From a Moral standpoint

[Thoughtfulone]

My dear friend in Christ;

Have you considered that ANY Faith not worth defendinh; is not worth practicing? There is ONLY One single truth to every issue. When someone who professes to know that truth and then misrepresents it; correction is an act of Charity; when it is done with charity

I disagree completely. If I was interested in say, the Democratic party and I logged onto one of their forum and found the extreme left-wingers hurling insults at the left-centrists and telling them to just get out of the party and stop calling themselves Democrats and the like, I would quickly assess that these people were not the kind, compassionate people I was led to believe they were and leave without signing up or even investigating further. Let’s face it, if the majority of the members of a certain group seem like a bunch of jerks, why would I want to explore being a part of that group? I am just thankful that the Catholics I have met in the real world are nothing like this, even the ones who are very traditional. Often on this site, in their zeal to smack down the truth, people come off as being very unkind and drive a lot of people away.

By the way, PJM, I am not putting you in this category as your responses to me have been very charitable and I do appreciate that

[/QUOTE]

 

[Pondero]

As a Catholic convert for more years than I care to remember,from a position of having difficulty in even believing in God, never mind doctrine, I was looking for something authorative and in the Catholic Church after instruction from an English priest, long dead now - God rest his soul - I found it.

That is why I have difficulty in understanding how so called Cafeteria Catholics can live with themselves. By the grace of God, you accept the Catholic Church teachings or you don’t. There is no two ways about it.

This is a debate which should never have been necessary, it should never have happened.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Hi Mike,

Let’s not forget the need for charity, even with those who manage “to push out hot” buttons. I feel rather sory for the grandma fan.

God Bless,
Pat

We should discuss charity in the context of the tone of posts. It is not my intention to take us off topic but to express my views that why speaking truth with appropriate labels is not uncharitable, not in the least…it is simply the plain truth.

A personal attack is defined as attacking the character or circumstances of a person who is advancing a statement or arugument instead of trying to disprove the truth or soundness of the statement or argument. I don’t attach a label to a person in an ad Hominem manner. I present reasons evidence to refute their arguments and apply appropriate labels if their arguments are outside of Catholic teaching. Example:

In a recent thread we had a quite heated discussion (mostly via PM) because I was accused of judging people because I called people who publicly and persistently dissent from a will known Catholic doctrine as ‘heretics’. I was ‘judged’ by some as being ‘judgmental’ because this term cannot be used… I argue that this term none more that a descriptive noun. People get uncomfortable when labels fly. And people were taken back by my use of heretic because we all have been so well trained by the dominant dislike of such clear but dividing judgments. “Heretic” is a perfectly objective term, describing a particular relation to Christian doctrine, freely chosen, but almost every Christian will hear it as a vulgar term of abuse. I do not.

Below are some examples of what I term plain speak…the speakers may surprise some:

Polycarp himself once met the heretic Marcion walking down the street. Marcion hated the creator-God of the Hebrews, and to get rid of Him had tossed out the Old Testament and much of the New and rewrote the bits he kept. Marcion asked Polycarp, “Do you know me?” and Polycarp answered, “I do know you. You are the firstborn of Satan.”

the apostle John once went to the public bath in Ephesus and found inside a Gnostic teacher named Cerinthus. John ran out crying, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”

Second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy: Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. [2] Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, [3] Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, [4] Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: [5] Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. [6] For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: [7] Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. [8] Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. [9] But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. [10] But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, patience,

Matthew 7:13-21 [13] Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. [14] How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! [15] Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. [16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

[21] Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

On this particular thread there are those that ignore citations that clearly refute their arguments and fall back on ‘charity’ and ‘love’ and their ‘personal consciences’ as reason for dissent from the clear and consistent teachings of the Church. Instead they quote some theologian who might poffer a theory that one doctrine or another of the Church isn’t correct…isn’t really definite…isn’t really binding. Those people are theologians…not the Church. As we all know theologians are subject to error…look at the dissenting priests in Ireland over the introduction of the New Roman Missal or to Germany where many theologians and bishops are attacking the Church’s teachings on celebacy and other issues.

The teachings of the Church are clear…They were clearly laid down by the First Vatican Council…and nothing since then has changed them one iota.

I repeat: Vatican I, Chapter 3, On Faith, paragraph 8…

Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed
which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium

This is final…period…no rebel theologians, dissident priests, heretical organizations, ex-Catholics, dissident-Catholics, public heretics can change this truth.

