The scope and limits of authority and obedience
The first thing to notice is that Vatican I "canonised" the ancient dictum of S. Vincent of Lérins ...
Quote:
That had always been a rule of thumb, but Vatican I ratified it as infallible Catholic teaching.
As far back as the 4th Century, St. Vincent of Lerins explained what constitutes the proper development of Catholic doctrine:
Quote:
"what all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true".
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?ti...erins%2C_Saint
“But perhaps some will say: Is there to be no progress of religion in the Church? There is, certainly, and very great ... But it must be a progress and not a change. Let, then, the intelligence, science, and wisdom of each and all, of individuals and of the whole Church, in all ages and in all times, increase and flourish in abundance; but simply in its own proper kind, that is to say, in one and the same doctrine, one in the same sense, and one in the same judgment.”
St. Vincent of Lerin’s teaching on Tradition was dogmatically and infallibly enshrined in Vatican I. This demonstrates that the exact same teaching on Tradition was maintained in the Church for more than 1400 years. Vatican I teaches in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:
Quote:
Vatican I’s Dei Filius goes on to say that any authentic development in the understanding of doctrine
Quote:
This is the same basic wording of St. Vincent of Lerins, unchanged for over 1400 years.
And this, as noted, was the wording Pope St. Pius X employed in his Oath Against Modernism,
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm
wherein the man taking the Oath swears before God to
Quote:
“Hence that meaning (sensus) of the sacred doctrine must always be retained which holy mother the Church has once declared, and we must never abandon that meaning under the appearance or in the name of a deeper understanding.”
“must proceed in its own class, in the same dogma, with the same meaning and the same explanation.”
It is not inconceivable that legitimate rulers may propound false teaching (This is not to jump to the conclusion that this has happened, but to affirm that it is not inconceivable):
Galatians 1:8 [RSV]
Quote:
In the Roman Liturgy, we pray that the pastors, up to and including the pope, will carry out their duties and that
Quote:
and many other official prayers. Now it is blasphemous to pray for what cannot be otherwise. The Church therefore accepts as a possibility that these things might happen.
That a Pope may directly order something contrary to morals is an historical fact.
The pope is given no guarantee that he will never make a mistake at all. Therefore even the Pope can err, except when specifically guided by the charism of infallibility. It is possible for him to attempt to promulgate regulations and enactments that are invalid, and we are not only permitted, but required, to oppose him in these cases. Therefore yes, he can change the law of the Church tomorrow, provided he does not transgress the criteria of all law; it must be reasonable or possible, directed to the good of the church, and validly promulgated. Otherwise any shopping-list would be an infallible document. “Normally” these distinctions would have no relevance whatever; but there is always the possibility of the extreme case.
In many passages of his works, St. Thomas upholds the principle that the faithful can question and admonish Prelates. For example:
Quote:
“sincerely hold that the doctrine of Faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation (eodem sensu eademque sententia).”
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. [Douay: let him be anathema].
'the vigilance of the Pastor my not fail, not the fidelity of the flock to the pastor"
Referring to the same episode, in which St. Paul resisted St. Peter “to his face,” St. Thomas teaches:
Quote:
The Angelic Doctor (as he was always called) also shows how this passage of the Scriptures contains teachings not only for Hierarchs but for the faithful as well:
Quote:
In his Comments on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, St. Thomas teaches how respectfully correcting a Prelate who sins is a work of mercy all the greater as the Hierarch’s position is higher:
Quote:
Quote:
“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glosa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), ‘St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if they should stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects’” (Summa Theologiae, Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1948, II-II, q.33, a.4).
“The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was not light: There was a danger for the preservation of evangelical truth. ... The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest. For this reason, St. Paul writes: ‘I spoke to Cephas,’ that is, Peter, ‘before everyone,’ since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was fraught with danger to everyone. In 1 Tim. 5:20, we read: ‘Admonish those who sin before everyone.’ This should be understood to refer to manifest sins, not hidden ones, since in the latter cases one should proceed according to the rules proper to fraternal correction” (Super Epistulas S. Pauli, Ad Galatas, 2, 11-14, lec. III, Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1953, nn. 83-84).
“To the Prelates an example of humility was given, so that they do not refuse to accept rectifications from their inferiors and subjects; and to the subjects, an example of zeal and liberty so they will not fear to correct their Prelates, above all when the crime is public and entails a danger for many” (ibid., n. 77).
“Fraternal correction, being a spiritual alms, is a work of mercy. But mercy is due mainly to the Prelate since he runs the greatest danger. Hence St. Augustine says in Regula (n. 11, PL 32, 1384): ‘Have pity not only on yourselves, but on them as well,’ that is, on the Prelates ‘among you who run a danger as high as the position they occupy.’ Therefore, fraternal correction extends also to Prelates.
