dogma

[injo]

Dear all,
one day around the round table, a catholic family asked these questions:
what is the significant of Dogmas for our life,
why the church discriminates women from the church (the question of why the church does not ordain women as priests),
what does it mean the resurection of the body.

so, i would like to hear all of you, you opinions to these questions. thanks!

injo

 

[Wildgraywolf]

what is the significant of Dogmas for our life,

So we can understand and article of faith correctly.

why the church discriminates women from the church (the question of why the church does not ordain women as priests),

Because Jesus didn’t call any female apostles.

what does it mean the resurection of the body.

At the end of time we will be rejoined with our physical bodies.

 

[JRKH]

You are asking for our opinions which I believe is wrong. In so far as the questions you pose these are not for us to have “opinions” on. Instead we rely on The Spirit Guided teachings of Holy Mother Church.

Dear all,
one day around the round table, a catholic family asked these questions:
what is the significant of Dogmas for our life,

Frankly I’m not sure what this question means other than that this family is VERY poorly catachized. It appears that they have little understanding of the tenets of the faith. If they wish to learn these things I would suggest they get and study the Catachism of the Catholic Church.

why the church discriminates women from the church (the question of why the church does not ordain women as priests),

The Church certainly does NOT discriminate against women from the Church but holds them in high esteem. The Church even has women who have been awarded the title of “Doctor of the Church”.
As to the question of ordination, See This Article

what does it mean the resurection of the body.

This is from The Catachism of The Catholic Church IN BRIEF

1015 “The flesh is the hinge of salvation” (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2L 2, 852). We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.

1016 By death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul. Just as Christ is risen and lives for ever, so all of us will rise at the last day.

1017 “We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess” (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a “spiritual body” (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

1018 As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer “bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” (GS § 18).

1019 Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men.

so, i would like to hear all of you, you opinions to these questions. thanks!

injo

As stated in my introduction, your friends need to look, not to the fallible opinions of individuals but rather to the infallable teachings of the Magisterium.

Peace
James

 

[Soutane]

Dear all,
one day around the round table, a catholic family asked these questions:
what is the significant of Dogmas for our life,
why the church discriminates women from the church (the question of why the church does not ordain women as priests),
what does it mean the resurection of the body.

so, i would like to hear all of you, you opinions to these questions. thanks!

injo

Why does God discriminate against me,a man,because I can’t give birth to a child?
I just KNOW the Catholic Church has SOMETHING to do with it.

 

[injo]

Dear friends,
thank you so much for your responds to these questions. those questions were addressed by a catholic family that has gone further to their intellectual life - they do not practice catholic’ faith anymore. for them - Christ is YES the church is NO.

we will face these questions all around us. yes, these questions does not beg opinions but as you have said the grace of God…but you know our people has become more critical even toward the existence of God how much more to the church? it is sure that there are questions that might be posted…

thru this forum, i think that, it is good for us to address questions similar to this to know the reality of our faith from different positions…from that i think that we will become more catholics…because our faith is being challenged…" I am a true catholic?" I mean we will have faith by CONSCIENCE not by tradition of our parents…not because my parents catholics so am I…

once again, thanks so much to you.

injo

 

[JRKH]

Dear friends,
thank you so much for your responds to these questions. those questions were addressed by a catholic family that has gone further to their intellectual life - they do not practice catholic’ faith anymore. for them - Christ is YES the church is NO.

we will face these questions all around us. yes, these questions does not beg opinions but as you have said the grace of God…but you know our people has become more critical even toward the existence of God how much more to the church? it is sure that there are questions that might be posted…

thru this forum, i think that, it is good for us to address questions similar to this to know the reality of our faith from different positions…from that i think that we will become more catholics…because our faith is being challenged…" I am a true catholic?" I mean we will have faith by CONSCIENCE not by tradition of our parents…not because my parents catholics so am I…

once again, thanks so much to you.

injo

Thank you for the clarification.
If I understand you right, this family is what we would call nominal, or culturally catholic. They were maybe born into a catholic tradition but are do not practice the faith. So we can understand more that they are questioning the validity of God and Church in “modern” society.

