How should we respond to the Magisterium?

[Stella]

This 10 minute commentary by Michael Lofton from Reason and Theology, gives the traditional understanding of how we ordinary Catholics regarded the teaching Magisterium even if we didn't want to submit. This is how my parents and grandparents taught us about having faith. It's quite true that the majority of Catholics don't have the theological formation and grasp of 2000 years (and beyond) of history, to be competent judges. This isn't referring to the Popes dislike of ring kissing or his penchant for plane interviews or his patience with known sinners. It's about his Magisterial teachings. Michael Lofton is spot on in distinguishing between papal opinions and Magisterial teaching and the traditional Catholic rule of submission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncMxyU5JoME

[Vern Humphrey]

How could he be wrong?

But many bishops (and His Holiness) blur the line between theology and politics.

[Gandalf the Grey]

How could he be wrong?

But many bishops (and His Holiness) blur the line between theology and politics.

It's probably a good thing (and a work of the Holy Spirit) that Francis of his own personal admission despises definitive Magisterial declarations.

That's what's funny about the encyclicals he's released over the last decade, all of them are just his personal opinions. The only times they might carry the weight of Magisterial authority is where he draws from other actual Magisterial documents, but that's it. You can even read in documents like AL where he explicitly states that his views are not to be construed as anything beyond merely pastoral. But you always get people who, wanting to have their own ideological and political biases confirmed, will want to ascribe weight of greater and even infallible status on a preferred opinion just in order to beat others over the head with those statements and ready to label them as "schismatics" if they refuse to toe the line.

[Vern Humphrey]

That's a great way to explain it.

[BobCatholic]

It's probably a good thing (and a work of the Holy Spirit) that Francis of his own personal admission despises definitive Magisterial declarations.

I disagree.

We live in a secular world that preaches relativism - "there is no truth" - and definite declarations are a great counterweight to this.

Jesus was very definite - in many areas. He told the Truth because He Is the Truth. He wasn't wishy washy like the contemporary world.

The truth is attractive - and Jesus drew in crowds.

Pope Francis is the total opposite. He hasn't showing "definite" anything. He is a man of the times - wishy washy. He is so ambiguous that it generates tons of questions - and he doesn't seem to want to answer the questions.

[Gandalf the Grey]

It's probably a good thing (and a work of the Holy Spirit) that Francis of his own personal admission despises definitive Magisterial declarations.

I disagree.

We live in a secular world that preaches relativism - "there is no truth" - and definite declarations are a great counterweight to this.

Jesus was very definite - in many areas. He told the Truth because He Is the Truth. He wasn't wishy washy like the contemporary world.

The truth is attractive - and Jesus drew in crowds.

Pope Francis is the total opposite. He hasn't showing "definite" anything. He is a man of the times - wishy washy. He is so ambiguous that it generates tons of questions - and he doesn't seem to want to answer the questions.

That's sort of my point.

[peregrinator]

Pope Francis is the total opposite. He hasn't showing "definite" anything. He is a man of the times - wishy washy. He is so ambiguous that it generates tons of questions - and he doesn't seem to want to answer the questions.

He's very definite when he wants to be