R
ron77nyc
Guest
How do you explain a baptized Catholics who do not believe? Are they born of the spirit?
Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
- Status
Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
S
sidbrown
Guest
But if this is not infallibly defined as a dogma, then why could it not be allowed under the theory of nuanced development of teaching?
S
sidbrown
Guest
So then we have to beleive that woman is naturally subject to man because in the male reason predominates?
[It is said by way of objection] ‘Subjection and limitation were a result of sin, for to the woman was it said after sin (Gn. 3:16): “Thou shalt be under the man’s power”; and Gregory says that, “Where there is no sin, there is no inequality.” But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man . . . . ’ [But I say] Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. Summa Theologica I, qu. 92, art. 1, ad 2.
C
cathguy
Guest
No, this is wrong.
Development of doctrine precludes the notion of “up” becoming “down” or “black” becoming “white.”
You must understand, Limbo was never a part of the Church’s teaching. Furthermore, as a theory, it is still valid for the faithful to hold.
Artificial Birth control (Humanae Vitae, and the constant tradition of the Church), Women Priests (the Constant tradition of the Church, and official statements of the Magesterium) are part of the Church’s official teaching and capital “T” tradition.
If these things were to be “approved” or “proclaimed” by the Church, the only result would be the Church’s destruction. She would prove Herself to be other than what She has claimed She is.
Doctrine can develop, it cannot evolve.
Sorry. The things you advocate are impossible.
Praise be Jesus Christ.
My children exist because of the beauty of the Church’s teachings.
No, Her teachings cannot change.
Peace.
A
Akini
Guest
Even muslims, pagans, etc., etc.? No!, that is NOT true. But eventually, yes when all humanity becomes baptized members of the One Holy Catholic Church.
C
CowboyRich
Guest
Tell me if I am wrong. But, I believe there is no Doctrine in the Church stating that a woman cannot become a Priest. Women are not Priests because the Church is following tradition. If the Pope would allow it, it could be done.
Also, I thought anyone believing that Jesus is the Saviour can be saved. You don’t have to be a Catholic. The path to heaven may be more direct by being a Roman Catholic but, heaven can be attained by a non-Catholic if God judges the person to be worthy.
Also, I thought anyone believing that Jesus is the Saviour can be saved. You don’t have to be a Catholic. The path to heaven may be more direct by being a Roman Catholic but, heaven can be attained by a non-Catholic if God judges the person to be worthy.
S
surritter
Guest
On your first paragraph, there is some lingering debate about this. But it has pretty clearly been taught that the Church doesn’t have the authority to ordain women, even if it wanted to. This was emphasized even more strongly in Pope John Paul II’s “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” that was released in 1994. But the rabble-rousers claim that this teaching was not at the level of a dogma. And it wasn’t, but it was a pretty clear teaching that is consistent with Tradition, so the door was almost certainly closed by him. And if you don’t agree with him, at least read that letter to understand the very cogent reasoning – just as men can’t be fathers in the physical sense, our understanding of baptism and the Eucharist make it impossible for women to be fathers in the spiritual sense.Tell me if I am wrong. But, I believe there is no Doctrine in the Church stating that a woman cannot become a Priest. Women are not Priests because the Church is following tradition. If the Pope would allow it, it could be done.
Also, I thought anyone believing that Jesus is the Saviour can be saved. You don’t have to be a Catholic. The path to heaven may be more direct by being a Roman Catholic but, heaven can be attained by a non-Catholic if God judges the person to be worthy.
As for your second paragraph, the only response needed is yes, you are correct, with the emphasis on can.
S
sidbrown
Guest
But it includes the idea that limbo is universally taught everywhere before Vatican II, whereas after Vatican II, it is OK to deny limbo?
S
sidbrown
Guest
You can just as easily say that about the teaching on women priests or on artificial birth control. these are not infallibly defined teachings, are they? So why cannot they be nuanced later on to allow them?
S
sidbrown
Guest
That is my opinion on this also. Unfortunately, people here do not agree.Tell me if I am wrong. But, I believe there is no Doctrine in the Church stating that a woman cannot become a Priest. Women are not Priests because the Church is following tradition. If the Pope would allow it, it could be done.
Also, I thought anyone believing that Jesus is the Saviour can be saved. You don’t have to be a Catholic. The path to heaven may be more direct by being a Roman Catholic but, heaven can be attained by a non-Catholic if God judges the person to be worthy.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Oh really? According to the backcover:
“This comprehensive catechism contains the constant, authentic doctrine and moral teaching of the Catholic Faith”
Do you say that they have been misleading us?
S
StillWondering
Guest
From just Mark 16:16 and my understanding of the Catholic mindset, those who are baptized and hold the heretical view of baptism being not a Sacrament even though they are *properly *taught as such are bringing judgment to themselves. As a Sacrament, baptism, like other covenant oaths brings both a “curse” and a “promise”, that of rejection of or acceptance of the supernatural life. I refer back to Romans chapter 1-3 for my understanding.
