The Authority of Papal Congregations

This is a heady posting. It delves into the Ordinary Magisterium, which is the day to day teaching of the Church. The Ordinary Magisterium has possibly fallible teachings which are also possibly infallible. In short, we do not know their nature unless we do an exhaustive theological survey, the college of bishops and the pope, or the pope alone states so, possibly by his "manner of speaking" (Lumen Gentium, 25, 1).

There are two general levels of teaching:

1. Infallible Magisterium: These are infallible teachings and contain two general levels, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (the pope and bishops throughout the world teaching together) and the Extraordinary Magisterium (Church Councils, Papal Definitions).
2. Ordinary Magisterium: These are day to day teachings, which have the possibility of being infallible, however, could be fallible (contain error).

This article is not intended to be exhaustive, but to speak in general terms. I will try to boil these concepts to some main points.

Main Points
A great article on the authority of Ordinary Magisterial Teachings (possibly fallible) including Papal Congregations is found here. In it you will find a quote of what Blessed Pope Pius the IX, a great pope according to many accounts and his encyclicals, said about Papal congregations in an apostolic letter, which I have extended below:

"it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church...it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical congregations..." (Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Enchiridion Symbolorum).

It is assumed by some that Pontifical Congregations are to be ignored. However, Pius IX has explicitly taught otherwise, as quoted above. Pius the IX also goes on to speak of theological truths being binding (called sense of the faithful), but I will not address that here.

This seems to suggest that the teachings of Congregations belong to the Ordinary Magisterium, which is still binding on Catholics in various degrees. This is probably because they have the consent of the pope to engage in their activities, it is from him that they derive their authority.

Correction
The article above, states that such teachings are not infallible, however, that is an incorrect statement.  Just because a teaching is not infallibly defined or proposed does not mean it is not infallible, just that it has not been infallibly proposed, spoken or defined. We should reserve judgement on whether it is infallible or not, because the pope could later state it is so, or a theological survey and statement by the pope could reveal it is.

The Bottom Line
We are to treat Congregational Documents (especially from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) as being part of the Ordinary Magisterium, which requires at least religious assent.  You cannot marginalize this teaching because it does not agree with your training or opinion.

Please leave comments, requests for articles, or questions below!

Journalistic Responsibility

For those of you who do not know, John King confronted Newt Gingrich during the January 19th debate in South Carolina about what his former wife said about an "open marriage." John is a divorced man, according to reports, with a hostile relationship with his ex-wife. Perhaps we should trot out his ex-wife and see what she has to say?

I do not point this out the eviscerate John King, but to point out Journalistic responsibility according to John Paul II:

"In the communications media the Church finds a precious aid for spreading the Gospel and religious values, for promoting dialogue, ecumenical and inter-religious cooperation, and also for defending those solid principles which are indispensable for building a society which respects the dignity of the human person and is attentive to the common good" (John Paul II, The Rapid Development of Those Responsible for Social Communications).

I am a Certified Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) and have done job interviews regularly. One thing we do not ask is someone's marital status. In fact, this is illegal discrimination according to law. I do not care about what a candidates ex-wives say. Many divorcees are bitter about the divorce. We accept that.

Apart from an employment contract, all a human resources professional is supposed to care about is: "Are you qualified for the position to which you are applying?" Nothing else. Not your religion, race, marital status, hateful comments by your ex-wife or anything else. The Presidential Race is a big job interview.

Maybe our criteria, being a people of repentance, should be the Sacrament of Reconciliation and attempts to live a holy life. Too often, our Jerry Springer culture takes over and we forget the image of God in our fellow human beings.  Let us pray for everyone, and give them the respect they are due, even to Barrack Obama, or a repentant candidate who is doing the best he can:

Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1869).

However, there is hope:

The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved his own to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from their fathers" (1 Pt 1:18). (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 622)

Let us choose the best candidate for the job, not give credence to salacious comments by a possibly embittered ex-wife. May Christ Reign!

Sedevacantism

Sedevacantism is taken from the times between popes, where the "sede" (chair) is "vacante" (vacant). This means we have no pope. Based on the proported immorality of our times, the Sedes believe that there is no pope, because we have immorality among the hierarchy (bishops). This is an interesting theory, because Christ himself said of the Pharisees, the leaders of the time:

"Do whatever they tell you, but do not imitate them" (Matthew 23:2).

This means we have to obey, although the bishops themselves might not obey their own teaching (i.e. hypocrisy). Regardless of their hypocrisy, Jesus still said to obey them. This means they have authority, regardless of their state of holiness. Why?  Because of office is holy, even if the man occupying it is not.

Not Me, But What I Say
An often statement by hypocrites is "do what I say, not what I do."  This is a true saying, as far as it goes. We are to obey the lawful orders of someone above us, particularly in matters of diocesan discipline and policy, even of they themselves do not obey these orders themselves. Why?  Because we look not to them, but to their office. We look not to the man, but to the man-Christ.  It is his words where are our bond, not the hierarchy.

If you can follow this axiom, you will not be shaken by the faults of popes, bishops and clergy. But you will look elsewhere for examples of sanctity. My bishop does not have to be my spiritual director or confessor, but he is still the shepherd of my diocese, even if he is a horrible one.

Heresy
Sedes also accuse the pope of heresy. This is interesting since the pope determines of what heresy consists. They are much like dogs chasing their tails, when you step back:

"The pope taught heresy, yet the pope determines heresy, yet he taught heresy, but he is the supreme Pontiff."

