Argument From Extremes

[savienu]

There is much that we can disagree on within the Catholic Church. We are only bound to the Dogmas of the Catholic Church. Jesus’ marital status is not dogmatic. There is no dogmatic statement from the Church stating whether Jesus was married or not.

Just as we are free to believe that the Blessed Mother passed away before she was assumed into Heaven.

Umm…no. Not at all the same thing. Jesus was unmarried. We know that from Divine Revelation, through Scripture. We may not be sola scriptura, but we did bring the Bible to the world, so why do we ignore it?

From an article on Catholic.com, specifically about the Da Vinci Code, but relevant here:

…the idea of a married Jesus may be more susceptible to acceptance, and the work of Christians will be all the more difficult if people come to believe it. Why? Because Christianity holds that Jesus gave himself wholly to the mission of inaugurating the kingdom of God through his teaching, passion, death, and resurrection. If Jesus was married, then at some point he compromised his mission in the interests of married life or compromised his marriage in the interest of the kingdom. Neither scenario fits the Christian view of Jesus, which sees him as completely dedicated to doing the Father’s will—and to forming the Church to be his Bride.
Furthermore, if Christianity could get wrong something as basic as whether Jesus was married, what else could it have gotten wrong? More insidiously, perhaps Christianity hasn’t simply gotten it wrong; perhaps it has, as The Da Vinci Code claims, concealed and suppressed the truth about Jesus. In either scenario, the Church’s credibility suffers, and so does its ability to bring people to the full truth about God and man.

(emphasis mine)

The whole article, for reference: catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605fea1.asp

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Umm…no. Not at all the same thing. Jesus was unmarried. We know that from Divine Revelation, through Scripture. We may not be sola scriptura, but we did bring the Bible to the world, so why do we ignore it?

From an article on Catholic.com, specifically about the Da Vinci Code, but relevant here:

(emphasis mine)

The whole article, for reference: catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605fea1.asp

This Rock magazine and Catholic.com are not the Church, they do not define dogma.

While I do not believe that Jesus was married, it is not a dogma of the Church.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Deacon,

The current Catechism is not de fide. You’d have to find a de fide dogmatic statement against Weakland’s views to back up your argument. You gave McBrien’s “married Jesus” position a pass using this same standard.

I see that you are willing to accept rock and roll music played at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as well.

I think your words are actually proving the point of my original post quite nicely, albeit unintentionally. I don’t believe I need to add much else.

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m having a hard time seeing how SSPX can possibly be compared to Planned Parenthood, the Masons, and Catholics for a Free Choice.

Edit: I’m also rather concerned that a Deacon of the Church believes that one can hold to Jesus being married and be a Catholic in good standing.

They can’t be. This is why his “excommunication” of the Society faithful in his diocese was, in my opinion, wholly without merit. Rome Herself had never made such an excommunication and has said that Catholics can attend Society Masses and not sin if done for love of the TLM. Had it been appealed I think it would have been overturned just like the Hawaii 6 case was.

I think the Bishop was trying to placate the left and give the appearance that he was being even handed. This plays into my critique of the argument from extremes.

BTW, you are right to be concerned that any Catholic holds the marital status of Christ in question.

 

[savienu]

This Rock magazine and Catholic.com are not the Church, they do not define dogma.

While I do not believe that Jesus was married, it is not a dogma of the Church.

“I’m not pro-abortion, but I believe in the right to choose.” That is basically what you are saying with this, you realize that, right? The Tradition of the Church shows that Jesus was unmarried. One can NOT be a Catholic in good standing and believe Jesus was married. Where was his wife? Did he have children? Did he ABANDON them to take up His Minstry? Dear me, you’d make our Lord a sinner!

 

[Just_Lurking]

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m having a hard time seeing how SSPX can possibly be compared to Planned Parenthood, the Masons, and Catholics for a Free Choice.

I think the common theme is disobedience to the authority of the Catholic Church, coupled with rejection of some part of the Church’s magisterium.

 

[stevusmagnus]

There is much that we can disagree on within the Catholic Church. We are only bound to the Dogmas of the Catholic Church. Jesus’ marital status is not dogmatic. There is no dogmatic statement from the Church stating whether Jesus was married or not.

Just as we are free to believe that the Blessed Mother passed away before she was assumed into Heaven.

The opinion that we are only bound as Catholics to de fide infallible dogmatic pronouncements of the Church is an error. The ordinary and universal Magisterium is also binding. This includes the consistent orthodox teachings of the Church through time. That Christ was unmarried falls squarely under this ordinary and universal Magisterium and to deny it is to dissent from the Church.