Since you say that they believe in Christ, but not the Church we have a different set of questions and concerns to answer.
You state that they say, "Christ is YES the church is NO. Are they questioning the validity of the Catholic Church or just “churches” in general?
Do they accept the Bible as the true history and testimony of Christ?
These would be critical questions to answer before we can adequately define the Church’s role in their lives.

Peace
James

 

[Tomster]

A dogma, in the technical use of the word, is a truth revealed by God, and proposed as such by the magisterium of the Church to the faithful, with the obligation of believing it. Thus understood, a dogma is a divine truth and, therefore, immutable.

According to Catholic doctrine, a dogma cannot undergo intrinsic and substantial changes; there is an evolution, however, on the part of the faithful as to understanding and expressing a dogma (extrinsic and subjective evolution). This legitimate progress appears in the history of the dogmatic formulations defined by the Church, as gradually the meaning of the truths, contained in the sources of divine revelation, came to be more profoundly and clearly understood.

 

[MarcoPolo]

for them - Christ is YES the church is NO.

Tell them NO to Church IS NO to Christ.

Ephesians 1:22-23 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

 

[JRKH]

Tell them NO to Church IS NO to Christ.

Ephesians 1:22-23 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Yes. This is the issue that injo needs to get to with these people. If one accepts Christ but rejects the Church there is a serious disconnect somewhere. They have likely fallen for the “All Churches are created equal” and “All Churches are Flawed” line of error.
It is important that they understand and accept Jesus own words as recorded in the Bible and then injo can lead them into the Church through the door of the Gospel and Jesus presenting His Authority to the Church. ONce they understand how that relationship works they will be able to better understand the reasons for Churh’s teachings on the questions in the OP.

Peace
James

 

[injo]

Dear Friends,
Once again, thanks alot of your contributions to this problem.
I have been talked to/with them and shared your ideas and the teaching our Catholic church regarding the problem that thay have been facing for along time. However, I see that they still doubt about what the validity of the magisterium…Does it really what Jesus wanted, to wrap up His message of Love, forgiveness, peace, and salvation in the form of Dogma? Does Bible not concrete enough, so we need another “form of Bible (Magisterium)”?

I have been trying mybest to explain to them but It seems that we need more time and patient to deal with them…so, at this moment, I think that what we could do is to live and give testimony the presence of God - Jesus with our way of life…

so, once again, do you have some ideas?

injo

 

[JRKH]

Dear Friends,
Once again, thanks alot of your contributions to this problem.
I have been talked to/with them and shared your ideas and the teaching our Catholic church regarding the problem that thay have been facing for along time. However, I see that they still doubt about what the validity of the magisterium…**Does it really what Jesus wanted, to wrap up His message of Love, forgiveness, peace, and salvation in the form of Dogma? Does Bible not concrete enough, so we need another “form of Bible (Magisterium)”? **

I have been trying mybest to explain to them but It seems that we need more time and patient to deal with them…so, at this moment, I think that what we could do is to live and give testimony the presence of God - Jesus with our way of life…

so, once again, do you have some ideas?

injo

Thanks for the update. Your friends definately have a disconnect when they think of the “Magesterium” as “another form of Bible”.
Do they realize that it is the magisterium that is responsible for our having The Bible? That during the first 400 years or so of Christianity there was not Bible, only the Magisterium?

It is obvious that your firends see the Church as “just a bunch of rules” that get in the way of, rather than lead one into, a relationship with Christ. I too felt that way for a long time. I thought none of the Churches had gotten it right and so I went my own way. Funny thing is I wound up so far from Jesus’ “message of Love, forgiveness, peace, and salvation” that I could bearly find my way back.

As to the specific question of the Bible and Church Authority, my take with this is usually to try and get people talking about how the Bible came to be, who assembled it, defended it, copied it, translated it, taught it for over 1000 years before the idea of Sola Scriptura ever came up. The Catholic Church did.

If one truly believes in the Bible and what Jesus says, it should lead them right back to the Catholic Church. Here are some Bible passages that might help.

Christ’s instruction of what to do about a brother who “sins” against us (Teaching false doctrine would definately be a sin):

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Seems pretty obvious that Jesus intended we have an "Authoritative Church to me and not some loose association of believers based on a “Book”

So how does Christ define His Church?

