Catholics must learn to resist their popes

Pope Francis has a funny way of naming and shaming certain tendencies in the church, using insults that are inventive, apposite, and confounding. His ear is finely tuned for the way the Catholic faith can be distorted by ideology. And I'd like to imitate his example when I say this: Most Catholics are completely unprepared for a wicked pope. And they may not be prepared for Pope Francis either. They are more loyal to an imagined Catholic party than to the Catholic faith or the church.

Between Pentecost and the launch of Vatican.va, most Catholics did not have access to the day-to-day musings of their pope. The Roman pontiff's theological speculations have been of almost no interest to Catholics throughout history, and never became so unless he was a great theologian already, or there was a great controversy which the authority of the Roman Church might settle. To the average Catholic living hundreds of miles from Rome the Faith was the Faith, whether the pope was zealously orthodox like St. Benedict II or a sex criminal like Pope John XII.

But the social crosscurrents of the last 50 years of Catholic life have made the pope a more intimate figure in the lives of Catholic believers. During the post–Vatican II upheavals in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s, conservative Catholics developed a mental architecture that told them that even if their parish priest or local bishop was lax, immoral, or even vaguely heretical, there was practically a living saint in Rome, whose unassailable orthodoxy, personal charisma, and good works were taken as the living sign of the indefectibility of the church. The solidity of the message coming from Rome has been for many Catholics the practical experience of this truth about the church.

The near omnipresence that the modern papacy achieves through media makes me worry that the institution of the papacy would have already hit upon a grave crisis if it weren't for the unusual theological ability of Joseph Ratzinger, first as cardinal and later as Pope Benedict XVI, acting as a ballast. Modern media, especially the modern Catholic media, has brought the pope into our homes, across the radio, in television, and into our niche media world. He's in the browser of many Catholics every day. And conservative Catholic media relies heavily on the inflated imaginative role of the papacy, just like British tabloids rely on the royals. The pageantry, mystery, and fame attached to the office are a great way of selling magazines, getting clicks, or raising funds. He is the worldwide celebrity that represents "us." He's the reason the Faith gets talked about by others.

When you add to this the fact that the cultural formation of most engaged Catholics is primarily the ideological combat of political and cultural factions, they tend to treat the pope as their "party leader," and to treat "the world" as an opposing party. It's difficult to describe how distorted this mental image is to true faith, but some examples could suffice.

Look for instance at the reaction of conservative Catholics to the pope's phone call to Jaquelina Lisbona, a woman in Argentina civilly married to a divorcée, in which Francis supposedly counseled her to practically ignore church teaching on divorce, adultery, confession, and Holy Communion.

Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture speculated, "[F]or all we know, she and her husband are now living as brother and sister, in which case there would be no reason why she could not resume receiving the sacraments." Of course, if this were the case the parish priest could have determined this without the extraordinary phone call from Christ's vicar.

Before deleting it (perhaps in embarrassment), Jimmy Akin reminded his readers at the National Catholic Register that the pope has the power to act as the church's chief legislature and to execute judgments immediately, and so therefore he could annul the first marriage and radically sanction the second, implying all this could be done over the phone. That he would have short-circuited the church's entire juridical process, undermined faith in the church's discipline, and undercut Catholic priests seems to bother Akin not at all. This same defense was used to justify the pope's breaking of liturgical rubrics, essentially employing the Nixon defense that "when the pope does it, it's not illegal."

Let me suggest that these two good Catholic men are acting not as church men but as party men, and falling into what Hillary Jane White aptly diagnosed as "papal positivism." Lawler and Akin are not alone. The bulk of Catholic media is devoted to moon-faced speculation about how the discreet governing decisions, words, and gestures of the pope are accomplishing some larger goal that we further speculate must be in the pope's head or heart. It's very easy to make the pope into a saintly superhero when you act as his ventriloquist.

Conservative Catholic apologists say all the right things when you press them. They say that the doctrine papal infallibility does not imply papal impeccability, but the bulk of their commentary about Pope John Paul II in relation to the child-abuse crisis or Pope Francis when he goes off-script seems based on the idea that the pope is irreproachable.

Party membership and church membership are not alike at all. Party bids its members to spin, minimize, and explain away supposed contradictions between one party leader and the next, to hide deviations by party leaders from the party platform. Because party members cannot know the outcome of the next election, crimes, oversight, or simple mismanagement by the party leader are treated as much less serious offenses to the cause than the scandal that would come from admitting or publicizing them in the sight of the opposing party.

