Yes, today's Catholics are literate, but still woefully ignorant of Church teachings. Ask the average Catholic in the pews about any of the recent papal documents. Ask them why the Church views IVF as immoral. Ask if they ever listen to or watch Catholic radio or TV programs. Do they subscribe to Catholic papers and magazines? Are they aware of resources like Misseo Dei Catholic? Our Church still has a long hard road to travel in instructing and evangelizing our own.
Honestly it's probably better if they don't watch Catholic radio or TV programs or subscribe to Catholic papers and magazines. If you're not well-grounded in Church teaching to begin with, a lot of that stuff is a biased minefield.
So, can the magisterium in it statements on faith and morals speak other than truth … as you imply … scandal? Certainly the Holy Spirit is at work in our Pope chosen by Christ to lead His Church. When the Pope challenges us to think differently on faith and morals, it is the Good Shepherd challenging us. The laity does not redefine truth to meet its own views, they live out the truth Christ through His church as given to us. We do not define orthodoxy, the Magisterium does. So who is causing scandal?
There is an important distinction between the Magisterium and the individual members of the Magisterium, i.e. the popes and bishops. The latter are not always infallible or even authoritative. Airplane interviews with the pope are not authoritative; they are just his opinions as a private theologian, even if we should still give them due respect because of his office.
The Holy Spirit does guide the pope but to varying degrees. Not every word he says is protected by God from error. Sometimes, the reason statements he or bishops make can seem ‘challenging’ is because they’re at best ambiguous and at worst erroneous, and scandal can come from either.
As the ecclesia discens, we must follow the ecclesia docens, but that isn’t limited to the living clergy. We should be formed in the whole Tradition to hone our discernment, especially with the modern proclivity to ambiguity even in more authoritative magisterial documents, which can cause scandal even if not technically in error or binding us to sin.
Sorry, you are off- base and need to look at Lumen Gentium 25 and read it carefully. Please don’t let your politics overwhelm your faith. What your are writing is not the Catholic faith. You are picking and chose to fit your beliefs not the Church’s.
From LG 25:
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. 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. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Catholic Church. “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium.” Vatican II Documents. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011. Print.
Religious assent of mind and will are not the same as divine and Catholic faith. If what the pope says privately or in his authentic/ordinary magisterium contradicts Tradition, explicitly or by implication, our divine and Catholic faith comes first. This is the purpose of defining papal infallibility, not to disregard his non-infallible statements or to authorize private judgment but to distinguish his levels of authority and the fact that Tradition isn't limited to the most recent comments of the current pope. The Fathers, councils, Doctors and other monuments of Tradition are still valid and necessary today. It isn't about politics, it's about authority, hence why Leo rarely cites any magisterial source when saying that border enforcement is wrong, God doesn't answer prayers of people who wage wars, sexual sins aren't as important as social justice, mosques are sacred places of God’s presence, etc. These are all just his opinions.
Pope Leo XIV just two days ago said that nations have the right to borders. So, I would argue that your statement misconstrues his views on the matter, “Personally, I believe that a state has the right to impose rules at its borders.”
Or a clarification? Why not have charity for the Holy Father?
You mention his failure to cite magisterium—but most of his comments are conversations. How many magisterial documents has he written himself? One? An Apostolic Exhortation from the Francis pontificate that he more or less just put the stamp on it. He’s written no encyclicals.
Your reflection here is implicit, but this isn’t, so why the animosity for Pope Leo at this moment?
Deacon Mark raised the issue of politics, I didn't. My reflection was meant to be more general, not specific to Leo. My 'animosity' is not towards him but the ambiguity of his statements and the scandal they can and do cause, especially when they're treated by most Catholics as infallible. By citations, I meant grounding his statements in magisterial teaching and tradition, not his own magisterial documents.
On your reflection, I thought the piece was a general observation, my only real concern is when Pope Leo was named directly here in the comments, I think he’s more of his own man than folks give him credit for.
