Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:
Italian 
English 
Spanish 
French 
Portuguese
Dear Father Angelo,
in the last period, I sense a laceration in the Church between those who want to be faithful to the Pope’s teachings and those who criticize his statements or stances.
Lately, I spent some time reading some of the most discussed documents and speeches of the Pope and I have the impression that in most cases he does not say anything really heretical or revolutionary. On the other hand, I have the impression that sometimes he highlights too much some moral aspects, leaving behind other aspects, creating indeed some confusion.
However, I think that this confusion might easily be avoided by whoever has a little integrity and faith. But after these considerations, the heart of the matter is still not clear to me. If in future a Pope is elected who for whatever reasons would give scandal, become mad, declare things against the gospel and the moral or things like that, how would it be possible to limit the damages to the Church and individual believers? Is there a juridical regulation for these situations? Is it correct and in line with the Tradition to state that obedience to the Pope is due whatever he says? In the past was not it a bit overrated highlighting the papal infallibility when this was representing a limit to modern ideas, without considering that in the future the risks could be reversed? Hence, wouldn’t it be better to clarify what it means that the Pope is infallible, mainly in the perception of the ordinary faithful people?
Thank you and I wish you a nice day,
Bruno
Dear Bruno,
1. Indeed, there is inside the Church some confusion. Some are supporting a thesis and others state the opposite. You might have the impression that everything is reduced t personal opinion.
2. However, it is true that it was reaffirmed several times also in this Pontificate that the dogma does not change. How could we state the opposite? The Church’s doctrine is not owned by the Church. It is received from Above and set off with the help of the Truth Spirit, as the Holy Bible says, that is the Holy Spirit, as Our Lord granted.
3. Since the Gospel and the Doctrine do not change, this implies that all the magisterial speeches have to be read in continuity with the Gospel and the doctrine. John Paul II said in Veritatis splendor that “the development of the Church’s moral doctrine is similar to the one of the Faith doctrine.”
Besides, the following words pronounced by John XXIII for the opening of the Vatican Council II (October 11th, 1962) refer to the moral doctrine: “It is needed that this sure and unchangeable doctrine (= the Christian doctrine in its integrity), that must be faithfully respected, is deeply analyzed and presented in a way that it answers to the needs of our times. Indeed, one thing is the real essence of the faith, that is the truth contained in our venerable doctrine, and another thing is the shape it is announced with, however keeping the same sense and the same message” (VS, note 100)
Also in Veritatis splendor, John Paul II reaffirms the same message stating a sentence by Paul VI: “Far be it from Christians to be led to embrace another opinion, as if the Council taught that nowadays some things are permitted which the Church had previously declared intrinsically evil. Who does not see in this the rise of a depraved moral relativism, one that clearly endangers the Church’s entire doctrinal heritage?” (VS, note 131).
4. Hence, I agree with you when you write: “But I think that this confusion might easily be avoided by whoever has a little integrity and faith”. Although, some people insist in saying that we also need to completely change the way we interpret what was lived and believed so far.
Hence, keeping the Doctrine’s words as they are, they want to completely change their meaning. This is the point that creates confusion. Because, without any doubt, there must be an improvement in the study of the faith, but as Pope John said, reporting a statement by Vincenzo de Lérins, a Father of the Church from the fifth century: “keeping however the same meaning and the same message” (eodoem tamen sensu eademque sententia).
Therefore, the doctrine cannot change in its meaning and interpretation. Otherwise, we announce a different Gospel and a Doctrine from the ones we have received.
5. You say there’s a fundamental point that is not clear to you: “If in future a Pope is elected who for whatever reasons would give scandal, become mad, declare things against the gospel and the moral or things like that, how would it be possible to limit the damages to the Church and the individual believers? Is there a juridical shelter for these situations?”
My answer is simple: what you hypothesize is impossible because Christ granted the following to Peter and his successors: “And I tell you: you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19).
And also: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:31-32).
Therefore we know by faith, since Jesus granted that, that what you state is impossible. Our certainty comes from the faith. Hence, there are no regulations that consider that the Pope might become mad or propose a different Doctrine that becomes heretical…
I repeat myself. It’s a matter of faith. The measures in your hypothetical situation come from human prudence. But here it is necessary to trust what was granted by Jesus Christ.
6. Besides, you write: “Is it correct and in line with the Tradition stating that obedience to the Pope is due whatever he says?”
This is not fair and the Tradition does not state this. We must obey to the Papal Magisterium when he speaks solemnly (ex cathedra; it is always Magistero definitorio) and also in his ordinary Magisterium. However, in the ordinary Magisterium we should distinguish between Magistero definitivo, that is practically an infallible teaching, and a Magistero autentico, to which we should give respect with mind and will, but that in some cases allows some discussion. .
Besides, not all words that come out of Pope’s mouth are considered Magisterium. Only the ones that he pronounces as Master of the faith are Magisterium.
7. Besides, the context of the Magisterium is explicitly delimited: it does not concern all topics, but only the ones about faith and moral. We should also specify that the Magisterium talks about irreformability of the propositions that He pronounces rather than Papal infallibility.
8. Lastly, you say: “In the past was not it a bit overrated highlighting the papal infallibility when this was representing a limit to the modern ideas, without considering that in the future the risks could be reversed?”
In other words, you mention a fact that is previously unknown in the history of the Magisterium. So far, the Pope has always been the keeper of the Doctrine and has been the first one to give the example on how to preserve the faith.
While it was never supposed the opposite, that means the Pope would be the first one to move towards a heterodox thought. But I repeat that this is impossible.
9. Giving obedience to the Magisterium and respect to the thought and the will it’s necessary to keep in mind how the Pope expresses himself.
This, you understand mainly by the authority of the document and the way He teaches.
Quite a number of documents by the current Pope are written with the style of the good shepherd, and so with a pastoral style that points out, advises, invites to explore, encourages.
It’s the Pope himself who proposes different solutions depending on the continents and contexts. His speeches show an innovative nature in the application rather than in the principles, that are kept unchanged.
10. In the end you ask: “Hence, wouldn’t it be better to clarify what it means that the Pope is infallible, mainly in the perception of the ordinary faithful people?”.
I think faithful people understand quite clearly by themselves when the Pope gives his personal opinion and mainly can distinguish when he talks about topics not related to faith or moral from when he teaches the Doctrine.
And this is not because of the skills of the Catholics but because of the Christian community’s sensus fidei, that is a gift from the Holy Spirit. In other words, it’s normal that people understand when faith obedience is due and when it is not, as it happens for example while reading the Pope’s interviews.
Thanks for your questions and I wish that my answers might clarify some doubts about our faith, mainly the ones related to the Magisterium of Peter and his successors.
I remind you to the Lord and I bless you.
Father Angelo