[Talisker]

A Catholic must measure everything they see and hear, regardless of where it comes from, by comparing it to the Catholic faith, which naturally includes scripture as that is a crucial part of the Tradition of the Church. But, ultimately, we are called to look at the entire history of the Church and all that she has pronounced, not just the most recent comments. That is the problem with so much we see and hear today. It is all about looking at the Church as only being governed and informed by one Church Council, and the most recent popes. Not so at all. As a matter of fact, real Catholic faith rests in seeing and hearing all of these recent events and teachings as being limited and constrained by all that came before and has been believed from the beginning. Without that we would be no different than any reformed church which moves with the whims of their leaders. Popes are Catholic not because they define Catholicism, but because they are defined by it.

LOL, it's not nearly that simple. While Catholics might be "called to look at the entire history of the Church and all that she has pronounced," it is a matter of Catholic doctrine that the ultimate interpretation of those issues resides with the Church, and not the laity. So Catholics can research, study, and opine all they want - but when the Church pronounces doctrine, that's it - and the pronouncement of that doctrine is headed by the Pope. Bluntly put, no matter what a Catholic believes, to remain Catholic is to obey the Pope. It is not a democracy.

[cothrige]

So Catholics can research, study, and opine all they want - but when the Church pronounces doctrine, that's it - and the pronouncement of that doctrine is headed by the Pope. Bluntly put, no matter what a Catholic believes, to remain Catholic is to obey the Pope. It is not a democracy.

There are several problems with what you say. One is it is not internally consistent. You are right when you say we must "obey the Pope" but obedience is not the same as saying that all opinions regarding theology that a person has must automatically be correct, even if they contradict what has always been believed by the Church. My children must obey me, but that does not mean that I am always right.

Also, to use your phrase, it is just not that simple. Church teaching is not just a declaration to be regurgitated endlessly without any understanding. And, if any Church teaching is to be understood then the hearer must look not just to what has just been said, but to all that it builds on. This is because Catholicism, even more than most other such belief structures, is one of tradition. The Church never teaches without placing it in the context of the historic faith which she has received. If a pope expounds on salvation outside of the Church, for instance, he does so by looking to the historic and constant teaching of the Church, and it is by placing any teaching into this framework that the hearer can properly understand it and act on it. This is what Pope Benedict XVI called a hermeneutic of continuity rather than rupture.

Just look at this thread. People are arguing that it is not possible to disagree with the theological opinions of a pope without ceasing to be Catholic. Is that a Catholic teaching? No, and it never has been. It is the opinion of people who are threatened, for whatever reason, with the possibility that a pope may not be 100% right at all times whatsoever. Perpetual personal papal infallibility is not a teaching of the Church, and yet it comes up over and over again. Why? Because people have no grasp of the historical teachings of the Church. So who is promoting democracy of faith? Those who ignorantly promote these false ideas which have never been part of the faith, or those who know what the Church has always taught and remain faithful to it?