So I’ll continue to push some buttons by speaking truth.

More later.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Samuel63]

As a Catholic convert for more years than I care to remember,from a position of having difficulty in even believing in God, never mind doctrine, I was looking for something authorative and in the Catholic Church after instruction from an English priest, long dead now - God rest his soul - I found it.

That is why I have difficulty in understanding how so called Cafeteria Catholics can live with themselves. By the grace of God, you accept the Catholic Church teachings or you don’t. There is no two ways about it.

This is a debate which should never have been necessary, it should never have happened.

Nicely put. It is hard to figure out what leads so many astray. Consider what happened after Eve, and Adam too, failed to be obedient. We have this story to guide us and still people decide what is right and wrong for themselves. Go figure!

OK, some were never taught properly. Some are more than a little mischevious. There is a wide spectrum and many in the middle.

They need us to show the way I suppose. Carry on!

 

[Iowa_Mike]

As a Catholic convert for more years than I care to remember,from a position of having difficulty in even believing in God, never mind doctrine, I was looking for something authorative and in the Catholic Church after instruction from an English priest, long dead now - God rest his soul - I found it.

That is why I have difficulty in understanding how so called Cafeteria Catholics can live with themselves. By the grace of God, you accept the Catholic Church teachings or you don’t. There is no two ways about it.

This is a debate which should never have been necessary, it should never have happened.

Well said…converts are often more schooled in the faith than even cradle Catholics.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

.

[/QUOTE]

 

[guanophore]

I know that was long, but if you read it, it becomes clear that the Popes themselves, bishops, theologians and the Magisterium cannot agree on the scope of infallibility regarding the Universal ordinary Magisterium, nor can they even agree upon whether or not certain teachings HAVE or HAVE NOT been previously infallibly defined!

No, T-one. All that becomes clear is that the opinion of this author is that such is the case. This may come as a shock to you, but this author is not protected by the gift of infallibility that Jesus gave to the Church.

Some scholars say that Jesus is not the Sone of God, either, but that does not make it true.

Now, if they are not even clear as to these issues amongst themselves, how on EARTH are all of us Catholics supposed to understand and accept the idea of magisterial infallibility?

They are clear, T-one.

If you wish to be excused from embracing the Teachings of the Church because you found a scholar that doubts Jesus’ promise to guide the Church into “all Truth”, then it is your perogative.

Anyway, you said I could not produce anything supporting what I said about the disagreement within the Church on infallibility and the scope thereof and there it is if you care to read it.

You are right, I did. I was looking for an official Catholic document. However, you are right that it did not occur to me that you might be trying to seek the Truth about the Church from someone outside of it. I will concede the point. Surely you will be able to find any number of dissident Catholics, as well as non-Catholics who will say that the Magesterium does not know what the infallible teachings are.

I will also affirm your preference to rest disobedience to those teachings on the writings of such persons.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, 1 Peter 4:8 says “Love covers over a multitude of sins.”

Yes, but it is not loving to disobey the commandments of the Lord. He said “if you love me, you will keep my commandments”.

Works of mercy are important, but they will not set aside sins. When we come to the gates

Matt 7:21-23

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

 

[guanophore]

Agreed. Too often here though I see a lot of insults being hurled at those Catholics who may have a bit of trouble with Church authority or the infallibility of the UOM. They are called Cafeteria Catholics and heretics and told to stop calling themselves Catholics and worse. I don’t think this is charity.–

,It is against the forum rules to hurl any insults here on CAF. If this happens to you, then you should use the little red exclamation point to the top right of the offending post and report it to the mods. They will take care of it.

Our responses to people such as yourself are not those who “may have a bit of trouble with authority or infallibility”. You came into CAF with guns blazing, insulting the Teachings of the Church, and defending your disobedience to her Teachings. Anyone who demonstrates such hubris in approach is definitely going to get a strong response from well informed and passionate Catholics.

Most 'cafeteria" Catholics are proud of their practices,a nd are not insulted by the term.

I personally don’t care for it because my opinion is that they have become protestants but don’t realize it.

As to being called “heretic”, I have vigorously opposed that practice on every thread where it appears, and will continue to do so. The Church clearly teaches that not everyone who has embraced heresy can be assumed a heretic, and that it is not our place to judge the souls of others.