“Furthermore, Ecclus. 17:12, says that God ‘gave to every one of them commandment concerning his neighbor.’ Now, a Prelate is our neighbor. Therefore, we must correct him when he sins. ... Some say that fraternal correction does not extend to the Prelates, either because man should not raise his voice against Heaven, or because the Prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the Prelates do not represent Heaven and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own sake. ...
"For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the Prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects” (IV Sententiarum, d. 19, q. 2, a. 2).
St. Robert Bellarmine:
Quote:
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.
(De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29,
Opera omnia, Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. 1, p. 418
Quote:
Clement VII
In the 16th century, many churchmen tried to make a mixture of Renaissance Paganism and Church liturgy and teaching. Consequently, they proposed to celebrate the Catholic feasts based on classical odes taken from pagan Antiquity. It was a question of “adaptation” of the liturgical texts to the needs of the epoch…
In the hymns reformed by humanist Cardinal Zacharias Ferreti, the Virgin Mary was called “felix dea, deorum maxima, nympha candidissima” [o happy goddess, o greatest among the gods, o most beautiful nymph]. Personages from pagan mythology such as Bacchus and Venus were also introduced into the liturgy.
Even though these were profanations of sacred matters that resulted from the Renaissance delirium, the consequence of those “experiments” was approved by Clement VII in a Brief issued on December 11, 1525. In this document, after enthusiastic praise for the innovations, the Pope wrote these words:
Quote:
It is understandable that St. Pius V, when he brought to a close the abuses that had infiltrated the celebration of the Holy Mass and the liturgical offices, did not refer to that unprecedented papal document of Clement VII. He simply treated it as non-existent.
Nonetheless, there were persons then who thought that it was correct to imitate those Renaissance fashions and introduce them into religion. Let this example serve to instruct the clergy and the faithful that legitimate obedience to superiors should follow the teaching of St. Thomas who said, “It is not necessary to obey the Prelates in everything.”
“By our own determination and secure knowledge, We concede and command with apostolic authority by the content of these letters, that all the faithful, including the priests, can use these hymns, even in the Divine Offices.”
Bp Grosseteste & Innocent IV
Robert Grosseteste, the English Bishop of Lincoln (1235-1253), was an erudite, pious and zealous man who sought to reform his clergy. He turned his attention in particular toward those who had received high appointments through special privileges and did not fulfill their obligations.
Pope Innocent IV, however, did not hesitate to name one of his nephews to be a Canon in the Chapter of the Cathedral of Lincoln, ordering the Bishop to install his nephew without delay.
Bp Grosseteste tried by every means and manoeuver to avoid complying. But each time he was out-manoeuvered. After a considerable amount of such work, Bp Grosseteste had no remaining options within the 'normal' framawork of the law. It is then that he sent this reply:
Quote:
Innocent IV was absolutely beside himself when he received this answer, and wished to punish Bishop Grosseteste, but his advisors dissuaded him on the grounds that it would be a scandal for all Christendom.
Quote:
“Precisely because of the obedience that binds me and for the love of my union with the Holy See in the Body of Christ, as an obedient son, I disobey, I contradict, I rebel. I resist your command. You cannot take action against me, for my every word and act is not rebellion but the filial honor due by God's Commandment regarding father and mother.
"As I have said, the Apostolic See in its holiness cannot destroy, it can only build. This is what the plentitude of power means; it can do all things toward edification. But these privileges [your request for your nephew] do not build up, they destroy. Therefore, they cannot be the works of the blessed Apostolic See.”
The deposit of the Faith is transmitted, and the acts of the Church Magisterium - either the supreme or the ordinary Magisterium - are inerrant to the degree that they conform to Catholic Tradition. The cases here reported demonstrate that a Pope is not impeccable and cannot pretend to be the owner of the Catholic Religion. He is an administrator (Tit 1: 7-9) who should remain within the limits of the norms for the exercise of his mandate. St. Paul lists these norms:
• “To keep the deposit of the Faith” (1 Tim 6:20);
• “Before all else, to transmit what he had received” (1 Cor 15:3);
• “To edify and not destroy” (2 Cor 10:8);
• “To keep the Traditions” (2 Tes 2:14);
• “To withdraw from any brother who walks disorderly, not following the received tradition” (2 Thes 3:6);
• “To show himself faithful as the dispenser of the Faith” (1 Cor 4:1-2).
Bishops and Popes, as successors of the Apostles and of the Prince of the Apostles, have a mission determined by the divine constitution of the Church. She must lead men to God, so that they may unite themselves with the Creator without impediments. The Church can never lose sight of this strictly religious and supernatural goal. The way the Church accomplishes this supernatural goal is indicated by Revelation itself. Hence, the obligation to follow Tradition, according to the precept of St. Paul given to the Galatians: “Even if we or an Angel from Heaven were to preach a Gospel to you different from what we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (1:8).
Ref: partly from http://www.traditioninaction.org website.