Unlike a party, the church already knows the outcome of its election; the blessed reign, the accursed don't. The church already has victory. And so the church and its believers do not depend on the righteousness of the pope; the papacy and the church depend on the righteousness of Christ. The Catholic faith teaches that the pope has the same duty to remain constant in the faith as we do, the Holy Spirit doesn't turn him into an automaton upon his election. If he lies, we must rebuke him in charity. If he fails at something, we should help him. He ain't just the Catholic heavy, he's our brother.

Church members have assurance that comes from God not Rome, the type that if it ever sunk in would prepare them for martyrdom. Party members suffer from a twitchy, defensive anxiety, the type that when it sinks in makes them petty see-no-evil demagogues.

The Catholic Party eclipsing the Catholic Church has a distorting effect on the world's perception too. If the loudest and most prominent orthodox members of the church in the media treat the pope like a party leader and are so quick with clever-dick rationalizations of the massive changes to the practice of the Faith over the past 50 years, why should they be surprised that the world conceives of the doctrines and dogmas of the Faith as mere party planks or mutable policy, to be exchanged, updated, or abandoned as the times change?

And why should they be surprised that even their co-religionists fail to understand the Faith? In truth, the most salient fact of contemporary Catholic life in the West is the way it is pervaded by the pattern of saying things and then acting as if something else were true.

Catholic parishes teach their catechumens that people must be absolved from their mortal sins in sacramental confession before presenting themselves for Holy Communion, yet priests serve communion to packed churches just hours after tiny lines for confession. They say one thing, but act another way. Catholics teach that the Holy Eucharist becomes the body and blood of their Lord, yet the ad-hoc nature of their revised liturgy, the disappearance of genuflection as a Catholic gesture (it's now Tebowing!), and the behavior of priests and extraordinary ministers says that we are as unmoved by consecrated host as Pentecostals.

And the debate that Pope Francis' Lisbona affair sparked about letting divorced and "remarried" Catholics partake in Holy Communion would be yet another instance of saying one thing and acting as if the opposite were true.

Catholics say that a valid marriage is indissoluble and that a civilly remarried person is living in adultery. The church requires anyone who sins mortally to abstain from Holy Communion until they repent and receive absolution for their sins. How can the church say these things and allow those she deems in adultery to the communion rail, while demanding that those who merely missed one Sunday Mass through their own fault deny themselves this same salve for the soul? How can the church even explain the English Reformation if somewhere, hidden in its own tradition, is the ability to tolerate adulterous marriages? How could the church possibly honor the English martyrs like St. Thomas More if they died for mere "policy," and not a truth about the sacraments?

And yet, Catholics conditioned by the last 50 years of life in the church are totally unprepared for the eventuality of the pope or a papally approved Synod (i.e., a governing council) issuing a "policy" that flatly contradicts church teaching. For many of them, many good men, it will just be a new party line. Or perhaps, more insanely, they will claim, in an Orwellian turn, that the new policy was always the church's real policy.

The Catholic Party has cultivated a very specific form of forgetting of the church's confounding history. They do not recall that ecumenical councils like the one at Vienne wasted church authority on a silly grudge against the Knights Templar. They do not remember Councils like those at Sirmium, later condemned, where churchmen made compromises with Arianism. They do not remember that Pope Pius VI encouraged a Synod in Italy that eventually promoted Jansenist heresy, condemned much Catholic piety, and improvised new liturgies.

Catholics were reminded at the Second Vatican Council of a doctrine with a foundation in the early church fathers, in St. Vincent Lerins, that the whole body of faithful Catholics in their cultivated sense of the faith, are one of the guarantors of the church's teaching authority. Sometimes, the duty of a faithful Catholic is not just to rebuke and correct those in authority in the church like St. Catherine of Siena, but to throw rotting cabbage at them, or make them miserable, as we once did, with the connivance of worldly authorities, during the deadlocked papal election in Viterbo.

For now the members of the Catholic Party are cultivating a kind of denial, saying that Pope Francis cannot possibly endorse the line on divorce and remarriage suggested by Cardinal Kasper when very clearly this reform is being actively debated within the highest reaches of the church, and seems to have been implemented in one phone call. If adopted, it will be time for members of the Catholic Church to reach for the rotting produce and give our prelates a taste of the sensus fidelium.

Your rejection of the obligation of Catholics to obey the teachings of the Church over their own personal spiritual opinions demonstrates a level of ignorance about your religion that is to low for me to continue a discussion with you on this subject.

Very good, and I think anything worth saying has been said. But, for those who may read this after it is probably worth pointing out that even in your dismissal from the thread you miss the point entirely. It is amusing that you, who cannot tell the difference between a theological opinion and Church doctrine, see yourself as worthy to judge whether a Catholic is obedient to Church teachings. You, who do not know what the Church teaches, as is obvious from all your posts, now think you know when others have accepted them. It would be funny if it weren't embarrassingly sad. In any case, you have demonstrated your refusal to understand and I will leave that as it is. Have a nice day yourself.