Those who are taught incorrect doctrine have no intention of disbelief or heretical are like those without the law. If they can live by the law without knowing the law nor understanding the law, as in living in a way that is open to the goodness of the Holy Spirit, then they will be judged not by the law, but by what is in their hearts.
Because it is part of Tradition. Yeah I do see what you mean about people taking gray areas one way or another. But I think that the long Tradition of the Church does clear up most people’s impression of what is gray area and what is not. While I have no authority, I think that most would recognize and understand that the Church always valued women and would not have denied women the priesthood *unless *the Church has deemed it an impossibility. Maybe some priests have been bigots, maybe some laity has assumed the wrong understand, and maybe some women feel that they have the right qualities besides their gender for the role. These individuals do not make the tradition, it was passed down in non-verbal form by the Apostles in their selection of ministers.
Even when there was a need for baptism ministers for women in their society, the Apostles delegated such ministers however they never practiced any of the Sacraments reserved for the ministerial priesthood. They had ample opportunity to. They were not afraid of being rebuked by the laity because they have at countless times including the issues of Gentiles being baptized and the dietary laws.
Personally I am under the impression that many men would become great priests and some even have the deep desire, but they know in their hearts that God called them to live a single or married life outside of the priesthood. These men humble themselves and submit to God’s call. Maybe they are not vocal enough for everyone to hear, but they sacrifice in silence and God who hears in silence will reward them (Ash Wednesday readings). Women who feel they would like to serve, if they trust in the Lord and His promises they should do the same. In fact, offering up their silence suffering would be the logical choice if they believe their calling is true. By offering it up for the renewal and healthy changes of the Church, if their calling is true, then other women would have the opportunity. If this is really God’s Church, and it is
, then their prayers and sacrifice would be pleasing to God and the Church will listen to the truth that God speaks.Note that the text says “contains” but does not say that it is “contains only” hehe. I’m sure there are plenty of text in the book that are not “authentic doctrine and moral teaching of the Church” including some questions where the answer is “No.” Those particular questions and text, you would recognize as not being authentic teaching, so you already know the answer to your question: No it is not misleading – someone is just reading it without the wholeness of the text considered.
Is limbo universally taught? I mentioned early on in this tread that I was never taught limbo nor never heard of limbo till I went to college. This is because I had to leave my orthodox Vietnamese parish to go to college
. Maybe I was still not properly catechized even though we had very holy nuns and a priest that have 30-45 minute homilies including catechism and life advice relevant to the parishioners. Or maybe the more likely answer is that I was not taught this because it was not clearly defined as doctrine.
S
StillWondering
Guest
In regards to women ordination, I’ll respond to the popular claim that women could not be ordained *only *because it was/is a man’s world:
Given: The Church sees all humans as equal in dignity, even men and women.
Claim: equality of dignity does not translate to the same roles.
Understand represented by analogy:
For instance, the motherboard and processor are both very valuable. While people debate the value of each, for this discussion lets take the high road and accept that both are absolutely needed, and they are. However, the processor must sit on the motherboard to even be alive. The motherboard must use the ARLU (Arithmetic and Logic Unit) of the processor to run all its devices. They are equally valuable and yet are not ever going to do the same job, for the same purposes, to the same extent.
Once you *modify *one to have the capabilities of the one or the other, you would not call it a processor or a motherboard anymore; instead this super device will be given a new name to signify it’s new reality.
Conclusion:
The same is true with many things in the the objective reality, including the fact that women are not men even though they are equal in dignity. One can submit to the other such as a processor must always sit on a motherboard to receive power, but that does not mean they are not equal. Whatever inequality men and women seem to have is from our own fallen nature. God tells Eve, “Yet your urge if for your husband, and he shall be your master.” (See Genesis 3:16) Not that man will, should or must rule over her, but the fallen-ness they have earned from their sin will cause this oppression. How many thousands of year ago was the Book of Genesis written down and how often has women been put under the thumb of sinful men? (~3 thousand!)
**Note: **I would consider the processor to be male and the motherboard to be female if pressed. The motherboard is the heart of the system while the processor is the head of (as in it attaches to and leads) the motherboard. And the scriptures tells us that the women is the heart of the family. And the scriptures tells us that man is the head of the women.
Given: The Church sees all humans as equal in dignity, even men and women.
Claim: equality of dignity does not translate to the same roles.
Understand represented by analogy:
For instance, the motherboard and processor are both very valuable. While people debate the value of each, for this discussion lets take the high road and accept that both are absolutely needed, and they are. However, the processor must sit on the motherboard to even be alive. The motherboard must use the ARLU (Arithmetic and Logic Unit) of the processor to run all its devices. They are equally valuable and yet are not ever going to do the same job, for the same purposes, to the same extent.
Once you *modify *one to have the capabilities of the one or the other, you would not call it a processor or a motherboard anymore; instead this super device will be given a new name to signify it’s new reality.