 

[savienu]

I think the common theme is disobedience to the authority of the Catholic Church, coupled with rejection of some part of the Church’s magisterium.

Right…so saying “We want to practice the faith the way it was handed on to us since the time of Christ” and going about that (arguably) the wrong way, is the same as “it’s a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for a woman to be able to kill your child in the womb”? There are DEGREES of sin, are their not? And stevusmagnus brings up a point- the faithful commit no sin in attending SSPX Masses. The MEMBERS were never excommunicated.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Right…so saying “We want to practice the faith the way it was handed on to us since the time of Christ” and going about that (arguably) the wrong way, is the same as “it’s a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for a woman to be able to kill your child in the womb”?

The premise of the phrase “cafeteria Catholic” is that one picks and chooses from the teachings of the Catholic Church. So of course each cafeteria Catholic is going to pick and choose differently.

There are DEGREES of sin, are their not?

There is drowning in six feet of water and drowning in six hundred feet of water. The important point is that either way, the essential outcome is the same.

And stevusmagnus brings up a point- the faithful commit no sin in attending SSPX Masses. The MEMBERS were never excommunicated.

There is no excommunication for those who merely attend Call To Action meetings either. Actual membership in the organizations is required for the excommunication, which are only in effect in the Lincoln diocese.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

“I’m not pro-abortion, but I believe in the right to choose.” That is basically what you are saying with this, you realize that, right? The Tradition of the Church shows that Jesus was unmarried. One can NOT be a Catholic in good standing and believe Jesus was married. Where was his wife? Did he have children? Did he ABANDON them to take up His Minstry? Dear me, you’d make our Lord a sinner!

I am not arguing with you. I believe that Jesus was not married. Can you show any Church documents that support your statement that one cannot be a Catholic in good standing if they believe otherwise? Persuade me. The difference between my statement and your “I’m not pro-abortion but I believe in the right to choose.” Is that abortion is an inherent moral evil and that is a dogma. Jesus’ martial status is not dogma (unless you can show me the Church document that states otherwise) nor is it an inherent moral evil to believe such a thing.

The evidence is against it but remember, the Bible does not contain the whole story.

Another example, we know that Peter was married but tradition tells us that he was a widower, but we are free to believe that his wife was alive while he was an apostle.

Here is another, one can believe that Elijah died. While tradition says that he did not and will return just before Jesus’ second coming. I know this because a priest wrote in a book he authored that Elijah died. He was charged with heresy and the Church tribunal found that what he wrote was not heresy.

 

[stevusmagnus]

There is no excommunication for those who merely attend Call To Action meetings either. Actual membership in the organizations is required for the excommunication, which are only in effect in the Lincoln diocese.

This was not the case. I believe the Bishop attempted to excommunicate any Catholic who would attend Mass at a Society Chapel in his diocese.

 

[savienu]

This was not the case. I believe the Bishop attempted to excommunicate any Catholic who would attend Mass at a Society Chapel in his diocese.

Yeah, that.

 

[savienu]

I am not arguing with you. I believe that Jesus was not married. Can you show any Church documents that support your statement that one cannot be a Catholic in good standing if they believe otherwise? Persuade me. The difference between my statement and your “I’m not pro-abortion but I believe in the right to choose.” Is that abortion is an inherent moral evil and that is a dogma. Jesus’ martial status is not dogma (unless you can show me the Church document that states otherwise) nor is it an inherent moral evil to believe such a thing.

The evidence is against it but remember, the Bible does not contain the whole story.

Another example, we know that Peter was married but tradition tells us that he was a widower, but we are free to believe that his wife was alive while he was an apostle.

Here is another, one can believe that Elijah died. While tradition says that he did not and will return just before Jesus’ second coming. I know this because a priest wrote in a book he authored that Elijah died. He was charged with heresy and the Church tribunal found that what he wrote was not heresy.

Can you show me where one ECF or official Church document held Jesus COULD BE or WAS married? If not, His celibacy falls under the universal teaching of the ordinary Magisterium and is thus, infallible.

I can’t even BELIEVE I’m having this conversation with a self-professed Catholic. I’m truly horrified.

 

[stevusmagnus]

I can’t even BELIEVE I’m having this conversation with a self-professed Catholic. I’m truly horrified.

Amen. That is your Catholic sense talking. Something that has largely been lost in this crisis.

