Adiaphora

[jots]

from Wikipedia:
Adiaphora in Christianity refer to matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church. What is specifically considered adiaphora depends on the specific theology in view.

How does this apply to the Catholic faith? Or does it even apply?

 

[JohnDamian]

How does this apply to the Catholic faith? Or does it even apply?

An example is; we are allowed to believe that Christ suffered; we are also allowed to believe that he is incapable of suffering.

 

[ConstantineTG]

An example is; we are allowed to believe that Christ suffered; we are also allowed to believe that he is incapable of suffering.

Isn’t that contrary to the teaching that Christ is fully human?

 

[JohnDamian]

Isn’t that contrary to the teaching that Christ is fully human?

Not really; the idea of “impassibility” was acceptable to the Theologians St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux – all Doctors of the Church. It was also argued by Bl. Duns Scotus who’s formulation “Christ was by nature incapable of suffering” was presented and supported by Count Pico della Mirandola in his 900 theses.

 

[jots]

I guess I was looking at it more like…
maybe a person of Catholic faith who doesn’t say the rosary, or doesn’t ever ask Mary to intercede. They believe that the RCC is the true Church, but do not put much stock in things that do not deal directly with salvation.
Does that make sense?

 

[Robert_Burns]

from Wikipedia:
Adiaphora in Christianity refer to matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church. What is specifically considered adiaphora depends on the specific theology in view.

How does this apply to the Catholic faith? Or does it even apply?

Like the Belief in the Death of The Blessed Virgin Mary , for example. Some think that because she is the Immaculate Conception and since Death is a punishment for Original Sin - the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed still alive Body and Soul into Heaven rather than to suffer death as the rest of us do. Some believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary chose to die as a penance. I have heard good apologetics for both positions.

 

[JohnDamian]

Like the Belief in the Death of The Blessed Virgin Mary , for example. Some think that because she is the Immaculate Conception and since Death is a punishment for Original Sin - the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed still alive Body and Soul into Heaven rather than to suffer death as the rest of us do. Some believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary chose to die as a penance. I have heard good apologetics for both positions.

Well; the Assumption of Mary was infallibly declared a Dogma in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.

A Catholic should not disagree with Dogma.

Example of things we cannot disagree on; the Immaculate Conception; The Assumption of Mary; The Hypostatic union… etc.

Example of things we can disagree or dispute on; The suffering of Christ; Apostolic Poverty; can God lie, do we use the word “good” univocally or plurivocally… etc

I guess I was looking at it more like…
maybe a person of Catholic faith who doesn’t say the rosary, or doesn’t ever ask Mary to intercede. They believe that the RCC is the true Church, but do not put much stock in things that do not deal directly with salvation.

That isn’t really Adiaphora; this is more a lack of participation in something encouraged by the Church; but not essential.

Adiaphora generally means things which are “indifferent” to the Catholic Faith; which is the root of the word.

Generally speaking; something is Adiaphora when you can believe it indifferently to the Church, or practice it indifferently; I have given examples of beliefs; a few examples of practices would be to recieve communion on the tongue not the hand; ie; something indifferent.

To speak of encouraged practices such as the Rosary; week day Masses; Fasting and so forth as Adiaphora would be misleading; as they are not “indifferent”; they are positively encouraged by the Church; but not commanded.

To express shortly;

A Dogma is a necessary belief; an Obligation is a necessary act.
Two examples; The Immaculate Conception; and Sunday Mass.

An Encouraged belief is encouraged; an Encouraged act is also encouraged.
Two examples; Mediatrix is an encouraged doctrine; the Rosary is an encouraged practice.

An Adiaphora (or indifferent) belief or practice is indifferent to the Church.
Two Examples; Impassibility (no suffering in Christ), and How one recieves communion are indifferent to Church practice, they are Adiaphora.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well; the Assumption of Mary was infallibly declared a Dogma in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.

A Catholic should not disagree with Dogma.

Example of things we cannot disagree on; the Immaculate Conception; The Assumption of Mary; The Hypostatic union… etc.

Example of things we can disagree or dispute on; The suffering of Christ; Apostolic Poverty; can God lie, do we use the word “good” univocally or plurivocally… etc

The Assumption and Death are two separate events. Some believed Mary died and then was assumed into Heaven. While others believe she was assumed a moment before death, thus she never died.

Assumption is a dogma, yes. The death is not.

 

[Robert_Burns]

The Assumption and Death are two separate events. Some believed Mary died and then was assumed into Heaven. While others believe she was assumed a moment before death, thus she never died.

Assumption is a dogma, yes. The death is not.

I see I dont have to respond as you have said it better than I would have

 

[Auburn88]

Like the Belief in the Death of The Blessed Virgin Mary , for example. Some think that because she is the Immaculate Conception and since Death is a punishment for Original Sin - the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed still alive Body and Soul into Heaven rather than to suffer death as the rest of us do. Some believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary chose to die as a penance. I have heard good apologetics for both positions.

So then, Catholics are in disagreement on these things?

 

[Robert_Burns]

So then, Catholics are in disagreement on these things?

Not necessarily in disagreement - but rather - holding plausible opinions on undefined points of Theology. Meaning - either may be right - but since the Church hasnt definitively settled the question - we are free to hold to either position and not have it be an impediment to Faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How about this. I was reading the parish bulletin of our local Ukrainian Catholic Church and there is an article about The Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos. The article concentrates much on the events depicted on the Protoevangelium of James. Most Eastern Catholics hold on to traditions consistent with the Protoevangelium, including Joseph being an older widower with children and thus James is the step-brother of Jesus. Roman Catholics believe that James is the cousin of Jesus.

 

[Auburn88]

Not necessarily in disagreement

So, not in disagreement, just believing different things.