Conclusion:
The same is true with many things in the the objective reality, including the fact that women are not men even though they are equal in dignity. One can submit to the other such as a processor must always sit on a motherboard to receive power, but that does not mean they are not equal. Whatever inequality men and women seem to have is from our own fallen nature. God tells Eve, “Yet your urge if for your husband, and he shall be your master.” (See Genesis 3:16) Not that man will, should or must rule over her, but the fallen-ness they have earned from their sin will cause this oppression. How many thousands of year ago was the Book of Genesis written down and how often has women been put under the thumb of sinful men? (~3 thousand!)
**Note: **I would consider the processor to be male and the motherboard to be female if pressed. The motherboard is the heart of the system while the processor is the head of (as in it attaches to and leads) the motherboard. And the scriptures tells us that the women is the heart of the family. And the scriptures tells us that man is the head of the women.
S
surritter
Guest
That’s a point that was constantly brought up by the late Bishop Kenneth Untener. But it doesn’t fly – infallible stuff has to have always been taught from the beginning, or at least that the seeds of it were there. Your insistence that limbo was infallibly taught doesn’t fall into that category.
S
sidbrown
Guest
A lot of traditions have been overthrown and changed. To give a few examples:
women to keep silent in the Church
women not to preach over a man
slaves to be subject to their masters
women to wear headcovering in Church
Puppets, clowns, marichi bands, and profane music at Mass
Communion on the tongue
etc.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Many theologians say that the rejection of women priests has not been infallibly taught since according to Vatican II the teaching of the universal ordinar magisterium is only infallible if it is:
- a collegial exercise of teaching authority
- by the bishops acting as judges
- after listening to the faithful
- in a judgement they want to impose as final.
C
CowboyRich
Guest
Surritter,
I read Pope John Paul II’s writing in 1994 about the Church not having the right to ordain women you directed me to… Now far be it for me to equate any common knowledge of the subject with the previous Holy Father but, he seemed to dance around the subject by giving qudos to women and by basically saying Jesus picked men after serious thought so, men it has to be. However, Jesus was a man, besides being the Son of God. Therefore, as a man he was used to the mores of his times. Would the people listen to a woman preaching among them in those times? Probably not. Therefore, it would have been a strategic error to make a woman an apostle in his times. I still maintain that a woman could become a priest if the Holy Father approves. And from the mess my sex has been making in the Church maybe some women priests might help things to turn around.
Although after saying this and being a married man for some 38+ years, there definitely is a difference between a man and a woman. A woman can be very thoughtful and nurturing. Yet, a woman scorned may have a hard time forgiving. So maybe there is more thought that has to be given to the subject of woman being ordained. And before I get myself into trouble with the opposite sex in this forum, I will shut up! (LOL!!)
I read Pope John Paul II’s writing in 1994 about the Church not having the right to ordain women you directed me to… Now far be it for me to equate any common knowledge of the subject with the previous Holy Father but, he seemed to dance around the subject by giving qudos to women and by basically saying Jesus picked men after serious thought so, men it has to be. However, Jesus was a man, besides being the Son of God. Therefore, as a man he was used to the mores of his times. Would the people listen to a woman preaching among them in those times? Probably not. Therefore, it would have been a strategic error to make a woman an apostle in his times. I still maintain that a woman could become a priest if the Holy Father approves. And from the mess my sex has been making in the Church maybe some women priests might help things to turn around.
Although after saying this and being a married man for some 38+ years, there definitely is a difference between a man and a woman. A woman can be very thoughtful and nurturing. Yet, a woman scorned may have a hard time forgiving. So maybe there is more thought that has to be given to the subject of woman being ordained. And before I get myself into trouble with the opposite sex in this forum, I will shut up! (LOL!!)
U
una_fides
Guest
I agree with the Baltimore Catechism here. I do not see how the Church can get around the verses that say unless one is baptized he cannot enter into heaven. These verses were not properly addressed at all in her recent document that tries to speculate that unbaptized infants could be saved through some unknown means. To interpret those verses to mean something different than baptism also goes against the universal understanding of the Fathers and the Church for 2000 years. I understand the Church now wishes to be merciful and compassionate to those who have lost children, but it should not be done at going against 2000 years of unbroken Tradition. In her recent document on this matter, the Church briefly traces the history of this belief, and you will notice that the only ones in the history of the Church who ever taught that infants who died without baptism could be saved were the Pelagian heretics! Not a comforting thought at all!
U
una_fides
Guest
Just because something is contradicted doesn’t mean it was fabricated. It just means that the Church, according to her non-infallible teaching got something wrong somewhere. Nothing here was taught as being irreformable. When choosing sides on an issue, however, we must remember to always be faithful to Tradition. That is how the Church was built and that is a leg on which it needs to stand.
U
una_fides
Guest
Actually catechisms are a part of the Church’s ordinary Magisterium. They are non-infallible, but they are part of her teachings to which we must submit. What happens when previous Magisterium contradicts current Magisterium? We then must submit to that which was taught with a greater authority and which is rooted in Tradition. Truly we are in a current crisis in the Church where vague teachings designed to be as non-offensive as possible, are leading many people to believe things that are not true. Furthermore, an overemphasis on God’s mercy has brought about an attempt at redefining of teachings that the Church had held in perpetuity for 2000 years.
- Status