C’mon, you can do it. It’s a simple question.

Actually, you didn't post any question. That was a statement. However, for the sake of one last attempt at demonstrating just how silly your entire position is let me lay it out for you clearly, as if you really had asked a question. I believe that every Catholic is obligated to obey the Church in all issues of faith and morals. Where I differ from your strange assertions is that I actually believe there is a teaching and that for it to be followed it must be understood. There can be no obedience where there is ignorance. You argue that all Catholics must "obey" all "theological opinions" of all clergy at all times. Hmmm. Very interesting. Let us consider this. There are priests and bishops who deny the resurrection, and others who think that atheists are saved by virtue of their denial of God. Others think that Buddhism is equal to Christianity, and others who think that Jews are all going to hell. Some think that gay marriage is just fine and dandy, and others still who believe that black people bear the mark of Cain. Some think that only Catholics can ever be saved, and others think hell doesn't exist. Good luck in trying to find anyone who can be "obedient" to all these authoritative clerics at the same time.

The real truth is that the Church is indefectible, and Catholic teaching cannot be changed. She cannot alter the Apostolic faith even if some high ranking churchman thought it should be done. If an infallible truth is no longer the truth, then it was never infallible, and gone is the requirement for obedience. No Catholic is required, and never has been, to simply accept any particular personal theological opinion of any churchman, even a pope.

What is confusing you is what confuses a lot of people. Authority. Opinions, in most cases, have none. The Church, however, does. That authority is expressed not by opinions of any and every cleric, but in authoritative councils and documents, and these do not disappear when another document comes along. They all, taken as a whole, present a complete picture by which anybody, including popes, can learn the real Apostolic faith without any question of what is true, and what is just speculation. The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople are still as binding and infallible as they were when they were convened by Constantine the Great and Theodosius. Nothing in them was ever unwritten. The Catholic faith is not contained in the last comment given by somebody in purple or red, or even white. It is expressed throughout the history of the Church, and in all of her dogmatic pronouncements, liturgy and prayers. Even wise and pedagogical comments by high ranking and authoritative clerics can only be mined for the deeper truths by hearing them with a fully developed Catholic mindset, fertilized by contemplation of the constant witness of the Church.

Just consider a deeply thoughtful and intelligent man, Pope Benedict XVI, who published his own thoughts on the life of our Lord in his book Jesus of Nazareth. In the foreword to that work he took great pains to insist that his opinions in the book not be seen as authoritative, and yet he was the pope at the time. How much more authoritative can you get? But, he specifically said that "everyone is free, then, to contradict me." You would say that we Catholics are required to accept every opinion from every churchman as the gospel truth, and yet the highest churchman of all contradicted you outright. You just don't grok Catholicism.

Now, you can either persist in your errors about what Catholics are required to believe, and what constitutes the dogmatic faith (on which you aren't even in the same country, let alone ballpark), or you can accept the truth. I really don't care. I have gone above and beyond in demonstrating the reality to you, and now you can do as you like.

Have a nice day.

If your constant dripping, condescending, insulting arrogance is the result of truly "grokking" the Catholic Church, then may the entirety of its teachings die an immediate and permanent death for utterly corrupting and destroying every last shred of the humility and goodwill of human beings.

Other than that, your bizarre statement that: "There are priests and bishops who deny the resurrection, and others who think that atheists are saved by virtue of their denial of God. Others think that Buddhism is equal to Christianity, and others who think that Jews are all going to hell. Some think that gay marriage is just fine and dandy, and others still who believe that black people bear the mark of Cain. Some think that only Catholics can ever be saved, and others think hell doesn't exist. Good luck in trying to find anyone who can be "obedient" to all these authoritative clerics at the same time" is a perfect example of the speculative, utterly non-referenced nonsense you're spouting as Church teachings. Such "examples" as you gave are apostate, so why would you hold them up as requiring obedience?

The simple fact, which seems to send you into some sort of fit where you feel compelled to imitate an 18th century vicar sitting at high table and talking through his nose to a servant, is that the Church reserves final authority in spiritual teachings, above any Catholic's personal opinions. You finally ramble out that general idea, but you do it so disdainfully that it is hard to separate it from your indignation. Yet from where does such defensiveness come? Do I challenge it? No. Do I argue with it? No. I merely point out its existence. YOU try to confuse it with Catholics obeying errant clergy. Why would you do that? Why would you want to have both sides at once - both misrepresenting the nature of Catholic obedience, while declaring its existence at the same time?