Matthew 16: 18-19
18 **"I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My Church **(Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Even a casual reading of this passage shows that Simon (Peter) is named Rock and upon this Rock Jesus institutes His Church with Authority to Bind and loose. Bind and Loose What? Bind and Loose “Whatever”. This is a Pretty Broad latitude.
But then this begs the question, of Jesus Authority to grant this power.

Matthew 28: 18-20
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

So JESUS SAYS YES to, “do we need a Church” and he gives it his own authority to Bind and loose “Whatever”.

As for an example of this authority we need look no further than the Book of “Acts 15:1-21”. Here, a dispute in teaching by some in Antioch, could not be resolved among “The Bretheren” (see step 2 in the “tell it to the Church” quote.) so it was taken where - To the Church.

So we see from the above, that the Bible supports the Church, and is not sepreate from it. Christ is IN His Church and not seperate from it.
Based upon this information, perhaps you could ask your friends to demonstrate in some way that Jesus intended for His Living Authoritative Church to be supplanted by a Book.

Peace
James

 

[puzzleannie]

why the church discriminates women from the church (the question of why the church does not ordain women as priests),

it is Jesus himself who chose to ordain only men, if that is an issue for someone they have to be ready to challenge the authority of Jesus himself and claim themselves to be better and wiser than he.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dear Friends,
Once again, thanks alot of your contributions to this problem.
I have been talked to/with them and shared your ideas and the teaching our Catholic church regarding the problem that thay have been facing for along time. However, I see that they still doubt about what the validity of the magisterium…Does it really what Jesus wanted, to wrap up His message of Love, forgiveness, peace, and salvation in the form of Dogma? Does Bible not concrete enough, so we need another “form of Bible (Magisterium)”?

I have been trying mybest to explain to them but It seems that we need more time and patient to deal with them…so, at this moment, I think that what we could do is to live and give testimony the presence of God - Jesus with our way of life…

so, once again, do you have some ideas?

injo

injo-

Try this article for starters, and let me know if you need more assistance:

Scripture and Tradition
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

 

[wisdomseeker]

Dear friends,
thank you so much for your responds to these questions. those questions were addressed by a catholic family that has gone further to their intellectual life - they do not practice catholic’ faith anymore. for them - Christ is YES the church is NO.

we will face these questions all around us. yes, these questions does not beg opinions but as you have said the grace of God…but you know our people has become more critical even toward the existence of God how much more to the church? it is sure that there are questions that might be posted…

thru this forum, i think that, it is good for us to address questions similar to this to know the reality of our faith from different positions…from that i think that we will become more catholics…because our faith is being challenged…" I am a true catholic?" I mean we will have faith by CONSCIENCE not by tradition of our parents…not because my parents catholics so am I…

once again, thanks so much to you.

injo

the way i see is that Catholics are in great dangerous of loosing their faith. there are to many temptations out there, too many voices, too many opinions, too many different religions attacking the Catholic faith. if one is not well informed about the Church, one is much likely to question their faith due to so many oppositions.

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…
Who has the authority?..

 

[anon5216]

…
Do they realize that it is the magisterium that is responsible for our having The Bible? That during the first 400 years or so of Christianity there was not Bible, only the Magisterium?
…
James

This itself could very well give them cause to doubt.

It can be seen simply as a group of fallible humans getting together 400 years after the fact and deciding what versions of which texts will now be defined as sacred scripture - of course chosen in such a way as to solidify the religious structure this group of fallible humans has created over the centuries.

 

[JRKH]

This itself could very well give them cause to doubt.

It can be seen simply as a group of fallible humans getting together 400 years after the fact and deciding what versions of which texts will now be defined as sacred scripture - of course chosen in such a way as to solidify the religious structure this group of fallible humans has created over the centuries.

What you say here could be seen as true, but in the case of the OP, the people are comparing “The Bible” to “The Church” and basically saying Bible=right and Church=wrong. This is a flawed premise.
Your question is more clearly posed but we must accept from it that if one questions the validity of the process in assembling the Bible it follows that one must question the validity of the product of that process. In the case of the OP, The Bible they are accepting was put together by The Church which they are not accepting. So if the Church that assembled “these texts” could be wrong, how can we accept any of "these texts’ as correct?