I disagree completely. If I was interested in say, the Democratic party and I logged onto one of their forum and found the extreme left-wingers hurling insults at the left-centrists and telling them to just get out of the party and stop calling themselves Democrats and the like, I would quickly assess that these people were not the kind, compassionate people I was led to believe they were and leave without signing up or even investigating further.

If you were interested in the Democratic party, it is not likely that you would go to a place where they were engaged in heated debate with detractors of their position.

Instead, you would go to where they gather, work, socialize, and talk about their plans and activities. This is not such an environment.

And if you did make such a conclusion based on such a limited experience, not only would the Dems not want you, but you would probably be of little use to them. People who make such emotional judgements based on limited experiences are bound to have interpersonal problems.

Let’s face it, if the majority of the members of a certain group seem like a bunch of jerks, why would I want to explore being a part of that group?

Who is calling names now?

I don’t think you ever came here to learn how to be an apologist, did you T-one? I don’t think there is much concern that you would not wish to explore the possibility.

I am just thankful that the Catholics I have met in the real world are nothing like this, even the ones who are very traditional. Often on this site, in their zeal to smack down the truth, people come off as being very unkind and drive a lot of people away.

I am glad that you are meeting Catholics in the real world. Virtual reality is no place to make decisions of such import as you describe. For all you know, the majority of people on this site could be role playing, and are nothing like what they represent on the screen.

However, you are in error, the people here wish to uphold the Truth, which is the function of the Church. What we "smack down’ are the errors that resist the truth.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Most 'cafeteria" Catholics are proud of their practices,a nd are not insulted by the term.

This is simply not true. the term is insulting because it’s MEANT to be.

If you were interested in the Democratic party, it is not likely that you would go to a place where they were engaged in heated debate with detractors of their position.

Instead, you would go to where they gather, work, socialize, and talk about their plans and activities. This is not such an environment.

Ahh Guanophore, but this site is not called “Catholic Debate”, it is called “Catholic Answers”. So yes, I absolutely WOULD come to a place like this if I were seeking information concerning the Catholic religion. I would also probably end up in the Moral Theology section if I had any specific questions and guess what? That is where 90% of the nastiness on this site takes place.

I don’t think you ever came here to learn how to be an apologist, did you T-one? I don’t think there is much concern that you would not wish to explore the possibility.

No I didn’t. The site is called “Catholic Answers”…I had some “Catholic Questions”.

By the way, did you ever get a chance to peruse the article I quoted? It made it VERY clear that the scope and breadth of the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is a subject of much controversy, even amongst different Popes. It also makes it clear that even the margisterium itself is unsure as to what it has and has not taught infallibly. And we lay-Catholics are not supposed to have any problems or doubts whatsoever about infallibility? Please! One of the great ironies is also that the idea that the UOM is infallible is not itself an infallible statement…o.k…

 

[Denise1957]

Actually, 1 Peter 4:8 says “Love covers over a multitude of sins.”

Yes, we are called upon to love our neighbor as ourselves, and also to love and pray for our enemies and those who persecute us - not an easy thing to do, of course.

Jesus Himself instituted the sacrament of confession after the Resurrection when He told His Apostles,“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:23).

After the Apostles died, the bishops continued to hand down the power of forgiving sin, for the past two thousand years, through the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Sacred scripture also says…“He that hideth sins, shall not prosper: but he that shall confess, and forsake them, shall obtain mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13).

Also…“For what I have pardoned… I have done in the person of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 2:10)

And lastly…“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all eniquity.” (1 John 1:9)

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Anyway, you said I could not produce anything supporting what I said about the disagreement within the Church on infallibility and the scope thereof and there it is if you care to read it

It’s not difficult to disassemble your arguments.

In the years since the Second Vatican Council, this basic insight regarding the significance of the common teaching of the bishops exercised in their daily ministry has been transformed into a vehicle for addressing controversial matters. A disturbing trend has emerged in which the authoritative status of these disputed teachings has been elevated by appeal to this “third modality” for the exercise of infallibility. There is a real danger that a too far ranging appeal to the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium may foreshorten the necessary discourse of the whole Christian community on questions being posed in significantly new contexts and therefore not susceptible to “definitive” determinations.

