Am I in heresy? Be honest

[livingwordunity]

Okay. Church’s infallible teachings? I am a senior who well recalls what a big sin it was for a Catholic to attend worship at a Protestant church. How many family baptisms, weddings and funerals were missed because of this silly teaching. With Vatican II that teaching changed suddenly.

If someone leaves the Catholic Church while knowing that it’s the one true Church that Christ established for our salvation then it’s still a major sin to leave it. If a Catholic obstinately dissents against the Catholic Church in public while knowing that the Pope’s authority comes from Christ who is our God and our salvation, then it’s still a major sin. The Catholic Church didn’t change her teachings she elaborated on them.

 

[Abu]

Semper Zelare #10
Is there not a certain time period in which priestly celibacy was officially instituted by the Papacy? That’s what I’ve heard by other posters on CAF… so I don’t know the specifics myself. But, I’ve heard that up unto a certain Pope celibacy was a choice (and probably a choice taken up by the majority of priests… but not all). And the Church made this mandatory at a certain point.

Celibacy is an Apostolic Norm.

“From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed: Priests were celibate; or else, if they had married before ordination, they and their wives promised to live together thereafter without the use of the marriage. This rule was an Apostolic norm; it was proclaimed and practiced by the Apostles; and that norm in turn was founded upon the example of our Lord Himself.”
[George Sims Johnston, *Our Sunday Visitor, 1998]

“In more recent times, the predecessor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an instruction in 1858 that stated: "Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in Holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence. " 9

“That priestly celibacy is an apostolic tradition “is shown clearly and convincingly” by the work of Stickler, Cochini, Heid, and others. This is the verdict of then–Cardinal Ratzinger. 10”

Cardinal Ratzinger in *The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements *(note 10), explains the unity existing with and from the apostles, including priestly celibacy.
“That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card. A.M. Stickler, The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf.
also I: Cochini, *Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal *(Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, *Zolibat in der friihen Kirche *(Paderborn, 1997).” (p 483 n 2)
Notes:
9 Quoted by Roman Cholij, Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code. Eastern Churches Journal , Vol. 3, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), p. 112.
10 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements. Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483.
holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp

 

[Abu]

DaddyGirl #12 (re female priests)
Does anyone know exactly when this was written?
Or at least…approximately? Was it decided upon at one of those councils?

It is God the Son Himself who came not to destroy but to fulfill, and who instituted the New Covenant of which His Church is His Bride. That is why He instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper for His male Apostles who became in persona Christi, that is, in the very person of Christ, who becomes truly present at the consecration at Mass. It should be quite obvious why Christ chose only men as no woman could be in persona Christi. There is no flaw there, but a failure to accept reality, to deny it.

And where does the Catholic Church teach, formally and authoritatively, binding on all Catholics, that the teaching in the Apostolic Epistle *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *is infallibly taught?
As shown through Bl Pope John Paul II, 1994:
“4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

The infallibility of the Pope when teaching faith and morals was given by Christ to and through His Supreme Vicar, St Peter.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Celibacy is an Apostolic Norm.

“From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed: Priests were celibate; or else, if they had married before ordination, they and their wives promised to live together thereafter without the use of the marriage. This rule was an Apostolic norm; it was proclaimed and practiced by the Apostles; and that norm in turn was founded upon the example of our Lord Himself.”
[George Sims Johnston, *Our Sunday Visitor

, 1998]

“In more recent times, the predecessor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an instruction in 1858 that stated: "Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in Holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence. " 9

“That priestly celibacy is an apostolic tradition “is shown clearly and convincingly” by the work of Stickler, Cochini, Heid, and others. This is the verdict of then–Cardinal Ratzinger. 10”

Cardinal Ratzinger in *The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements *(note 10), explains the unity existing with and from the apostles, including priestly celibacy.
“That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card. A.M. Stickler, The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf.
also I: Cochini, *Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal *(Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, *Zolibat in der friihen Kirche *(Paderborn, 1997).” (p 483 n 2)
Notes:
9 Quoted by Roman Cholij, Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code. Eastern Churches Journal , Vol. 3, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), p. 112.
10 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements. Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483.
holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp

Thank you very much for your enlightening Wisdom in the Faith!