I'll tell you why - because you're trying to soften the point I'm making. You're drowing it in overweaning contempt and insults based on fictional statements vague enough to be bumper stickers, in order to create cognitive dissonance. Then you're adding to that by making blanket dismissals of general points and creating absurd examples to further bury the issue, so that by the time you actually affirm the requirement of obedience, you can pretend that I have some bizarre problem with authority and some strange belief that Catholics aren't allowed to think for themselves.

Your defensiveness, and your massive effort at hiding a very simple truth, is intellectual dishonesty of the the highest degree. Because IN FACT, Catholics can have any opinion they want - but being Catholic means that they cannot accept any conclusion they have that is inconsistant with Church teachings. That is the literal truth. AND it is something that is a HUGE problem for the Church, since so many (especially American) Catholics believe that their opinions are valid enough to not only act on, but live within their understanding of Church teachings - and gay marriage, abortion, and other issues prove the seriousness of this erroneous conflation beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is a genuine crisis for the Church, and has created a tremendous split within Catholicism amongst Catholics about what they believe the Church is all about. And ANY resolutions of this problem are directly threatened, hampered, misdirected and confused by people like YOU who spend so much effort trying to destroy a clear understanding of the problem, in your misguided belief that refusing to accept its existence somehow protects the Church.

And THAT is what I am pointing out, you scheming, manipulative, insufferable, pompous ass.

Such "examples" as you gave are apostate, so why would you hold them up as requiring obedience?

But I didn't hold them up as requiring obedience. You did. From the very beginning of my presence on this thread I have upheld that there is nothing in opposition to Catholic teaching or practice if a lay person holds a theological opinion which differs from that of any given pope. And I have proven it again and again, and did so by recourse to Catholic sources and not just my own assertions. You, on the other hand, have insisted that the opinions of clergy must be obeyed. You went beyond popes and took it to all clergy, which means priests and bishops. Well, those things I listed are in fact theological opinions which some bishops and priests have maintained, and no Catholic is required to believe them. As a matter of fact, believing them is to indulge in heresy and endanger one's soul. So, either your assertion that clerical opinions are binding on all believers is false, or you actually think these above listed opinions are dogmatic. You can't have it both ways.

It is also interesting to me that you now are asserting that I am somehow playing both ends, and manipulating the conversation, and being scheming, and so on and so on. But, of course this is untrue, and to show it I will go all the way back to my first comment here, and which you then replied to. In that post I disagreed with the assertion that believing "a Catholic could hold a theological opinion that differs from the Pope" is "in opposition to ... Catholic teaching." In that post I said this: Only in cases where the Pope's opinion is, in fact, Catholic will this above hold true. But, if one should teach something less than orthodox, like say suggesting that atheism saves and that Catholics should encourage atheists to be more devoted in their atheism, then any real Catholic will certainly hold theological opinions which differ from his. Now, did I not say that papal opinions are not binding if they are "not Catholic"? Did I not give a clear example showing that heretical opinions do not bind people and so they are not obligated to agree with a pope in that case? And is that not exactly what I am saying now? Is it not what I have said all along? So much for scheming and manipulation.

What I have never done, not even once, is suggest that any Catholic should or could, in good conscience, reject any actual dogma or doctrine of the Church. This is a fiction which you have manufactured calumniously. Let me quote your oh so polite and thoughtful comment several posts back in which you said: Your rejection of the obligation of Catholics to obey the teachings of the Church over their own personal spiritual opinions demonstrates a level of ignorance about your religion that is to low for me to continue a discussion with you on this subject. Now, this comment is not just wrong, as I have demonstrated over and over, but it is also tacky. Actually, one could say it even sounds like the words of an insufferable, pompous ass. But, who am I to judge.

But I didn't hold them up as requiring obedience. You did.

LOL, I was the one who called them apostate! YOU were the one who called them a part of the beliefs of the clergy (after making them up in the first place)! But hey, they're just words, right? You can just combine them in any pattern you want. It's not like they actually mean anything, when your goal is just to kick over the table.

Oh yeah, you're kicking over the table all right. You say that a Catholic is not bound to obey the Pope or the clergy, and yet given that, somehow "What I have never done, not even once, is suggest that any Catholic should or could, in good conscience, reject any actual dogma or doctrine of the Church.

Really? Then if Catholics are not bound to obey the Pope or the Clergy, how, exactly, are they to determine WHAT the "actual dogma or doctrine of the Church" IS?

Because the Catholic Church, works THROUGH those Clergy and Popes you so disdain, remember? THEY are the ones who determine WHAT the "actual dogma or doctrine of the Church" IS.