You are quite right also in saying that such a group of fallible men would naturally choose texts to solidify the structure of the group. Yet we see that Protestants, in accepting SS, point to the Bible and say the Catholic Church acts contrary to what the Bible says. This doesn’t sound like right either.

The point that I was making in my earlier post is that, when one looks at the Bible, one is looking at a product of the Catholic Church and this is the context that it needs to be viewed in. They are not two seperate and distinct entitiies.
As a matter of fact I would ask any SS adherant to clearly demonstrate from the writings of the Church between say 400 and 1200 AD that the Bible was ever intended to be the sole rule of faith, that when it was put together that it was ever intended to trump the authority of Christ’s Authoritative Church.

Your profile says, “former catholic” so I don’t know what faith system you hold to. May I ask you if you accept the Bible as compiled, as it stands today?

Peace
James

 

[anon5216]

What you say here could be seen as true, but in the case of the OP, the people are comparing “The Bible” to “The Church” and basically saying Bible=right and Church=wrong. This is a flawed premise.
Your question is more clearly posed but we must accept from it that if one questions the validity of the process in assembling the Bible it follows that one must question the validity of the product of that process. In the case of the OP, The Bible they are accepting was put together by The Church which they are not accepting. So if the Church that assembled “these texts” could be wrong, how can we accept any of "these texts’ as correct?

You are quite right also in saying that such a group of fallible men would naturally choose texts to solidify the structure of the group. Yet we see that Protestants, in accepting SS, point to the Bible and say the Catholic Church acts contrary to what the Bible says. This doesn’t sound like right either.

The point that I was making in my earlier post is that, when one looks at the Bible, one is looking at a product of the Catholic Church and this is the context that it needs to be viewed in. They are not two seperate and distinct entitiies.
As a matter of fact I would ask any SS adherant to clearly demonstrate from the writings of the Church between say 400 and 1200 AD that the Bible was ever intended to be the sole rule of faith, that when it was put together that it was ever intended to trump the authority of Christ’s Authoritative Church.

Your profile says, “former catholic” so I don’t know what faith system you hold to. May I ask you if you accept the Bible as compiled, as it stands today?

Peace
James

I see what you’re saying regarding the OP.
If they accept the Bible as scripture, they’d have to have some fairly convoluted arguments claiming that God saw to it that the fallible humans 400 years later came up with the truth in spite of their more human agenda. From that perspective, your last paragraph would hold much more water than the SS perspective. (although I think I have heard people actually claim the ‘in spite of’ line).

To answer your question to me, I’ve been drawn to Indian spirituality in general,
but am not a member of any formal structured organization.

I do not accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.

I see the new testament as human reactions and reminiscences to extraordinary spiritual experiences, but fallible reactions and reminiscences.

I see the old testament as very questionable regarding actual spiritual content.
It seems much more a plagiarized, cobbled together mythology by a minor middle eastern tribe.
(No personal slight on the modern descendants intended.)

 

[JRKH]

To answer your question to me, I’ve been drawn to Indian spirituality in general,
but am not a member of any formal structured organization.

I do not accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.

I see the new testament as human reactions and reminiscences to extraordinary spiritual experiences, but fallible reactions and reminiscences.

I see the old testament as very questionable regarding actual spiritual content.
It seems much more a plagiarized, cobbled together mythology by a minor middle eastern tribe.
(No personal slight on the modern descendants intended.)

Thanks for the clarification.
It might help if you sort of mentioned this in your profile, maybe under “interests” since you are not a part of any specific “organization”. Of course you con’t have to but It just helps others to know where you are coming from.
I took the journey you seem to be on. Actually I never rejected the Bible outright, nor accepted any other text as being perfect. Rather I took the road of trying to determine what was both true and cammon to the various great Religions. What I found is that they all seem to revolve around, as Jesus said, the two Great Commandments. Love of God and Love of fellow man. They also all share some similar practices and techniques, by which I mean that they place high regard on prayer, and contemplation. A seeking after a better and truer relationship with God and with the world. So I found that I didn’t need to toss aside one for another. Instead I found a measure by which to judge the great faith systems and better understand the truly core ideals seen in each. Ultimately I came back to The Church because I see the Truest and Highest ideals expressed through Christ, plus the fulfillment of the Resurection is something I could not deny or ignore.
Please excuse me for rambling and getting off the Topic.