It’s also encouraging to me how much you draw from Papa Benedict/ then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, because I was just thinking that if John Paul II left us with many powerful quotes… how many more will our current Holy Father bless us with… who himself is among the most scholarly men of the Church (over 200 books).

And I just want to give full knowledge. Because you, Francis, and Benedict might not really know me from other threads. But, I certainly don’t want the Church to change the rules on celibacy.

It was only in strictly looking at the definition of heresy that I found from saintaquinas.com: Heresy is obstinate post-baptismal denial of a truth that must be believed with divine and catholic faith. MUST priestly celibacy be believed in order to have the Catholic faith? In a strict sense no. Or else we would be calling Catholics in the past as well as in the Anglican Ordinariate not Catholic.

I still said that priestly celibacy was most likely followed by the majority of priests throughout history to today. And your very knowledgeable post vindicates that.

I just wanted to clarify, that I think the 3 posters who quoted me on this thread all MIGHT have thought me an advocate of a change of the discipline of the priestly celibacy. Well, I just wanted to say that that couldn’t be further from the truth… so I have faith that this will allay y’alls fears of that.

My commitment to Orthodoxy is unwavering, and on this thread my condemnation is of communication which only uses text. For 93% of what people convey in a normal conversation is not in the words they say. But in tone and gesture. So… any misunderstandings of my posts lies in the inferiority of internet posting as a form of communication.

 

[Qoeleth]

‘Celibacy’ is a rule for ordination. In fact, it is quite a flexible rule- as married Anglican clergy are ordained. To say you disagree with it is like saying you disagree with a traffic regulation. You don’t so much ‘disagree’ with it (as it is not a proposition or teaching as such), as think it is a bad idea.

Obviously, this is quite permissible. Otherwise, the Church would never change it regulations or conduct.

What’s more, to be a heretic you need to maintain an error ‘obstinantly’- i.e. after having been corrected. So you are pretty safe from the charge of heresy.

I think the challenge to the Church is to articulate proper theological reasons for the policy. The theological reasons it was introduced was that it was a denial of the sin of fleshly lust, and the non-begetting of children prevents the transmission of Original Sin. Personally, I agree with this theology, but not that many people have the courage to articulate them.

 

[joshmartin]

A travel blog with travel tips, travel stories and videos, free HD wallpapers, giveaways and resources to inspire and teach you how to travel the world.

Travel Tips

 

[Abu]

Qoeleth #27
‘Celibacy’ is a rule for ordination. In fact, it is quite a flexible rule
The theological reasons it was introduced was that it was a denial of the sin of fleshly lust, and the non-begetting of children prevents the transmission of Original Sin.

While it is more than a discipline, it is an Apostolic Norm from Christ, and was not “introduced”. Post #24 has clearly shown this.

Christ, by remaining celibate, wrote Pope Paul VI, signified his total dedication to the service of God and men (The Celibacy of the Priest, June 24, 1967). If Christ found celibacy to be central to His service of God and man, we should not be surprised if He finds the same to be central to the lives of His priests; to those who act in Persona Christi. The celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes.

While not a doctrine, an Apostolic “norm” means rules, including commands and prohibitions; “rule” means a prescribed guide for conduct; “prescribe” means issue commands or orders for; tradition means an inherited pattern of thought and action; custom means habitual practice of longstanding; practice means a customary way of acting; requirement means indispensable – the celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory

“In 1969 Christian Cocchini, S.J. completed his doctoral thesis at the Institut Catholique, on the history of clerical celibacy. The president of the examiners who approved his dissertation was Cardinal Danielou. Cocchini’s mastery of the sources from the New Testament to the seventh century is unequalled.

This is what he found:
“From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed: Priests were celibate; or else, if they had married before ordination, they and their wives promised to live together thereafter without the use of the marriage. This rule was an Apostolic norm; it was proclaimed and practiced by the Apostles; and that norm in turn was founded upon the example of our Lord Himself.