Because if they DON'T, and if Catholics are NOT bound to the Clergy's and Pope's decisions about "actual dogma or doctrine of the Church," then the only persons that such "Catholics" can turn to to DETERMINE the "actual dogma or doctrine of the Church" is THEMSELVES.

Of course, people call themselves "Catholic" and do it anyway - like you, obviously. But most others who do it at least have the moral courage and personal honesty to call themselves PROTESTANTS. Because that's what they are.

You, on the other hand, seem to be an "American Catholic Liberal." You refuse obedience to the Clergy and the Pope, you claim the moral high ground while simultaneously firing out multiple layers of manipulative and blatantly contradictory fantasies that you then specifically refuse to own as your own words (which is doing something, since you're actually writing them down), and you still not only claim to be a Catholic - but one of "good conscience."

"Good conscience" - that sounds like a term a lawyer would use. Because how is it difference from "conscience"? Perhaps it has an alternate meaning? An "enhanced" meaning? Like being a descriptor of the "moral justification" of a non-Catholic who wants to still stay in Catholicism in order to try to change the Church from within, through political pressure and subterfuge? Such a person would be obsessed with their actual non-Catholic status, and, being liberal, would obsess about it by accusing others of being Catholics or not. Like you do, for example. And what a perfect little, tiny, childish cover - to obsess over who's "in" and who's "out" - while infiltrating the Church. How clever of you. No one will ever notice.

That's why you parse, and parse - and parse. I said something very, very simple: that the Church determines whether something is doctrine or not, and that the Clergy has that determining role in the Church. This is so obviously, flat-out true, the only people who could possibly object to it ARE American liberals "Catholics." No one else would notice or care.

But American Catholic liberals are OBSESSED with this issue, because they want to turn the Church into yet another socialist collectivist globalist control mechanism. And this is THE issue of POWER in the Church. But being liberals, they can't admit they're trying to steal power, so they lie - like liberals lie. Which is basically like teenagers lie. Like YOU lie, about your OWN WORDS.

Which is also why you've come up with wild, un-referenced apostasies you claim are held by the Clergy and Popes, bizarrely blame them on ME, and then declare an ability to determine dogma and doctrine of the Church YOURSELF while still staying Catholic - AND while dismissing any Clergy that disagrees with YOU, including, specifically, any Pope.

LOL, what a mess you are! Maybe that's why your nose is so high up - to keep it clear of the stink you're making with your brazen, repeated, doubled-down, interlaced, contemptuous lies.

No, you're no Catholic. Nor do you have the integity to declare yourself a Protestant. What you are is just another liberal political hack who thinks he's invisible, and is shocked that someone isn't baffled by his utterly juvenile bullsh!t.

You're also an utter waste of my time.

Okay, I tried to reply to this point by point, but it went on too long. There is just too much wrong with it. So, I will restrict myself to one paragraph which touches on the original issue, though perhaps only tangentially.

Which is also why you've come up with wild, un-referenced apostasies you claim are held by the Clergy and Popes, bizarrely blame them on ME, and then declare an ability to determine dogma and doctrine of the Church YOURSELF while still staying Catholic - AND while dismissing any Clergy that disagrees with YOU, including, specifically, any Pope.

Let us go point by point, and you may see just how far off you are.

POINT 1: wild, un-referenced apostasies you claim are held by the Clergy

Just what do you think the Church teaches about clergy? Do you really believe we think they are ALL infallible in ALL of their opinions? Is it really amazing to you that clergy could believe such things? I hate to burst your bubble, but go read a book. Almost every heresy to confront the Church throughout history has been started by a cleric. Arianism, the most pernicious and insidious of all heresies of the early Church was from Arius, a cleric. Nestorianism, another biggie, came to us from the patriarch of Constantinople himself. That would be the number two to the pope. And the Protestant Reformation, so-called, is largely due to the efforts of another priest, Martin Luther. Clerics are every bit as able to be wrong as are lay people. I really do not understand your unwillingness to believe this.

Just as a personal note I can mention, right off the top of my head, one priest who, to me directly, denied he could absolve sins in confession. (HINT: this OPINION is not Catholic teaching.) Another, in front of our entire church, refused to read the Gospels as they were "a bunch of legends and didn't happen" and then he denied that there were saints in heaven who could pray for us. (HINT: these OPINIONS are also not Catholic doctrine.) If I sat down and really thought about it I could probably come up with a few more of these, and that ignores the many heretical things I have read which were written by clerics of various types. No, sorry. Infallibility does not extend to all clerics, or personal opinions of any. You are just wrong about this.

POINT 2: bizarrely blame them on ME

No, never happened. You imagined it. I said that it was your argument, not mine, that clerical opinions are binding on the faithful. And that is true. I have never argued that individual clerical theological opinions are binding on the faithful. Have you really forgotten what it was you were disagreeing with?