He has no magisterial documents of his own really. There is one Apostolic Exhortation that was more or less a hold over from Pope Francis. Leo’s pontificate is 1 year old & these are the tired talking points from Francis’ pontificate now applied to Leo with really a book cover knowledge of the what his Pontificate will be like. The whole talking point of Francis 2.0 is absurd because with Leo’s age his reign will likely be similar in length as JP II. Pope Francis will be a footnote if that’s the case.
So it is you, or others who decides what is orthodox and what is not? Note that none of your caveats are found in LG 25 nor in Jesus charge to Peter in Matthew 16:19. For me, I will listen to Peter. Otherwise we become as fragmented as the Protestant Churches. I will place my trust in the successor of Peter who is the rock on whom the Church is established and who holds the keys to the kingdom. That can never be rightly judged as scandalous.
No we should not discount either divine revelation or the entirety of Sacred Tradition. However, despite your implication, nor has the Pope. We all need to be careful not to take the Pope’s words out of context:
Just some thoughts using your examples:
On Border Enforcement: He did not say that border enforcement is wrong but that the methods being used were. The government seeking the common good must treat every single person with dignity and respect. (CCC 1929,1930, 2241). Our Lord will judge us on how we have treated the stranger (see Ex 22:20, 23:9, and Matt 25:42–46). This is consistent with Divine Revelation and Sacred Tradition.
Does God Listen to the Prayers those who wage wars: The context is pointed at those who wage war outside of the moral bounds of what is considered “Just” (See St Agustine on Just and Unjust wars). When the Pope says that the prayer of the unjust are not heard, he is speaking in accord with divine revelation (see John 15:7 and 1 John 5:14). Both passages speak to prayers that are answered only if the person abides in Christ or that the prayer is in accord with divine will. It would be inconsistent with God’s love for God to act otherwise.
Sexual Sins vs Social Justice. I forget the context of this but … would you argue that Love isn’t the greatest commandment to include love of neighbor. (See Matthew 22:36–40) Certainly, in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37), the Good Samaritan did not ask the injured man if he was gay or adulterous or anything else. First, he treated him with mercy. Also, I refer back to Matthew 25. Did Jesus limit the corporal works of mercy to just the righteous? I surmise from the Pope’s comment that Love as enacted through social justice is the first priority. Should we ever treat even the most unrighteous without love? Anyone who would suggest otherwise would certainly stand outside of divine revelation and Sacred Tradition.
Mosques are sacred places: Again, the Pope is perfectly aligned with divine revelation and Sacred Tradition. (See CCC 841, LG 16) From the Catechism - “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (CCC 841) Would it not stand to reason that the place where Muslims adore the one merciful God would be sacred? Also see Acts 17:22–25. St Paul says something very unusual “What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.” Is not Paul acknowledging that the shrine marked - To an Unknown God - as a place of the worship of the true God and hence sacred?
The Pope’s words are not just his opinions on these matters and we need to listen. Because they don’t match our politics does not mean that we can or should discount them. They challenge us to live the Catholic Faith. If that is scandal, I am OK with it. I am sure that the Pharisees labeled Jesus’ words as scandalous.
As Catholics we owe it to the Lord and to His Church to listen to his Earthly Shepherds and not simply discount them when we don’t agree. We are to seek understanding, not label as scandalous. That was my basic concern as I read your reflection. God worked and is working through His Church and especially through the Magisterium.
This is why I said in my reflection that Catholics in previous centuries, especially before the printing press and widespread literacy, had it much easier: today, we hear/read a constant stream of comments from the pope and other bishops every day and have to do this kind of mental gymnastics to read them according to the hermeneutic of continuity, something unfortunately many Catholics are unqualified to do and so become scandalized by their ambiguity. That’s why I said, much more is required of literate, educated Catholics today than ever before.
Amen!