“Clerics were often chosen from among married older men. After ordination they were required to abstain from conjugal intercourse. In effect then, they were not married. Qui habent uxores, tamquam non habentes sint. “Let those who are married live as if they do not have wives”. Pope Leo the Great in 458 AD borrowed those words of Saint Paul in order to describe the celibacy of the clergy.” (I Cor. 7:29). [Letter from Pope Leo to Rusticus, Bishop of Narbonne]. The Origin Of Priestly Celibacy, by Hugh Ballantyne, June 2003]

 

[BenedictFTW]

Okay. Church’s infallible teachings? I am a senior who well recalls what a big sin it was for a Catholic to attend worship at a Protestant church. How many family baptisms, weddings and funerals were missed because of this silly teaching. With Vatican II that teaching changed suddenly. So did no meat on Friday (except Lent). Protestants no longer were heretics but separated brothers and sisters. The old movie guide, with condemned films listed every week in *Our Sunday Visitor *(for example) was discarded. Then, of course, the mass was in English and we were singing Martin Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” and many other Protestant hymns. Etc.

Yes, I know the arguments, but if the Church can make such changes overnight it can make other changes. St. Paul, as I recall, said that a Bishop should have only one wife. St. Peter himself had a mother-in-law (I have visited her home), so he was married. And we could on and on.

 My main point is that Catholics today are far-better educated than they have been in the past. They think for themselves. I saw a poll a year or so that 52% do not believe in transubstantiation. A large majority believe priests should be able to marry, and a  majority (in the US) believe women should be ordained - at least as Deacons.

 Catholicism has lost millions because more and more people honestly question beliefs that were easy to believe when we had poor telescopes and no microscopes, when we believed in demons and a devil roaming the earth, when we viewed destructive natural phenomena as God's punishment, etc. Today we regard many of those primitive and medieval beliefs as superstition. Many more have become cafeteria Catholics. They are C&E Catholics - Christmas and Easter. They are cultural Catholics. But they will not be told by any Church that they must believe what in their minds is unbelievable.

  I know this is heresy, but I'm sure God judges us by the two commandments Christ emphasized: love the Lord and love one another. When a lawyer asked Jesus how to enter eternal life he said nothing about doctrine or ritual. He gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, how a 'heretic' (hated by the religious establishment) was the one who stopped while the priest and Levite passed by on the other side. See the last verses of Matt. 25 for more details.

   God bless fellow citizens of earth whatever their creed, color, culture or country. If our religion serves as a barrier among us instead of as a bridge we need to reexamine it and ask God for forgiveness and guidance.

The Church did not change any of its teachings. The Catholic Church is still the One True Church and the only way to salvation. Man’s wisdom is foolishness to God.

Although Peter was married, there is a suggestion that he gave everything up for Jesus. Jesus said that anyone who gives up family and home for Him would gain greatly in heaven. St Paul says that being single is the very best way to serve God. When Jesus was asked by that person what he had to do to get to heaven, Jesus told him to sell everything he had, give it all away, and follow Him. That leaves us with a certainty that the very best way to follow Christ is alone and with nothing - vow of celibacy and poverty comes immediately to mind!

How can you say people are better educated nowadays? I see no sign of that. In fact, quite the opposite. People have rejected God and put their faith in questionable science - if you call that educated, I don’t!

Heresy is still heresy. See some of the writings of the old Church Fathers, such as Athanasius, Doctor of the Church. The same old heresies are around again. Now we need those who defend the faith against heresy, not lump everything into the one apple cart and throw it all up in the air.

We do have separated brethren and we need to pray for them. I would never go into a Protestant Church for a service. However, if a friend was getting married in a Protestant Church, I would go along if I had to. If I could, though, I would miss out on the service and just attend the celebrations afterwards. Most of my brothers and sisters in Christ do the same.

Love the faith. Defend the faith. Peace of Christ be with you.

 

[Roy5]

**Benedict **- no offense intended, but your attitude re attending a Protestant wedding (for example) reflects a major shortcoming of a certain form of Catholicism. Some would call it bigotry. Others would call it tragic ignorance. People of faith need to get beyond this narrow, parochial tribalism that promotes arrogance, hostility and division. I firmly believe that Christ is offended when his teachings are so corrupted. He led the way by mixing with publicans and sinners - etc.
God bless you anyway. It's your narrowness and not you that troubles me. It reminds me of the racial prejudice that poisoned so many minds over the generations. Love the sinner, hate the sin - my philosophy. Fortunately, I think few Catholics follow your example.

 

[manualman]

Roy,

From your posts, it appears that you are old enough to well remember the days before VaticanII. I know it may not sound like it, but I value your (name removed by moderator)ut and experiences. Contrary to a certain mythology that goes around these days, I (at least) labor under no false pretenses that catholics were pure, unsullied and impeccable before those 60’s dudes messed everything all up.