POINT 3: and then declare an ability to determine dogma and doctrine of the Church YOURSELF while still staying Catholic

Determine? Sure, it is called reading the Catechism and the conciliar and papal documents which are authoritative teachings of the Church. Not really that hard to do. I cannot help it that you seem to think we Catholics are forbidden from learning something and must simply believe whatever the nearest guy with a white collar tells us. That is just a myth. You have a very flawed and skewed idea of what the Church teaches.

POINT 4: AND while dismissing any Clergy that disagrees with YOU, including, specifically, any Pope.

Dismissing any clergy? Hardly. I have never dismissed any clergy at all, especially any pope. I have simply said that theological opinions are not authoritative teachings. And, guess what, they aren't. They are personal opinions. You seem to have a very tough time differentiating opinions from teaching. When the Church teaches, it does so authoritatively. And the Church knows the difference. When John Paul II suggested some new mysteries may be good in the Rosary Catholics could either do it or not. Nothing binding about it. Why not? Because he said as much. But, when Pius IX promulgated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception he did so definitively, and therefore it is required to be believed as a matter of faith. Not really a difficult thing to figure out you know.

I will restrict myself to one paragraph which touches on the original issue, though perhaps only tangentially.

LOL, why not pick the MAIN paragraph, instead of a tangential one? Let's see, which paragraph could it be? Oh, look - how about THIS one:

That's why you parse, and parse - and parse. I said something very, very simple: that the Church determines whether something is doctrine or not, and that the Clergy has that determining role in the Church. This is so obviously, flat-out true, the only people who could possibly object to it ARE American liberals "Catholics." No one else would notice or care.

So you completely avoided my one, single main point, which I repeated numerous times, and then - you parsed, and parsed, and parsed on an admittedly tangential paragraph.

Your brazen shamelessness is truly appalling, but I don't imagine you see it.

But hey, don't mind me. You decide what you believe. And don't let any of them Popes, Bishops, Priests or any other Clergy tell you any different. The teachings of the Catholic Church, it's dogma, its magisterium, it's canon law, are what YOU decide they are. Because let's face it - the only thing Popes, Bishops, Priests or any other Clergy can offer is opinions, and who needs that?

Just remember that in all your deciding, you are NOT Protestant. Nope. Even though you decide for yourself what the Church teachings are, and deny any legitimate guidance from the Clergy and all their apostate, heretical opinions, and rely SOLELY on your interpretation of Church documents for the authority you accept, you are still entirely, wholly Catholic. And of course, if any of the Clergy's opinions are actually true teachings, well, then after due consideration, if and only if you decide they are correct, you will accept them.

And as a matter of fact, to be any different than what YOU are is to be heretical - isn't that what you said?

Un.Real.

"Catholic."

LOL!

These very points were still addressed in my post, which is why I selected that paragraph. It covered more in less space. You would have benefited from having actually read it. Oh well. Not surprising.

Ultimately, you are having a distinct problem in understanding the issue at hand, try as I might to focus you on it. I have never denied that the Church has determined doctrine. As a matter of fact, my original posts, one of which you quoted and said was false, reflect this very fact. The problem is you like to pretend I am saying doctrine when I say other things, like opinion or some such. Then running away with your opinions confusion you try to assert that clerical opinions are binding on the faithful, because you are pretending that the word opinion is the same as teaching or doctrine. But, opinions are NOT binding on the faithful, and this is a teaching of the very Church you argue I deny. I offered you proofs, not least of all Pope Benedict XVI. He directly denied that his papal OPINIONS are to be confused with dogma. He even specifically said "everyone is free, then, to contradict me." That is a direct refutation of your entire error right there.

In my first post I directly stated "Only in cases where the Pope's opinion is, in fact, Catholic will this above hold true. But, if one should teach something less than orthodox, like say suggesting that atheism saves and that Catholics should encourage atheists to be more devoted in their atheism, then any real Catholic will certainly hold theological opinions which differ from his." The entire fraud you have perpetrated is contrived from pretending that the statement that my OPINIONS do not have to match his OPINIONS, unless they are orthodox and Catholic, somehow means that I get to make up the faith and decide for myself what to believe. Sorry, but not so. I never said it, you did. I never argued it, you did. If you quite pretending that OPINIONS==DOCTRINE you could finally understand what other people are saying.

I will ignore the rest of your dishonest accusations which are founded only in your imagination.

Have a wonderful day.

I offered you proofs, not least of all Pope Benedict XVI. He directly denied that his papal OPINIONS are to be confused with dogma. He even specifically said "everyone is free, then, to contradict me." That is a direct refutation of your entire error right there.