What disputed teachings? What new contexts…truth is immutable and it neither changes over time or due to cultural influences. I’m guessing these new contexts and disputed teachings come at the hand of those who are steeped in relativism, pop culture or secularism; they certainly are not the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church. So just because some theologian writes or teaches something that questions a Church teaching is not proof they are in any way correct or that any controversy what-so-ever exists within the Church. There are ‘theolgians’ all over the place that are questioning this or that…contraception, homosexuality, infallibility, priestly celibacy, the new 2011 Roman Missal, even abortion. This kind of dissent has been common throughout the history of the Church…but the official teachings of the Church remain the same.

The CCC is a great source of the official teachings of the Church and therefore, by definition, trumph the musings of dissenting theologians. I think the following CCC references make clear that it is the Pope, lay people and only those bishops in communion with him are the Church: The specific paragraph:

899The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church:

Lay believers are in the front line of Church life; for them the Church is the animating principle of human society. Therefore, they in particular ought to have an ever-clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is to say, the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope, the common Head, and of the bishops in communion with him. They are the Church.

You also claim that there is confusion about infallibility within the Church. This also is false. The views of a theologian is just that his view…but Christ through his Church teaches the authentic faith.

The CCC states the following:

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

For purposes of brevity I didn’t post all of the copious references that disassemble your aruguments. I think these three are sufficient. The CCC is the official teaching of the Catholic Church so the opinions of theologians around the world are just that…opinions.

Keep in mind that I quote sources that are coming from the Church itself…you are touting ideas that are coming from outside the official teachings of the Church and as such they carry little weight.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Denise1957]

Correction to my last post: it should read…sacrament of penance, not sacrament of confession.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

By the way, did you ever get a chance to peruse the article I quoted? It made it VERY clear that the scope and breadth of the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is a subject of much controversy, even amongst different Popes. It also makes it clear that even the margisterium itself is unsure as to what it has and has not taught infallibly. And we lay-Catholics are not supposed to have any problems or doubts whatsoever about infallibility? Please! One of the great ironies is also that the idea that the UOM is infallible is not itself an infallible statement…o.k…

No infallibility is not in ‘much controversy’ within the Catholic Church.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[PJM]

=Iowa Mike;7547383]We should discuss charity in the context of the tone of posts. It is not my intention to take us off topic but to express my views that why speaking truth with appropriate labels is not uncharitable, not in the least…it is simply the plain truth.

A personal attack is defined as attacking the character or circumstances of a person who is advancing a statement or arugument instead of trying to disprove the truth or soundness of the statement or argument. I don’t attach a label to a person in an ad Hominem manner. I present reasons evidence to refute their arguments and apply appropriate labels if their arguments are outside of Catholic teaching. Example:

In a recent thread we had a quite heated discussion (mostly via PM) because I was accused of judging people because I called people who publicly and persistently dissent from a will known Catholic doctrine as ‘heretics’. I was ‘judged’ by some as being ‘judgmental’ because this term cannot be used… I argue that this term none more that a descriptive noun. People get uncomfortable when labels fly. And people were taken back by my use of heretic because we all have been so well trained by the dominant dislike of such clear but dividing judgments. “Heretic” is a perfectly objective term, describing a particular relation to Christian doctrine, freely chosen, but almost every Christian will hear it as a vulgar term of abuse. I do not.

Below are some examples of what I term plain speak…the speakers may surprise some:

On this particular thread there are those that ignore citations that clearly refute their arguments and fall back on ‘charity’ and ‘love’ and their ‘personal consciences’ as reason for dissent from the clear and consistent teachings of the Church. Instead they quote some theologian who might poffer a theory that one doctrine or another of the Church isn’t correct…isn’t really definite…isn’t really binding. Those people are theologians…not the Church. As we all know theologians are subject to error…look at the dissenting priests in Ireland over the introduction of the New Roman Missal or to Germany where many theologians and bishops are attacking the Church’s teachings on celebacy and other issues.

The teachings of the Church are clear…They were clearly laid down by the First Vatican Council…and nothing since then has changed them one iota.

I repeat: Vatican I, Chapter 3, On Faith, paragraph 8…

This is final…period…no rebel theologians, dissident priests, heretical organizations, ex-Catholics, dissident-Catholics, public heretics can change this truth.

So I’ll continue to push some buttons by speaking truth.