In fact, I suspect that one of the major problems of the pre-Vatican II model of faithful catholic life was a disordered focus on obeying rules for the sake of the rule, rather than the principle the rule was established to honor. Believe it or not, this seems to even manifest in your own posts. You don’t seem to distinguish between discipline and doctrine. There was NEVER anything immoral about meat on Fridays (for example). The sin was never about the meat, it was about defiance of disciplinary authority. The church asked us to fast. Refusing was the sin. It was a disciplinary order originally intended to jump start people into a practice of fasting and self discipline. But when the experience became only about rote obedience, it became not useful and was de-emphasized. Disciplinary teachings are authoritative, but nobody has ever pretended that they are infallible. Doctrine is about what it true and what is false. Christ clearly DID commission his apostles to teach doctrinal truth and equipped them with the Grace to do so free of error.

The examples you cite of change were ALL about discipline, not doctrine. Your pre-Vatican II failure to comprehend the difference translates into a post-Vatican II tendency to throw out doctrine with obsolete disciplines. You become in danger of throwing out the baby Jesus with the bathwater.

 

[Roy5]

Manualman

**Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between matters of doctrine and discipline**. However, to the average parishioner of my generation one carried as much weight as the other - trangressing either was seen as a serious sin - so when the discipline was changed that seemed like 'sin' had changed. Why was it a sin to attend a Protestant church in 1960 and not in 1965? Add to this the sudden and radical changes in Mass and perhaps it is understandable that many Catholics wondered if the Church were infallible in such areas after all. 

** I would suggest that many feel that way today when it comes, say, to such an issue as artificial birth control**. As I understand it that involves doctrine rather than discipline. Apparently the ordination of women is a doctrinal matter, too? Marriage of clergy is a matter of discipline. Etc. But it's easy to confuse the two.

** Obviously, the underlying issue is one of church authority**. When Pius IX declared the Pope’s infallibility when speaking ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals - a dogma not defined explicitly until 1870 - is that to be treated as infallible? The Church would say yes! Ditto for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not defined until 1864. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox would disagree, of course. By the way, I happened to be in Rome (my student days) in 1950 when the Assumption was defined as a dogma.

 ** I have come to the conclusion over the years that individual conscience plus reason should be permitted to play a key role as well**. If a married couple, for example, have six children already, if the wife would threaten her health by becoming pregnant again, if their economic situation is somewhat precarious and they want all their children to be able to attend college - etc, - then I would leave it up to that couple to decide whether they would depend fully upon Church-approved birth control or employ artificial birth control. The notion of total abstinence strikes me as against natural law when it comes to a husband and wife. Besides, in the area of health modern medicine has come up with hundreds of 'artificial' means (miracle drugs, organ transplants, for example) that one might not view as 'natural'. 

Just my thoughts. But millions of Catholics have similar ones, and millions have left the Church or become cafeteria Catholics because of it. Does the Church care? Apparently many here on CAF don't. Their privilege.

 God bless everybody.

 

[BenedictFTW]

**Benedict **- no offense intended, but your attitude re attending a Protestant wedding (for example) reflects a major shortcoming of a certain form of Catholicism. Some would call it bigotry. Others would call it tragic ignorance. People of faith need to get beyond this narrow, parochial tribalism that promotes arrogance, hostility and division. I firmly believe that Christ is offended when his teachings are so corrupted. He led the way by mixing with publicans and sinners - etc.

 God bless you anyway. It's your narrowness and not you that troubles me. It reminds me of the racial prejudice that poisoned so many minds over the generations. Love the sinner, hate the sin - my philosophy. Fortunately, I think few Catholics follow your example.

Ouch! So unfair. For someone who says they intend no offence, you are being extremely offensive! You sound very bigoted against me.

Because I choose to guard my faith against wrong teaching does not make me any of those names you called me. I have many friends from different Protestant denominations and I love them all. Eastern Orthodox will not attend a Catholic Church - would you label them the same as you labelled me? I am not ignorant, parochial or hostile. Jesus would not be offended by my being careful not to lose any of His teachings or be seen to support a Church in error! The very idea! I think you have both myself and Jesus wrong here!

