is the height of pride. You might as well say that you can understand physics on your own without first reading the writings of Einstein and Newton. That is why the Magesterium is needed to interpret scripture.https://www.catholicbible101.com/howtoreadthebible.htm

As so much of Roman Catholicism has changed over time how can you be sure what you're hearing is correct?

There is no way you can presume to know everything that has been written by Roman Catholics over the years.

>>If the pope, that is the Church,<<

But the Pope is not the Church. I said "the teaching of the Church through the ages," not "what the Pope said today". In an ideal world, those two would be in perfect harmony. This is not that world.

Did not the changes to the Canon Law in 1983 give the pope exclusive power in these matters....and not allow anyone to question him?

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM

>>who are you to argue?<<

Allow me to rephrase....who are you to question?

[ebb tide]

In either case, the Roman Catholic has to follow the pope.

Only the Catholic popes, not Bergoglio.