Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[drpmjhess]

That’s Funny!!!

Funny but true.

 

[drpmjhess]

I’ve never heard that one before. What do you base that assumption one

“Clement of Alexandria, though he does not make explicit reference to Onan, similarly reflects an early Christian view of the abhorrence of ‘"spilling seed’”:
Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted[13]
To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature’[14]
Many Christian groups, especially Roman Catholicism, have subsequently cited the Onan narrative as justification for bans on both masturbation and coitus interruptus, and since Medieval times have also used it to justify a prohibition against contraception. This view that wasted seed refers to masturbation was upheld by many early rabbis."

 

[patg]

“Clement of Alexandria, though he does not make explicit reference to Onan, similarly reflects an early Christian view of the abhorrence of ‘"spilling seed’”:
Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted[13]

Of course not - it was assumed to contain the entire human child.

To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature’[14]

We all know that is untenable.

Many Christian groups, especially Roman Catholicism, have subsequently cited the Onan narrative as justification for bans on both masturbation and coitus interruptus, and since Medieval times have also used it to justify a prohibition against contraception.

Fortunately we know that this is a misreading of the Onan story as God is clearly upset about the refusal of Onan to have sex with someone he wasn’t married to rather than what happened to the seed. Wow, did God really want someone to have sex with someone they weren’t married to? How times have changed. It’s funny the Church no longer requires that, isn’t it?

This view that wasted seed refers to masturbation was upheld by many early rabbis."

And you think that makes a big difference? We certainly don’t care what they think about eating pork…

 

[Ender]

It is interesting that the church is totally quiet about ignoring direct commands from God to sell everything we have and give the money to the poor, to not eat rare meat or shellfish, to not wear clothing of blended fabrics, to not plant different crops in the same garden, etc.

Are you really unaware that it was Christ himself who changed Mosaic law? The only example you give that sounds like it is from the New Testament is the first one; can you cite the text you refer to?

Ender

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Just to be clear, was it wrong to allow the South Americans who relied on the capyberas for food to eat them, or would it have been wrong to forbid it?

It would be my opinion that it was not wrong to allow the eating of the animal. what was wrong was twisting things to make it “legal” . After all, Jesus made it clear about such things didn’t he? The sabbath was created for man, not the other way around.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I dont think there is any wiggle room, Heres what he said:

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.***

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

I was not looking for wiggle room and that does not answer the question, but thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Of course the Church hierarchy has said things that were errors.

But surely you understand the difference between a formal Ex Cathedra teaching on faith or morals, and other teachings which aren’t covered by infallibility? No infallible teaching has ever been wrong.

The rule about capyberras, surely, fell under the Church’s authority to bind and to loose and make rules about Friday abstinence, rather than a decree on the proper biological classification of the capyberra? But either way, infallibility doesn’t cover teachings of biology, only faith and morals. So there’s no need to worry about the souls of those who ate capyberra on Friday.

I’m also quite convinced that there is no clear understanding of what is considered “infallible” these days. I was taught that there were only a couple of infallible pronouncements, one concerning Mary’s immaculate conception in 1950, the other I don’t recall off hand. Others claim there are dozens of them. So I think that we as lay persons are probably not able to make that argument accurately.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You might consider reading the document itself. You’ll then realize that your priest-theologian-friend was wrong about that. The document not only does not “explicity admit” that there was no Scriptural support for the teaching, but it actually “explicitly states” that the decision is based in part on Scripture.

Beyond that, the new testament itself is “strictly from tradition”.

Yes of course, he was undoubtedly wrong, and was teaching seminary students incorrectly too.

 

[adrift]

Yes of course, he was undoubtedly wrong, and was teaching seminary students incorrectly too.

ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS

These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church."(1)…In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God’s eternal plan;

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m also quite convinced that there is no clear understanding of what is considered “infallible” these days. I was taught that there were only a couple of infallible pronouncements, one concerning Mary’s immaculate conception in 1950, the other I don’t recall off hand. Others claim there are dozens of them. So I think that we as lay persons are probably not able to make that argument accurately.

Good point. The most limited list of infallible decrees is usually the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption plus the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.

And now that I think of it, birth control wasn’t covered by any council that I know of, or an Ex Cathedra Papal teaching.

 

[reggieM]

And now that I think of it, birth control wasn’t covered by any council that I know of, or an Ex Cathedra Papal teaching.

Fr. Brian Harrison has done a good job arguing that Humanae Vitae contained an ex cathedra (infallible) doctrine.

rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

Beyond the birth control issue, that article is very worth reading carefully to see how infallibility is defined.

From Vatican I:

The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines with his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church (doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit), through the divine assistance promised him in St. Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals: and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.

 

[patg]

Are you really unaware that it was Christ himself who changed Mosaic law? The only example you give that sounds like it is from the New Testament is the first one; can you cite the text you refer to?

Ender

It might be called “Mosaic Law” but these are direct commands from God which we mostly ignore (unless they have anything to do with sex, of course). It is no wonder that very few Catholics have any idea what Leviticus really says and the Church does nothing to change that.

Jesus only partially negated a few of them - but he was the original dissenter. There was considerable debate and disagreement among the apostles (see Acts) considering how “Jewish” they should remain. Most of the pro-Jewish group lost out and was finally lost for good when the Romans leveled most of the Jewish territory.

So you are fully admitting that moral commandments directly form God can be modified and sometimes eliminated based on new circumstances. I’m glad to hear that.

The new testament quote is from Jesus when he was asked what one must do to be saved, in addition to keeping the commandments (Luke, I think). I don’t know anyone who does not ignore that one.

 

[estesbob]

So you are fully admitting that moral commandments directly form God can be modified and sometimes eliminated based on new circumstances. I’m glad to hear that.