Excuse me?  They affirm Catholic teaching while denying it? They state the immutability of the Mass, while denying the authority of the pope to determine the rite of the Mass.

They say the Tridentine Mass is immutable, because Pius V said so, but ignore the fact that the first Mass was likely in Hebrew, because it took place during the Jewish celebration of Passover? Well if the Mass has to be in Latin, Jesus violated this by having the first Mass in Hebrew.

The Mass
They say the words "for many" instead of the words "for all" are essential when stating of what the Mass consists. Actually, these words are a "novum" (new way of thinking). Because St. Paul is quite clear:

"Christ died for all..." (2 Cor 5:15).

and...

"[Christ Jesus] who gave himself for the redemption of all" (1 Tim 2:6).

It seems a moot point. The Church can emphasize the actualized redemption (prime justification) of those who are in a state of grace, or emphasize the first action of God (condign merit) in which Christ merited the redemption of all mankind. God brings about prime justification (justificatio prima) in which God is the first cause (prima causa) to move the soul toward justification.

Either presentation is valid. Either wording is valid. The Sedes seem to be splitting hairs in this regard.

Valid Popes
The Sedes also argue against the validity of the election of popes John XXIII and succeeding popes. They state these popes are heretics, therefore cannot be validly elected. The fact is, none of these popes taught heresy. In fact, in order to be a heretic you have to deny a dogma (summed up in the Nicene Creed). So which pope denied the divinity of Christ?

Invalid Arguments
Only a pope can determine who is a heretic. If you do not have a pope, who can determine that someone is a heretic? Church Councils! the Sedes argue. Yet Church Councils in the past have been overridden by popes. So how can you determine heresy without a pope, again?

Indefectibility
The dogma of indefectibility states, in summary, that the Church cannot fail to be a means of salvation to the world. She cannot (as a whole) defect in her mission to bring the Gospel to the world. Individual parts (parishes, dioceses) of the Church may defect, but the Church as a whole can never defect.

Who safeguards us from defection? The Pope.

The pope strengthens his brothers (Luke 22:32), has the power to bind and loosen by himself (Matt 16:18), and mission to feed and tend Christ's sheep (John 21:15-17). This means that in order not to defect, we need the pope. If we cannot elect a pope, then we have defected. If John XXIII was not a valid pope, all the cardinals who elected him are dead. Thus, there can never be a valid pope, since there is no one to elect him.

Nice try, Sedes.

In Closing
The real problem is the problem of evil. The problem of evils is stated as, "If there is an all-good God, how can evil exist [in the Church]."  The Sedes have no problem with the defection of Judas and his punishment, but somehow when it comes to the modern Church, there is a different standard.

Judas was an Apostle, and therefore had the authority to teach new Revelation. The pope is not an Apostle, therefore cannot teach new Revelation. Therefore, there is less offense to the failure of a bishop, than that of an Apostle. Even Peter failed in his mission when he denied Jesus three times. So what is the problem?

We will have bishops who fail in their duties, however the Gospel message is still spread. We will have times where heretics plagued the Church, like Arius, who denied the divinity of Christ. However, the Church keeps going on.

Perhaps the Sedes need to learn an old lesson over again:

"Let (weeds and wheat] grow together until harvest, then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters. "First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn...if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them" (Matt 13:25 et. al.).

There will always be thistles among the wheat. They will grow together. They will be burned in due time. Do not let the weeds strangle you. If a bishop is not doing what he should, send your donations to Rome. You have to give to the mission of the Church, but the Church does not say in which way you must give.

Make your concerns known to your bishop. But dividing from the Church over non-essential words in the Mass? I think we can be grownups now, and not divide over the non-essentials.

The Essentials of the Mass
The words "This is my body," "This is my blood." Bread and wine. A validly ordained priest. The intention of the priest to confect the Eucharist. Not Latin, not the Tridentine Mass, not English, not the raising of the host (Jesus did not do any of these). None of these are essentials. Not standing, not kneeling (Jesus and his Apostles were reclining, by the way). None of these are essential, thus, none of the Sedes arguments are valid.

Special Note:  I removed ads from my webpage, as Google was feeding in advertisements for Mormons among other non-Catholic denominations. That is kinda weird for a Catholic blog...

Is Alabama's New Immigration Law an Immoral Law?

The New York Times would have you think so. However, the pope has already spoken on the matter:

Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity....States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person.

While he urges the bishops to support immigrants, he (see above) has also stated that nations have a right to defend their borders. For the simple, this is confusing, for the informed, it is clear. The pope is against illegal immigration. Keep in mind, he said defend the borders, not fling open the doors. However, as the Church has been clear, we should welcome the legal immigrants, while treating the illegal immigrants with dignity and respect while enforcing the law.

It is not surprising that the New York Times would support liberal, immoral actions regarding violators of the law. The pope, however, has a different view:

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things and foreigners....They obey established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws....So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.

 This includes our Christian brothers and sisters from Mexico. Respect for the boundaries of the United States needs to be ingrained in foreign nationals.

In truth, the pope did not need to say this. Respect for the law is ingrained in Catholics who have been in the Church for a while, except for heterodox Catholics.

What do conservative Catholics want?  We want Mexicans to change their own Country, not illegally migrate.

If the leaders are corrupt, change them. If the powerful are abusive, jail them. If the drug cartels are murderous, capture or slay them. Do the right thing. Christian love begins at home.