 

[BenedictFTW]

Manualman

**Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between matters of doctrine and discipline**. However, to the average parishioner of my generation one carried as much weight as the other - trangressing either was seen as a serious sin - so when the discipline was changed that seemed like 'sin' had changed. Why was it a sin to attend a Protestant church in 1960 and not in 1965? Add to this the sudden and radical changes in Mass and perhaps it is understandable that many Catholics wondered if the Church were infallible in such areas after all. 

** I would suggest that many feel that way today when it comes, say, to such an issue as artificial birth control**. As I understand it that involves doctrine rather than discipline. Apparently the ordination of women is a doctrinal matter, too? Marriage of clergy is a matter of discipline. Etc. But it's easy to confuse the two.

** Obviously, the underlying issue is one of church authority**. When Pius IX declared the Pope’s infallibility when speaking ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals - a dogma not defined explicitly until 1870 - is that to be treated as infallible? The Church would say yes! Ditto for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not defined until 1864. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox would disagree, of course. By the way, I happened to be in Rome (my student days) in 1950 when the Assumption was defined as a dogma.

 ** I have come to the conclusion over the years that individual conscience plus reason should be permitted to play a key role as well**. If a married couple, for example, have six children already, if the wife would threaten her health by becoming pregnant again, if their economic situation is somewhat precarious and they want all their children to be able to attend college - etc, - then I would leave it up to that couple to decide whether they would depend fully upon Church-approved birth control or employ artificial birth control. The notion of total abstinence strikes me as against natural law when it comes to a husband and wife. Besides, in the area of health modern medicine has come up with hundreds of 'artificial' means (miracle drugs, organ transplants, for example) that one might not view as 'natural'. 

Just my thoughts. But millions of Catholics have similar ones, and millions have left the Church or become cafeteria Catholics because of it. Does the Church care? Apparently many here on CAF don't. Their privilege.

 God bless everybody.

You seem extremely angry with Catholics, especially those on CAF. Perhaps it is because you find yourself in such disagreement with the ‘Catholic mind’. Your insistence on your using your own judgements about everything and then claiming that this is opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church (“The notion of total abstinence strikes me as against natural law”), sounds quite Protestant to me. I mean no offence to you or my separated brothers and sisters when I say this, btw. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. There are defined rules of behaviour and belief. We must comply. It helps a great deal to know that every teachings of our Church has been put through rigorous investigation by the Church Fathers of the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles and, of course, the OT. Just believe, Jesus says, and you will be saved.

 

[sw85]

If I disagree with priestly-celibacy and an all-male priesthood. Would that be considered heresy? And be straight up with me, please.

As has been pointed out, your denial of the all-male priesthood, a doctrine to which you are required to give full assent of faith, constitutes subscription to a heretical belief and thus a mortal sin.

What’s more, to be a heretic you need to maintain an error ‘obstinantly’- i.e. after having been corrected. So you are pretty safe from the charge of heresy.

I don’t believe this is strictly speaking true. One can subscribe to heresy (and thus sin mortally) without being a ‘heretic’ (possessing a particular canonical status). There is no reason to believe that “obstinate” requires formal correction. In ordinary parlance it suffices that “obstinate” simply mean “persistent,” i.e., that one continue to hold the belief even after one learns that it is heretical. In other words, there is no venial sin of heresy: if it isn’t knowing and voluntary (and thus mortal), it isn’t heresy.

There seems to be a common error here of insisting that there is no sin of heresy where the Church has not established one as a heretic. This seems false. Otherwise, the “sin of heresy” would simply amount to “the Church declaring you a heretic.” Insofar as there are truths we are apparently required to believe and the Church declares those as heretics who deny those truths, it seems the sin is prior to the canonical determination.

 

[livingwordunity]

If a married couple, for example, have six children already, if the wife would threaten her health by becoming pregnant again, if their economic situation is somewhat precarious and they want all their children to be able to attend college - etc, - then I would leave it up to that couple to decide whether they would depend fully upon Church-approved birth control or employ artificial birth control. The notion of total abstinence strikes me as against natural law when it comes to a husband and wife.

The Catholic Church teaches that a couple can use NFP (Natural Family Planning) if they have a valid serious reason for not having more children. NFP allows a couple to have intercourse the way God intended for a husband and wife. NFP is natural with no artificial barriers or abortifacient mechanisms. The only thing is that the couple must be open to new life if a pregnancy does occur. Our faith involves doing what’s right even if it could mean hardship and/or suffering. The Holy Family is the model for that. With Jesus, we can’t say that God doesn’t understand what it’s like to suffer.