.

Only if the Son of God does it, which he did -one time-2,000 years ago. We have no right to try and change his teachings to accommodate the culture of a given point in time. Again you are suggesting changes based on a culture that has existed for less than 50 years and is not shared by the majority of the World. You are asking the Church throw out two thousand years of teachings to accommodate the desires of a minority of Catholics in western industrialized countries only.

John Paul II stated empathically that the Church does have the authority to allow ordination of women. I don’t know how much cleared it can get that that.

 

[drpmjhess]

It might be called “Mosaic Law” but these are direct commands from God which we mostly ignore (unless they have anything to do with sex, of course). It is no wonder that very few Catholics have any idea what Leviticus really says and the Church does nothing to change that. .

When I was a high school freshman I was the only student in the religion class who naively and dutifully carried out the priest-teachers assignment and read the Bible cover-to-cover. I was astonished to discover how sex-saturated it is!

 

[PapaSquash]

Jesus only partially negated a few of them - but he was the original dissenter. There was considerable debate and disagreement among the apostles (see Acts) considering how “Jewish” they should remain. Most of the pro-Jewish group lost out and was finally lost for good when the Romans leveled most of the Jewish territory.

So you are fully admitting that moral commandments directly form God can be modified and sometimes eliminated based on new circumstances. I’m glad to hear that.

I understand that Jesus has the authority to change the rules. He is, after all, the author. The Apostles had authority delegated to them by the power of binding and loosing. I do not have the authority to change the rules.

It was the first man’s mistake in believing that his ideas of right and wrong should be equated with Authority’s ideas of right and wrong, that got us into this mess in the first place.

The new testament quote is from Jesus when he was asked what one must do to be saved, in addition to keeping the commandments (Luke, I think). I don’t know anyone who does not ignore that one.

It was Jesus’ answer to the question of what that man had to do in order to lose his attachment to material things. Which is something we need to do. We should be prepared to walk away from anything. As the passage says, it is hard. No one should ignore it. I know several religious who clearly have not.

 

[patg]

Only if the Son of God does it, which he did -one time-2,000 years ago. We have no right to try and change his teachings to accommodate the culture of a given point in time. Again you are suggesting changes based on a culture that has existed for less than 50 years and is not shared by the majority of the World. You are asking the Church throw out two thousand years of teachings to accommodate the desires of a minority of Catholics in western industrialized countries only.

John Paul II stated empathically that the Church does have the authority to allow ordination of women. I don’t know how much cleared it can get that that.

I think we are getting way off the path of our discussion here. I was never discussing the ordination of women as a topic, my point was that this is a matter of organization and procedure, not a matter of faith or morals. The pope’s statement that *the Church does have the authority to allow ordination of women *has no effect whatsoever on my faith in or love of God.

Thus, if I disagree, I am disagreeing with task management and job assignments in the church, not with the nature of God, the teachings of Jesus, or the path to salvation. If I disagree with the teachings on abortion, murder, or theft, I am supporting a clearly immoral action.

 

[Ender]

"PapaSquash:

I understand that Jesus has the authority to change the rules.

Rules yes, morality no. Morality does not change and Christ did not change it.

I was never discussing the ordination of women as a topic, my point was that this is a matter of organization and procedure, not a matter of faith or morals.

This is the way to interpret Mosaic law, which in fact is what Christ himself said about it.

The pope’s statement that *the Church does have the authority to allow ordination of women *has no effect whatsoever on my faith in or love of God.

You are limiting the definition of faith. The Catholic faith, as expressed by the Nicene Creed, is more than merely faith in God. There are innumerable issues of faith that aren’t directed to our faith in God. The Immaculate Conception being one example; an all male priesthood being another.

Thus, if I disagree, I am disagreeing with task management and job assignments in the church, not with the nature of God, the teachings of Jesus, or the path to salvation.

Your disagreement is much more fundamental, which, even though the question of women priests may seem off topic, I think illustrates the point. The Church says that this is an issue of faith, that Christ deliberately chose only men and that therefore the Church may not change what Christ instituted. What you disagree with is precisely the Church’s role in interpreting Christ’s message to man, not merely with a question of housekeeping.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

I think we are getting way off the path of our discussion here. I was never discussing the ordination of women as a topic, my point was that this is a matter of organization and procedure, not a matter of faith or morals. The pope’s statement that *the Church does have the authority to allow ordination of women *has no effect whatsoever on my faith in or love of God.

Thus, if I disagree, I am disagreeing with task management and job assignments in the church, not with the nature of God, the teachings of Jesus, or the path to salvation. If I disagree with the teachings on abortion, murder, or theft, I am supporting a clearly immoral action.

I think the disagreement here goes far beyond a discussion of task management, You seem to view the Priesthood and ordination as a staffing issue.The Church doesnt.

As far as murder and theft being clearly immoral -a generation ago homosexuality and abortion were considered clearly immoral -now we have dissenters lobbying the Church to accept them. In fact these dissenters tell us we are bigots if we don’t accept them . What is the next generation decides theft is OK. Once morality becomes subjective anything goes.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I personally don’t believe Jesus intended to set up a Church.

Maybe it’s just me but this comment from you automatically makes every other comment you utter meaningless. 2000 years of church teaching out the window because Spiritmeadow ‘personally doesn’t believe’. You’re a riot!

Matthew 16:17-19

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...=19&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-23691b”)] will not overcome it.c] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee] loosed in heaven.”

 

[Kevin42]

I think that although many people dissent, they still may feel that they have no where to go. I believe many dissenters know that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that Christ established. In certain areas though, they are just unable to reconcile completely with the Church.