 

[stevusmagnus]

See here for the letters back and forth between Fr. Scott and Bishop Bruskewitz over the excommunication of the SSPX faithful matter.

sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues.htm#lincoln

Here is Michael Davies opinion at the time. He was a big supporter of the FSSP and did not agree with ABL consecrating the Bishops in '88…

Michael Davies had this to say in The Remnant of July 31, 1996:

“Unfortunately he [Bishop Bruskewitz] included the Society of St. Pius X in his list, because, one must presume, he knows nothing of its canonical status. This has been pointed out to him, but, unfortunately, he is digging in his heels and refuses to admit that he has made a mistake. He is, if anything, becoming more and more adamant that he is correct, and is now going to the extent of denouncing Archbishop Lefebvre as ‘evil’. I hardly think that the Papal Nuncio to Switzerland and the Bishop of Sion would have gone to Ecône to pray beside the body of an evil man. Having met Archbishop Lefebvre on many occasions and having had long private conversations with him, lasting sometimes for hours, I can testify that he was the most saintly man that I have ever met, but this, of course, is a purely subjective impression and is not relevant to the question of whether Bishop Bruskewitz acted canonically in excommunicating the priests and lay supporters of the SSPX in his diocese. The answer is that he most certainly did not. Readers of The Latin Mass magazine will have read the feature article on Father Gerald Murray’s thesis submitted to the Gregorian University of Rome for his licentiate in Canon Law. This thesis was awarded the highest possible honor, summa cum laude.”

“Its conclusion was that no priest or lay supporter of the SSPX can be considered schismatic simply for belonging to the SSPX or assisting at its chapels, and that the excommunication of the six bishops was probably not valid. I sent a series of detailed questions to an eminent English Canon Lawyer on the same subject, on the recommendation of the Apostolic Delegate to Britain, to whom I had originally addressed my questions. He stated that, as no penalty had been declared against any priest of the Society except the six bishops, they could not be considered to have incurred any penalty and were entitled to their good name. The faithful who assist at SSPX chapels and contribute to them financially do not incur any penalty, unless they do so with a schismatic intent. By a schismatic intent, he meant by believing that the only true Catholics are those who worship in Society chapels and that those who assist at the New Mass in their parish churches are outside the Church…”

“It is of the very greatest significance that the 1988 protocol intended to reconcile the Society with the Holy See treated all its priests as straightforward Catholics. There was no question of any renunciation of schism or error on their part. This is still true today of priests from the Society who decide to move to the Fraternity of St. Peter. Bishop Bruskewitz is now stating that the SSPX is a non-Catholic sect. This is quite ridiculous in view of his threat of excommunication. He is only in a position to excommunicate members of the Catholic Church and so, if they are a non-Catholic sect, these threats are meaningless. If the SSPX constituted a schismatic sect, then priests leaving it would need to be received into the Catholic Church, which they most certainly are not, nor are they absolved of any penalties for schism, since they have incurred none…But to state that those celebrating or assisting at Masses of the SSPX incur latae sententiae excommunication is completely untenable.”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Can you show me where one ECF or official Church document held Jesus COULD BE or WAS married? If not, His celibacy falls under the universal teaching of the ordinary Magisterium and is thus, infallible.

I can’t even BELIEVE I’m having this conversation with a self-professed Catholic. I’m truly horrified.

Again, I do not think such a thing but to say anything that the Church does not state is a possibility is part of the ordinary Magisterium is a bit off. This would mean that it is an infallible teaching that Peter was a widower as I know of no ECF or official document that held that Peters wife COULD HAVE BEEN or WAS alive when he was an apostle.

 

[savienu]

Again, I do not think such a thing but to say anything that the Church does not state is a possibility is part of the ordinary Magisterium is a bit off. This would mean that it is an infallible teaching that Peter was a widower as I know of no ECF or official document that held that Peters wife COULD HAVE BEEN or WAS alive when he was an apostle.

If Peter’s wife was alive, where was she? But at any rate, that is VERY different than Jesus being married. Good Lord, does that mean He would have shared the marital bed with a mere human? He was GOD!!! The Church has ALWAYS taught that the celibacy is the higher calling, and that Jesus gave His WHOLE LIFE to the Church, HIS BRIDE! He can NOT have been married, or that would mean he would have abandoned His wife, which would make Him a sinner, which would mean that our entire religion is a lie.

Frankly, I find it disgusting that you think that one can hold that position of Our Lord. I will pray for you, that you repent of this blasphemy and speak only the Truth. And before I say something I regret, I am un-subbing this thread.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

…and does anyone doubt that modernism is alive and well?