 

[Abu]

livingwordunity #38
I would leave it up to that couple to decide whether they would depend fully upon Church-approved birth control or employ artificial birth control.

That is dissent from the definitive teaching of Christ through His Church and misleads others.
Real Catholics follow Christ and His Magisterium knowing that His Church has condemned contraception infallibly as gravely sinful; Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930, Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, 1968.
Natural Birth Regulation is worthy for serious, just reasons.

The individual couple has to prayerfully and with counseling, if needed, decide what for them constitute just, serious reasons.

Natural Family Planning - Serious Motives
Answered by Fr. Richard Hogan, NFP Outreach
‘Serious reasons mean important, or non-trivial, reasons, deriving “from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions” (HV 16). Just reasons are, likewise, reasons which correspond to the truth of marriage and the situation of the couple. It is the nature of justice to correspond to the truth. Both terms, serious and just, presumes there can be selfish, trivial or unjust reasons for using NFP, reasons not in keeping with the nature of marriage as a community of life and love.’
ewtn.com/expert/answers/nfp_serious_motives.htm

 

[Roy5]

**We do have separated brethren and we need to pray for them. I would never go into a Protestant Church for a service. **

Benedict. Sorry, but I consider a statement like this old fashioned bigotry It is what I grew up with as a child, and I detested it even then. We played together with neighbors of different faiths in our neighborhood, but how many baptisms, weddings and funerals were missed because of this silly arrogance. Protestants could attend such services at Catholic churches but not vice versa.

I consider this an affront to God and to fellow Christians, No wonder there was resentment of Catholicism when such an attitude was fostered by the Church. Thank God Vatican II changed that policy and in this community every Thanksgiving Catholics, Protestants, Jews and those of other faiths come together in rotating houses of worship to offer our thanks together to our one Lord. 

 Religion should be a bridge and not a barrier. God bless our brothers and sisters of every creed, color, culture and country. That is Christianity 101, and I also happen to believe that it is patriotic Americanism, too.

 

[crazzeto]

If I disagree with priestly-celibacy and an all-male priesthood. Would that be considered heresy? And be straight up with me, please.

Priestly-celebacy, no that is a discipline of the Roman right which is subject to change. Priests do currently make that vow, and anyone becoming a preist now would be found permenantly to it. but it’s possible for future generations to be allowed marriage.

Disagreement with all male priesthood, I would suggest mediation on this doctrine. In particular, read Pope John Paul II’s letter on the matter, and perhaps Pope Benedict XVI’s comments as well. This is a matter of doctrine, so persistant informed dissention is heresy yes.

 

[mab23]

Priestly celibacy is a discipline of the Latin Rite. It is not doctrinal. You are therefore free to “agree” with it or not. However, in disagreeing, you must still respect the authority of the Church on the matter. The Church has the authority to set this discipline in the Latin Rite, and it is incumbent upon you to read and understand why it does so.

The priesthood is a doctrinal matter. The male priesthood is infallibly taught, so no you cannot “disagree” with it. Assent of the faith is required on this matter.

well said!

 

[livingwordunity]

That is dissent from the definitive teaching of Christ through His Church and misleads others.
Real Catholics follow Christ and His Magisterium knowing that His Church has condemned contraception infallibly as gravely sinful; Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930, Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, 1968.
Natural Birth Regulation is worthy for serious, just reasons.

The individual couple has to prayerfully and with counseling, if needed, decide what for them constitute just, serious reasons.

Natural Family Planning - Serious Motives
Answered by Fr. Richard Hogan, NFP Outreach
‘Serious reasons mean important, or non-trivial, reasons, deriving “from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions” (HV 16). Just reasons are, likewise, reasons which correspond to the truth of marriage and the situation of the couple. It is the nature of justice to correspond to the truth. Both terms, serious and just, presumes there can be selfish, trivial or unjust reasons for using NFP, reasons not in keeping with the nature of marriage as a community of life and love.’
ewtn.com/expert/answers/nfp_serious_motives.htm

You mistakenly attributed Roy5’s quote to me. I’m 100% Catholic and in support of all that the Church teaches.