[we are free to hold to either position and not have it be an impediment to Faith.

That’s interesting that you claim that liberty for yourselves, but refuse to extend it to us.
[/quote]

 

[ConstantineTG]

So, not in disagreement, just believing different things.

That’s interesting that you claim that liberty for yourselves, but refuse to extend it to us.

What do you mean?
There are certain details to some beliefs that are not essential to teaching, moral standard or salvation. That is why the Church allows for it to remain undefined until it can be proven one way or another. For example, creation. The Church doesn’t hold a literal 6-day creation or millions of years of evolution as the actual beginning of our history. Instead, the Church teaches that everyone is free to believe in any of the two theories as long as we accept that everything began with God. Whether God created the singularity and ignited the Big Bang, or in 6 literal days created the whole universe, the important thing is God is the source of all creation.

God as the source of all creation is essential to our faith and our salvation. Creating in 6 literal days or millions of years of evolution is not.

 

[Robert_Burns]

So, not in disagreement, just believing different things.

That’s interesting that you claim that liberty for yourselves, but refuse to extend it to us.

As a Wise Old Nun once told me - Faith is exactly that. GOD doesnt always tell us everything we want to know. He expects us to have Faith.

As to the Second part of your statement - when you say that "You " meaning “Me” , I assume claim a “Liberty for myself” but refuse to “extend” that same “liberty” to a mysterious “us” which remains undefined. Since very little information is given , I’ll obviously need more of it to formulate a response if a response is what you are after , however , in my post - I seee nothing that should warrant a statement like that.

pax

 

[Auburn88]

What do you mean?
There are certain details to some beliefs that are not essential to teaching, moral standard or salvation.

And yet, I’m constantly being told by Catholics that the fact that we Christians disagree over peripheral issues is evidence that we’re not a part of the “One True Church”.

Like I said, interesting that you guys claim that liberty for yourselves, but refuse to extend it to us.

The Church doesn’t hold a literal 6-day creation

I don’t think I could belong to a church that doesn’t hold to such a clear Biblical teaching.

God as the source of all creation is essential to our faith and our salvation. Creating in 6 literal days or millions of years of evolution is not.

Actually, given evolution’s implications for the Gospel, that is, that in order to believe in evolution, one must deny the Biblical Gospel, I would think the Catholic Church would have taken a harder stand.

 

[jots]

To express shortly;

A Dogma is a necessary belief; an Obligation is a necessary act.
Two examples; The Immaculate Conception; and Sunday Mass.

An Encouraged belief is encouraged; an Encouraged act is also encouraged.
Two examples; Mediatrix is an encouraged doctrine; the Rosary is an encouraged practice.

An Adiaphora (or indifferent) belief or practice is indifferent to the Church.
Two Examples; Impassibility (no suffering in Christ), and How one recieves communion are indifferent to Church practice, they are Adiaphora.

excellent explanation, thank you!

 

[ConstantineTG]

And yet, I’m constantly being told by Catholics that the fact that we Christians disagree over peripheral issues is evidence that we’re not a part of the “One True Church”.

Like I said, interesting that you guys claim that liberty for yourselves, but refuse to extend it to us.

Its not about claiming such liberties. Like I said, some beliefs are essential while others are not. The problem with many non-Catholics is they pick and choose essential beliefs which affect morality and/or faith. For example, the acceptance of divorce or artificial birth control. Others like the authority of the Church is also essential because the Church is essential to keeping the faith consistent.

I don’t think I could belong to a church that doesn’t hold to such a clear Biblical teaching.

Sad, because that misses the point.

Actually, given evolution’s implications for the Gospel, that is, that in order to believe in evolution, one must deny the Biblical Gospel, I would think the Catholic Church would have taken a harder stand.

You actually don’t need to deny the Gospel to believe in Evolution. The most amazing thing I found out is that the sequence of events in Genesis is almost entirely consistent with how evolutionary science has determined the sequence. And this is written by a man 4000 years ago without any scientific knowledge. Goes to show how much divine inspiration went into the writing of Genesis.

 

[Robert_Burns]

And yet, I’m constantly being told by Catholics that the fact that we Christians disagree over peripheral issues is evidence that we’re not a part of the “One True Church”.

Like I said, interesting that you guys claim that liberty for yourselves, but refuse to extend it to us.

I don’t think I could belong to a church that doesn’t hold to such a clear Biblical teaching.

Actually, given evolution’s implications for the Gospel, that is, that in order to believe in evolution, one must deny the Biblical Gospel, I would think the Catholic Church would have taken a harder stand.

Well it appears you are entrenched in some form of Protestantism and by the tone of your posts - you arent likely to debate in a civil and christian manner. I believe in everything that is contained in the Nicene Creed which predates all forms of Protestantism by 1200 years and so I really have nothing more to say on what the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches as opposed to what other renegade faiths all of which either broke off from or broke off from a breakaway from the Catholic Church. In Catholicism we have Unity - in Protestantism disunity both from other forms of Protestantism and from Catholicism. I dont debate what is or isnt scriptural because first we would have to agree what Scripture is orthodox - so instead - I’ll just agree to disagree with you and I reject your false notions of who has the lawful authority from GOD to teach and guard all truths with the guidance of the Holy Ghost - a Scriptural Occurance conveyed by OUR Lord unto St Peter the First Pope.

Pax

 

[jots]

i thought i had posted a pretty non-inflammatory question. I’m a born-and-bred Protestant who is really seeking truth…
I’ve seen so much Protestant against Catholic aggression here on this forum, and little going the other way. It speaks volumes to the very root of my search. I’m looking for Jesus evidenced in the transformation of life, not I’m-gonna-open-a-can-of-theological-whoop**s on you. I’m sad for this. It embarasses me. And it definitely fuels my continued search for truth…