More later.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Hi Mike,

I’m not one to candy coat the truth; but I do try to be as chairatble as I can be, knowing that there are many on this site who are actually seeking the truth, an others who think that they DO HAVE the truth, and therefore those comments are to b taken as mis-informed, not a personal attack on us or even our Beleved CC.

“They will know we are Christians by our Love.” Amen!

God bless,
Pat

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Hi Mike,

I’m not one to candy coat the truth; but I do try to be as chairatble as I can be, knowing that there are many on this site who are actually seeking the truth, an others who think that they DO HAVE the truth, and therefore those comments are to b taken as mis-informed, not a personal attack on us or even our Beleved CC.

“They will know we are Christians by our Love.” Amen!

God bless,
Pat

A point on which we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t see that attaching a label to a person based upon their clear actions or words is uncharitable and I believe it brings clarity to on-lookers.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Thoughtfulone]

It’s not difficult to disassemble your arguments.

What disputed teachings? What new contexts…truth is immutable and it neither changes over time or due to cultural influences. I’m guessing these new contexts and disputed teachings come at the hand of those who are steeped in relativism, pop culture or secularism; they certainly are not the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church. So just because some theologian writes or teaches something that questions a Church teaching is not proof they are in any way correct or that any controversy what-so-ever exists within the Church. There are ‘theolgians’ all over the place that are questioning this or that…contraception, homosexuality, infallibility, priestly celibacy, the new 2011 Roman Missal, even abortion. This kind of dissent has been common throughout the history of the Church…but the official teachings of the Church remain the same.

The CCC is a great source of the official teachings of the Church and therefore, by definition, trumph the musings of dissenting theologians. I think the following CCC references make clear that it is the Pope, lay people and only those bishops in communion with him are the Church: The specific paragraph:

You also claim that there is confusion about infallibility within the Church. This also is false. The views of a theologian is just that his view…but Christ through his Church teaches the authentic faith.

The CCC states the following:

For purposes of brevity I didn’t post all of the copious references that disassemble your aruguments. I think these three are sufficient. The CCC is the official teaching of the Catholic Church so the opinions of theologians around the world are just that…opinions.

Keep in mind that I quote sources that are coming from the Church itself…you are touting ideas that are coming from outside the official teachings of the Church and as such they carry little weight.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

If you read the entire article (see the link), you will see that the scope of the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary magisterium has not been explicitly defined, and has in fact changed over the years. Some popes have believed that the scope should be rather narrowly defined, while others feel that the scope should be very broadly defined. Depending on the Pope, the interpretation of the scope of infallibility varies greatly. I am not talking here about “theologians” only, but popes, bishops, etc. writing about what may or may not be included under the umbrella of infallibility. There is no consensus.

On top of that, the magisterium, the Pope, the bishops, etc. cannot even tell us which teachings of the magisterium have ALREADY been taught infallibly. If you ask several bishops for example, if such and such a teaching has been taught infallibly by the UOM, you are likely to get several different answers.

These are facts, not arguments to refute.

 

[Debora123]

Cafeteria Catholics are heretics

What good does it do anyone to call themselves “Catholic” if they are on the road to hell?

It is time for faithful Catholics to speak up and speak out about people who reject doctrines of the faith and spread scandal by claiming to be in communion with the Church…they absolutely are not.

Unfortunately for you, you don’t believe what is required and therefore you are a secular progressive or a relative moralist or a cafeteria Catholic…maybe you are a combination of all three.

Every club has rules and our Church has rules. If you don’t like the rules then quit the club - do us all a favour…

Uhhhh WOW…

Some of the stuff I see around this “Christian” forum never ceases to amaze me…

 

[Iowa_Mike]

If you read the entire article (see the link), you will see that the scope of the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary magisterium has not been explicitly defined, and has in fact changed over the years. Some popes have believed that the scope should be rather narrowly defined, while others feel that the scope should be very broadly defined. Depending on the Pope, the interpretation of the scope of infallibility varies greatly. I am not talking here about “theologians” only, but popes, bishops, etc. writing about what may or may not be included under the umbrella of infallibility. There is no consensus.

On top of that, the magisterium, the Pope, the bishops, etc. cannot even tell us which teachings of the magisterium have ALREADY been taught infallibly. If you ask several bishops for example, if such and such a teaching has been taught infallibly by the UOM, you are likely to get several different answers.

These are facts, not arguments to refute.