As to the Bible books, I understand your position on the OT, particularly as regards the “History” of the Genesis stories. Newer books, occurring and written after the establishment in the Promised Land would seem more trustworthy. While I do understand your take on the NT books, I give them fair wieght - spiritually - because they were written relaively soon after the events and during the lives of “eyewitnesses”. I don’t say that they are not “stylized”, but, for what they contain, they are remarkably consistant and of very high ideal.

In actual fact, the reasons you state for not accepting the Bible as “inerrant” is precisely why I see Our Lord Founding a Church upon Spirit and not on written word. It is why he entrusted the “Structure” of His Church to “Men” rather than to “text”. He knew that words and books would have to be translated, that literary styles would change from culture to culture and from generation to generation.
He also knew that we would all have different capacities for the inflowing and understanding of the Holy Spirit and thus we would need help in discernment of teaching. Questions have arisen in every generation that needed clarification. It is The Church, and not the Book that have provided the necessary clarity.

Enough rambling. May God guide you on your journey

Pece
James

 

[napad]

A dogma, in the technical use of the word, is a truth revealed by God, and proposed as such by the magisterium of the Church to the faithful, with the obligation of believing it. Thus understood, a dogma is a divine truth and, therefore, immutable.

According to Catholic doctrine, a dogma cannot undergo intrinsic and substantial changes; there is an evolution, however, on the part of the faithful as to understanding and expressing a dogma (extrinsic and subjective evolution). This legitimate progress appears in the history of the dogmatic formulations defined by the Church, as gradually the meaning of the truths, contained in the sources of divine revelation, came to be more profoundly and clearly understood.

Sorry to Jump in like this but the Church knows what it believes there is no evolution. This is just one of my pet peeves

SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS

LAMENTABILI SANE Pius X July 3, 1907
22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.= condemned

1. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and**** evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions ****
   the little germ latent in the Gospel. =condemned

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM St. Pius X
September 1, 1910.

“Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”

 

[napad]

injo Dear all,
one day around the round table, a catholic family asked these questions:
what is the significant of Dogmas for our life,

Dogmas are the guide post to truth and salvation. We don’t always see the practical, i.e. secular function but there are some examples. The philosophy that surrounded the explanation of the Trinity gave us the importance of the human person. Before this the group was the most important thing in philosophy.

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception shows us that life begins at conception, therefore establishing the pro-life stance of the Church.

But more than this it is for our salvation. Without these dogmas we would fall off the path of salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (which is another subject- thread here )

why the church discriminates women from the church (the question of why the church does not ordain women as priests)

,

The above have given good answers to this but there is a theological answer too.

Every sacrament needs matter and form. Matter is usually the material and form usually the words. The matter for receiving the priesthood is: a baptized male. This was established by Christ while he walked the earth and no one can change that.

For example,the Eucharist’s matter is bread, not a cookie, not cake, though they may seem similar. If a priest said the words of consecration over a cookie or cake there would be no miracle of the Eucharist.No one not even the Pope can change the matter.
**plus **
We see from scripture to be careful demanding the priesthood in the Rebelion of Korah: Numbers 16:1-40 link indicates that Korah rebelled against Moses for not being called to be a priest like the Levites, and was punished for his rebellion when the earth opened and swallowed up all those who had rebelled with him, for this reason, that thinking they were worthy to question God’s wisdom of who he chose.

what does it mean the resurrection of the body.

Like I said before some good answers above I would just like to add my two cents ( as usual )
We are both body and soul not souls trapped in the body, therefore the body is good and the soul is good and the human beings nature is good (though fallen on account of original sin).

The point is in practical life Catholics can see material things as good like our bodies and I don’t really understand it but our happiness will not be complete until we are re-united with our resurrected bodies. Thus fulfilling the plan of human beings God had before Adam sinned.
(BTW St. Thomas explained it was Adams sin not Eve’s sin that condemned us to this fallen state. sorry that is another thread too )