Yes, today's Catholics are literate, but still woefully ignorant of Church teachings. Ask the average Catholic in the pews about any of the recent papal documents. Ask them why the Church views IVF as immoral. Ask if they ever listen to or watch Catholic radio or TV programs. Do they subscribe to Catholic papers and magazines? Are they aware of resources like Misseo Dei Catholic? Our Church still has a long hard road to travel in instructing and evangelizing our own.
Honestly it's probably better if they don't watch Catholic radio or TV programs or subscribe to Catholic papers and magazines. If you're not well-grounded in Church teaching to begin with, a lot of that stuff is a biased minefield.
So, can the magisterium in it statements on faith and morals speak other than truth … as you imply … scandal? Certainly the Holy Spirit is at work in our Pope chosen by Christ to lead His Church. When the Pope challenges us to think differently on faith and morals, it is the Good Shepherd challenging us. The laity does not redefine truth to meet its own views, they live out the truth Christ through His church as given to us. We do not define orthodoxy, the Magisterium does. So who is causing scandal?
There is an important distinction between the Magisterium and the individual members of the Magisterium, i.e. the popes and bishops. The latter are not always infallible or even authoritative. Airplane interviews with the pope are not authoritative; they are just his opinions as a private theologian, even if we should still give them due respect because of his office.
The Holy Spirit does guide the pope but to varying degrees. Not every word he says is protected by God from error. Sometimes, the reason statements he or bishops make can seem ‘challenging’ is because they’re at best ambiguous and at worst erroneous, and scandal can come from either.
As the ecclesia discens, we must follow the ecclesia docens, but that isn’t limited to the living clergy. We should be formed in the whole Tradition to hone our discernment, especially with the modern proclivity to ambiguity even in more authoritative magisterial documents, which can cause scandal even if not technically in error or binding us to sin.
Thank you so much. Very important this message.
Thank you, Helena! God bless!
Sorry, you are off- base and need to look at Lumen Gentium 25 and read it carefully. Please don’t let your politics overwhelm your faith. What your are writing is not the Catholic faith. You are picking and chose to fit your beliefs not the Church’s.
From LG 25:
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. 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. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Catholic Church. “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium.” Vatican II Documents. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011. Print.
Religious assent of mind and will are not the same as divine and Catholic faith. If what the pope says privately or in his authentic/ordinary magisterium contradicts Tradition, explicitly or by implication, our divine and Catholic faith comes first. This is the purpose of defining papal infallibility, not to disregard his non-infallible statements or to authorize private judgment but to distinguish his levels of authority and the fact that Tradition isn't limited to the most recent comments of the current pope. The Fathers, councils, Doctors and other monuments of Tradition are still valid and necessary today. It isn't about politics, it's about authority, hence why Leo rarely cites any magisterial source when saying that border enforcement is wrong, God doesn't answer prayers of people who wage wars, sexual sins aren't as important as social justice, mosques are sacred places of God’s presence, etc. These are all just his opinions.
Pope Leo XIV just two days ago said that nations have the right to borders. So, I would argue that your statement misconstrues his views on the matter, “Personally, I believe that a state has the right to impose rules at its borders.”
Or he just contradicts himself, hence the scandalous ambiguity.
Or a clarification? Why not have charity for the Holy Father?
You mention his failure to cite magisterium—but most of his comments are conversations. How many magisterial documents has he written himself? One? An Apostolic Exhortation from the Francis pontificate that he more or less just put the stamp on it. He’s written no encyclicals.
Your reflection here is implicit, but this isn’t, so why the animosity for Pope Leo at this moment?
Deacon Mark raised the issue of politics, I didn't. My reflection was meant to be more general, not specific to Leo. My 'animosity' is not towards him but the ambiguity of his statements and the scandal they can and do cause, especially when they're treated by most Catholics as infallible. By citations, I meant grounding his statements in magisterial teaching and tradition, not his own magisterial documents.
On your reflection, I thought the piece was a general observation, my only real concern is when Pope Leo was named directly here in the comments, I think he’s more of his own man than folks give him credit for.