What facts! You have utterly failed to respond to the references I’ve provided you. You confuse discussion with teaching and dissent for facts. The ‘facts’ are before you yet you refuse to acknowlege or speak to them. What about the CCC citations I gave you? I’ve heard nothing from you. What about the Vatican I declaration on what Catholics must believe to be Catholic? I’ve heard nothing from you. What later teaching changed the declaration of this doctrinal council?

The sources you have provide thusfar are not Church sources but some theologian(s) who is/are postulating. While I am quoting from Church documents, Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the infallible teachings of the ordinary and universal Magesterium and these supported by the CCC or other authentic Church sources.

Name the infallible teachings of the Magesterium that are in question…what are they? Who says they are in question and why? Name the infallible papal pronouncements that are in question, what are they? What are your sources? There was is and always will be those around who question doctrine but…what how does their opinions match up to the the teachings of the Church? Did any Pope or council move to change the scope of Papal Infallibility?

Your source is entitled to his opinion but he does not speak for the Church. And where his claims diverge from settled Church teaching he is in dissent…so what? It’'s what the Church says that counts.

Why don’t you respond to the citation I gave you that said the Pope, lay people and only the Bishops in communion with him are Church. So some bishop wants to end celibacy…is he in communion with the Pope? Are the priests in Ireland dissenting from the release of the 2011 Roman Missal in communion with the Pope? Are the bishops, priests and lay people who think homosexual relationships are OK in communion with the Church?

These are facts, not arguments to refute.

What you’ve presented here is hardly factual. It is a mixture of your opinion supported by a theologian who seems not to be in communion with the Church.

O…here is the teaching of the Church regarding papal infallibility:

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church” (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding.

If you want a perfect example of a papal ex cathedra teaching check out Pope Paul II’s, Ordinatio Sacerdotolis where he speaks on female ordination as follows:

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.

What do you think this means? Where did Pope John Paul get the authority to make such a declaration?

If you want Scripture references, Apostolic Tradition examples et al…just let me know.

The above is truth brother and the truth never changes.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Thoughtfulone]

What facts! You have utterly failed to respond to the references I’ve provided you. You confuse discussion with teaching and dissent for facts. The ‘facts’ are before you yet you refuse to acknowlege or speak to them. What about the CCC citations I gave you? I’ve heard nothing from you. What about the Vatican I declaration on what Catholics must believe to be Catholic? I’ve heard nothing from you. What later teaching changed the declaration of this doctrinal council?

The sources you have provide thusfar are not Church sources but some theologian(s) who is/are postulating. While I am quoting from Church documents, Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the infallible teachings of the ordinary and universal Magesterium and these supported by the CCC or other authentic Church sources.

Name the infallible teachings of the Magesterium that are in question…what are they? Who says they are in question and why? Name the infallible papal pronouncements that are in question, what are they? What are your sources? There was is and always will be those around who question doctrine but…what how does their opinions match up to the the teachings of the Church? Did any Pope or council move to change the scope of Papal Infallibility?

Your source is entitled to his opinion but he does not speak for the Church. And where his claims diverge from settled Church teaching he is in dissent…so what? It’'s what the Church says that counts.

Why don’t you respond to the citation I gave you that said the Pope, lay people and only the Bishops in communion with him are Church. So some bishop wants to end celibacy…is he in communion with the Pope? Are the priests in Ireland dissenting from the release of the 2011 Roman Missal in communion with the Pope? Are the bishops, priests and lay people who think homosexual relationships are OK in communion with the Church?

What you’ve presented here is hardly factual. It is a mixture of your opinion supported by a theologian who seems not to be in communion with the Church.

O…here is the teaching of the Church regarding papal infallibility:

If you want a perfect example of a papal ex cathedra teaching check out Pope Paul II’s, Ordinatio Sacerdotolis where he speaks on female ordination as follows:

What do you think this means? Where did Pope John Paul get the authority to make such a declaration?

If you want Scripture references, Apostolic Tradition examples et al…just let me know.

The above is truth brother and the truth never changes.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

You didn’t read the article, obviously. The fact that the Catechism says certain things regarding the tradition of the Church and infallibility does not negate the fact that Popes and Bishops have been going back and forth for decades on exactly what the scope of that infallibility is or exactly what has been taught infallibly. I will respond to your Catechism quotes if you wish once you have responded to the article I cited, which offers some very clear facts as to the ambiguity of Magisterial infallibility.