You know, it's like a law of the universe - frauds always go too far. It's inevitable.

Proof?

Really?

A direct refutation?

Really?

Then let me ask you this - when (according to you) Pope Benedict said "everyone is free, then, to contradict me," was he speaking as DOGMA, or Papal OPINION?

Because per YOU, if that statement of his was his OPINION, then it could be WRONG.

Right?

But if that statment of his was DOGMA, then it had to be RIGHT - which means it is the dogma of the Church that the Laity can contradict its teachings. Which is, of course, not only internally contradictory, but also removes the very purpose of the existence of the Church.

So we're left with Benedict's OPINION that he can be contradicted. Which, being a mere opinion, could be wrong. Which would mean he cannot be contradicted, which would make his statement wrong - but only if it is right.

Maybe you're a Jesuit. That WOULD pass for a jesuitical "proof."

So can he be contradicted, then? According to whom? YOU? What if you're wrong in contradicting him? But how would you know if you were wrong, since NO Clergy has any inherently more truthful opinion than yours, regarding Church dogma?

LOL, give it up. You're a farce. Your "logic" is anything but, your "proofs" are internally self-defeating, your "argument" negates the need for the Church but, but, but - somehow, in some way, you're still Catholic.

Understand, I truly do not care whether you are Catholic or not. But I find your blazing hypocrisy so incredibly offensive I had to call you on it. Obviously, a very large part of whatever it is you think you're doing involves using openly hypocritical "defenses" for your openly hypocritical positions. No doubt some sort of effort to help bring about the collapse of rational thinking altogether, at least among American Catholics, through cognitive dissonance or some other psycho-rape some (Jesuit) shrink got a government grant to develop. Not that the idea is new - normalizing hypocrisy is a long played liberal tactic. I've just never seen it so brazenly played concerning Catholic doctrine.

But hey, if the Clerics won't step forward to shut you up, why not go for it, right? After all, those apostate priests and bishops you apparently know so well are precisely the prople who will NOT step forward to silence or correct you. But really, how could they? Anything they might say to you would only be their opinion, right?

LOL, you're just so clever. No one will EVER figure out what you're doing. Like Khan, "yours, is the superior, intellect."

(Except, of course, that Spock noted "your pattern indicates two dimensional thinking." And you know where that deficiency led in 3D battlespace... LOL...)

Then let me ask you this - when (according to you) Pope Benedict said "everyone is free, then, to contradict me," was he speaking as DOGMA, or Papal OPINION? Because per YOU, if that statement of his was his OPINION, then it could be WRONG.

Well, you are missing the fatal implications, but at least you are thinking, and so I will address it. Yes, actually, it could absolutely be wrong, on its own authority. If it were just an opinion. But, the Church and the popes do teach definitively too, and so we must have a way to tell if something is just an opinion or if it is something we are required to either accept and obey or even believe with faith (those aren't the same things btw). And, how do we know this? Simple. By how it is promulgated. Was the book "Jesus of Nazareth" an official, authoritative papal proclamation? Or was it a personal book intended to share the perspectives of the author? Of course, if you are paying attention you will know that it is the latter, and therefore the entire thing is almost certainly not binding on the faithful. It also doesn't use any language which the pope could invoke which would make it clear that he is teaching from his office, i.e. ex cathedra, rather than presenting his thoughts as a believer. In this case, then, we are free to accept the contents of this book or not, as we are inclined. Of course, only a fool would ignore the perspective of a pope in writing on such a topic, but that doesn't mean that it is a matter of faith in any way, or even requiring obedience of some kind. As he said, we are free to contradict it if we like.

And there are other examples we could consider to show this same concept. When Pope John Paul II shared his thoughts on the Rosary, as I have mentioned before, he still did so in an official capacity and therefore used the appropriate formats and documents, in this case an apostolic letter. However, when, in that same document, he proceeded to discuss new mysteries which he thought would perhaps be helpful to the faithful but which were not binding in any way, he used language which ensured we knew that this portion was not meant to require obedience. And, needless to say, comments made on airplanes or in interviews to newspapers are not binding at all. See? Very clear and simple really. We Catholics are used to it and have no problem in knowing the differences at all. Your confusion about it all is, really, quite confusing.

But, and here is the fun part, as far as proving your position wrong, it doesn't matter. The mere assertion, being a papal statement, is therefore definitive per your view. And it denies that same view, which means that no matter whether it is a binding proclamation or a mere opinion, from where you are arguing, it is fatal.