He has no magisterial documents of his own really. There is one Apostolic Exhortation that was more or less a hold over from Pope Francis. Leo’s pontificate is 1 year old & these are the tired talking points from Francis’ pontificate now applied to Leo with really a book cover knowledge of the what his Pontificate will be like. The whole talking point of Francis 2.0 is absurd because with Leo’s age his reign will likely be similar in length as JP II. Pope Francis will be a footnote if that’s the case.
So it is you, or others who decides what is orthodox and what is not? Note that none of your caveats are found in LG 25 nor in Jesus charge to Peter in Matthew 16:19. For me, I will listen to Peter. Otherwise we become as fragmented as the Protestant Churches. I will place my trust in the successor of Peter who is the rock on whom the Church is established and who holds the keys to the kingdom. That can never be rightly judged as scandalous.
Which Peter do you mean? Just the current one, the postconciliar ones, or all of them? Should we just ignore everything taught before Vatican II?
No we should not discount either divine revelation or the entirety of Sacred Tradition. However, despite your implication, nor has the Pope. We all need to be careful not to take the Pope’s words out of context:
Just some thoughts using your examples:
On Border Enforcement: He did not say that border enforcement is wrong but that the methods being used were. The government seeking the common good must treat every single person with dignity and respect. (CCC 1929,1930, 2241). Our Lord will judge us on how we have treated the stranger (see Ex 22:20, 23:9, and Matt 25:42–46). This is consistent with Divine Revelation and Sacred Tradition.
Does God Listen to the Prayers those who wage wars: The context is pointed at those who wage war outside of the moral bounds of what is considered “Just” (See St Agustine on Just and Unjust wars). When the Pope says that the prayer of the unjust are not heard, he is speaking in accord with divine revelation (see John 15:7 and 1 John 5:14). Both passages speak to prayers that are answered only if the person abides in Christ or that the prayer is in accord with divine will. It would be inconsistent with God’s love for God to act otherwise.
Sexual Sins vs Social Justice. I forget the context of this but … would you argue that Love isn’t the greatest commandment to include love of neighbor. (See Matthew 22:36–40) Certainly, in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37), the Good Samaritan did not ask the injured man if he was gay or adulterous or anything else. First, he treated him with mercy. Also, I refer back to Matthew 25. Did Jesus limit the corporal works of mercy to just the righteous? I surmise from the Pope’s comment that Love as enacted through social justice is the first priority. Should we ever treat even the most unrighteous without love? Anyone who would suggest otherwise would certainly stand outside of divine revelation and Sacred Tradition.
Mosques are sacred places: Again, the Pope is perfectly aligned with divine revelation and Sacred Tradition. (See CCC 841, LG 16) From the Catechism - “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (CCC 841) Would it not stand to reason that the place where Muslims adore the one merciful God would be sacred? Also see Acts 17:22–25. St Paul says something very unusual “What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.” Is not Paul acknowledging that the shrine marked - To an Unknown God - as a place of the worship of the true God and hence sacred?
The Pope’s words are not just his opinions on these matters and we need to listen. Because they don’t match our politics does not mean that we can or should discount them. They challenge us to live the Catholic Faith. If that is scandal, I am OK with it. I am sure that the Pharisees labeled Jesus’ words as scandalous.
As Catholics we owe it to the Lord and to His Church to listen to his Earthly Shepherds and not simply discount them when we don’t agree. We are to seek understanding, not label as scandalous. That was my basic concern as I read your reflection. God worked and is working through His Church and especially through the Magisterium.
This is why I said in my reflection that Catholics in previous centuries, especially before the printing press and widespread literacy, had it much easier: today, we hear/read a constant stream of comments from the pope and other bishops every day and have to do this kind of mental gymnastics to read them according to the hermeneutic of continuity, something unfortunately many Catholics are unqualified to do and so become scandalized by their ambiguity. That’s why I said, much more is required of literate, educated Catholics today than ever before.
Amen! I wish there was a way to rid ourselves of 24/ 7 supposed news!