You know, it is all really quite amusing. You have argued that all clerical opinions are Church teaching, and then when confronted with a pope denying that, you pretend that somehow this opinion means nothing. You also ignore the fact that clerics regularly disagree with each other publicly (you should watch some videos of bishops meetings or read some clerical blogs, there are many). After all, I can think of a cardinal who believes no abortion supporting politician should be given communion, and another who feels the opposite. But none of this bothers you, even though, by your reasoning, the Church must teach these many contradictory things at the same time, since the opinions of these arguing clerics are all Church teachings. It is so self-defeating it is laughable. And, of course, you never produce a single Church document, or even an opinion from a churchman for that matter (which is somewhat ironic actually) that all clerical opinions are in fact Church teachings which bind the faithful. It really is funny. But, I suppose it is like the lies you told about what you claimed I said in earlier posts, which you couldn't produce quotes to support either. You have said it, and that is enough. Maybe you think you are like clergy and your opinions are infallible also?

You know, it is all really quite amusing. You have argued that all clerical opinions are Church teaching, and then when confronted with a pope denying that, you pretend that somehow this opinion means nothing.

I have not argued that all clerical opinions are Church teaching. I have argued that the laity is not authorized by the Catholic Church to decide the meanings of the Church teachings on their own, without Clerical approval.

In addition, YOU are denying the authority of clerical statements as mere "opinion," not me. In fact, you do it quite directly, and then directly reverse yourself, post after post, and accuse me of what you just said. You're either insane, or the most contemptuously inept debater I have ever come across. And it certainly isn't amusing - it is hypocrisy. Sane people don't find hypocrisy amusing. Did you know that? Or is it news to you?

In addition, you're still arguing that the laity can decide for itself what the "promulgated" teachings of the Church are, and need not follow the interpretation of these "promulgations" by any particular Cleric of any rank, and therefore can decide for themselves what these "promulgations" mean, how they should be applied, and every other intepretive application of them.

And of course, that's not Catholicism. Canon law denies such interpretive powers to the laity. The MOST the laity can do is confront an erreant cleric with a discontinuity in their teachings and seek clarification, and if that is not forthcoming, appeal to a higher level cleric. But that's it.

"...at least you are thinking, and so I will address it."

And you, Sir, are an ass, and I am done with you.

In addition, you're still arguing that the laity can decide for itself what the "promulgated" teachings of the Church are,

Not true. I have never even suggested anything like that. Official Church documents are all undeniably what they are, and anything the Church teaches is always presented very clearly. There is no ambiguity in it. Nobody is able to "decide for themselves" what is official and what is not, and I have most certainly never even implied anything of the sort. Opinions, comments, observations, asides and such like are not official, and the Church does not present them as teachings.

The Church has never taught that "theological opinions" are binding on its faithful, and that is a fact. And you cannot quote anything stating otherwise. All you can do is keep pretending that "opinion" and "doctrine" are synonyms and use that to try to argue that not agreeing with a personal opinion, which is entirely possible, is to automatically reject a doctrine. Sorry, but that is just not true. You don't know what you are talking about.

and need not follow the interpretation of these "promulgations" by any particular Cleric of any rank

I have also not said this. If a "Cleric of any rank," which I will take to mean somebody with the authority to determine such a thing, gives an authoritative interpretation of something then the faithful must respond in obedience. When a bishop sets down a requirement for his diocese, then we must obey. When a congregation in Rome makes a decision about something before them, then we must obey. When the Pope changes the law for the Church, then we must obey. But, all of these will be issued in such a way that they are clearly from the Church, and not mere opinions of the person they originally come from. None of them will be issued in an interview with a magazine, or as a statement in an airplane to some reporters.

and therefore can decide for themselves what these "promulgations" mean, how they should be applied, and every other intepretive application of them.

This is very vague language. No Catholic is free to contradict any interpretation given by Holy Mother Church. But, in matters which are not defined directly then we are free to interpret insofar as we understand the facts available to us. But, there really is less difference between cleric and lay than you think there is. My local parish priest is, in most cases, no more free than I to interpret the Church's teachings on matters of the faith. If he thinks he can interpret teachings on abortion to not apply to cases of rape (as I was once told by a priest) then he is wrong. His state as a cleric and parish priest does not give him the authority to change the teaching of the Church regarding abortion. If a lay person were to act on that and go get an abortion they would still suffer the same canonical penalties they otherwise would, because the priest could not "interpret" that teaching in that way. His being a cleric does not give him anymore authority in that regard than it does me.

In fact, you do it quite directly, and then directly reverse yourself, post after post, and accuse me of what you just said.

That is not true. I have never contradicted anything I have posted. You keep stating this and yet you have yet to produce one single example of it when challenged.

And you, Sir, are an ass, and I am done with you.

Well, as always, you do take the high ground.

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.