I
- Status
P
PJM
Guest
Dogma’s and doctrines are to be believed, and held as if comming from Christ Himself. Having said this; there are quite a number of teaching by Christ [Matt. 16:15-19], John six supported by Matt. 26, Mk. 14, Lk. 22 and Paul 1st. Cor. 11], [John 20:15-19]and even by some [Matt. 19:17.] denied both within the CC and outside the CC.
So I’m not surprised that Grandma chooses not to accept Church Teachings before Vatican II. Christ CC is 2,000 yars old. In that time every sort of hersey has been flung at Her. But the Faithfull remain Faithfull; fild with Faith, hope and Love.
As to the CC misionarry activities and assisting the Poor. The CC is the LARGEST Benefactor to these people in the World, through private [people in the pews] donations.
The Catholic Church has Missionaries and Missions in countries throughout the world. I know of no other Religious Organization who does more. Have you heard Mother Theresa’s Sisters of Charity fo example.
“LOVE THE SIINNER AND HATE THE SIN!”
**John.3: 36 **“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” This authority by God’s Will rest with the Pope in the Catholic Magisterium. [Matt. 16:15*19; 18:18.]
**Acts.5: 29 **"But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”
And why is this: “Thou shall not kill” remains the Fifth Comandmet. Teaching the World what this means is a primary responsibility of the Pope an Magisterium.
Sir.11: 14 “Good things and bad, life and death, poverty and wealth, come from the Lord.” AL issues relting to BOTH Life and Death are God’s pervue.
**Prov.14: 27 **“The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, that one may avoid the snares of death”
**Catholic Catechism: **
**89 **“There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.”
2370 "Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
**2399 **The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
Not Even the Pope can change Dogma and Doctrines that have been defined. BUT that does not stop some priest, bishops and religious from doing so. GOD WILL JUDGE them.
**Wis.1: 12 **"Do not invite death by the error of your life, nor bring on destruction by the works of your hands;
This issue, at least to now is not defined and remains personal opinion. It is a very complex issue, that charity alone does not fully answer. There is an issue of the Greater Good, and the effects on all Americans to be considered. It certianly reflects in a Positive way; the Churches desire for charity and assisting the less prevledged.
There are those who DO take positions without right understanding. This ought not be the surprise with OVER 1 BILLION members?
**True Catholic do both. **
** So Catholics are to ONLY follow there uninformed conscience?
** That’s a recipe that wil not get anyone into heaven.God Bless you grandma!
K
kozlosap
Guest
No one is opposing the bishops on their ‘opinions’ on immigration, amnesty etc…if it is done in a controlled and legal manner. Every society has the right to control their borders, just look at how the governments of Europe are changing their opinions regarding diversity…and look at Australia too… controlling immigration is not against the teachings of the Church or charity.
This is another immutable teaching of the Church. The Church’s teaching on homosexuality is clear see CCC 2357 which says
There’s no problem reaching out to them for we are called to do so but to approve their relationships…no way
I hope you meant ‘O my goodness’. If one looks at the nuns who have left the habit you will find most have also left the faith. Right now the Vatican is investigating American nuns and not because they lost their habit but precisely because of they failure to adhere
to Catholic teachings. Nuns are bound to follow all the Church teaches in addition to the vows they took. It will be interesting to see what the Vatican finds.
However he gave us all the teachings of the Catholic Church. In an earlier post I quoted the documents of Vatican I on what a Catholic must believe to be Catholic. 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.
Wow! I think I will choose to be a secular/progressive/relative moralist/Cafeteria Catholic along with Grandma Rose, BECAUSE at least we obviously have taken the time, work, education and prayer to form our OWN conscience. It’s quite obvious to me after reading these varied posts that I am not one of the “chosen” so I should give up all of my parish activities and wear the scarlet CC (cafeteria conscience). Maybe reading some Church history and basic theology will do the Real Catholics (RC) some good - no wait, that would involve research and higher end thinking, forget it.
God Bless,
Iowa Mike
I
Iowa_Mike
Guest
Wow yourself. That’s a pretty arrogant answer for somebody who doesn’t seem to understand that a well-formed Catholic conscience is one that is formed in communion with the teachings of the Church. So your bluster is just that…bluster. In fact for all your claims I notice you provide no citations to support you conscience formation assertions…you know why? Because their ain’t any. So it is I that will assist you in your Catholic formation (is that sufficiently arrogant for you?).
I suggest you read Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor. It contains a definitive discussion about conscience in sections 54-64; number 64 particularly speaks to this point. Everyone has a duty to form their conscience. Formation of conscience simply means educating and training it. We do this by learning and taking to heart the objective moral law, as found in Scripture and the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church. This forms conscience in objective moral truth as taught by Christ and his Church.
To be blunt…it is a common misunderstanding that people, like you, believe they can follow their own conscience which really means, “I’ll make it up as I go along”. So suddenly mass attendence becomes optional, contraception is OK, homosexuality is just a form of love, confession is unnecessary and on and on and on.
I also recommend that you look at the citations in the CCC…just for your edification the specific paragraphs are 1776 through 1802.
I’d also ask your comments about the following (I risk repeating myself but then "constant repetition carries conviction [Robert Collier]) so here goes:
Vatican I, Chapter 3, On Faith, paragraph 8 declares:
VI was a doctrinal council and this declaration is a definitive requirement of all Catholics. So you see, you can’t make it up as you go along…
God Bless,
Iowa Mike
G
guanophore
Guest
How so? The Catholic faith is not diminshed by people who are wrong, or by people who don’t embrace the faith. The faith is grown by those who adhere to it, not those who detract.
Yes, I have experienced this myself. But what makes the difference is one’s attitude. If one has the attitude that the Church is wrong, then one begins (and will probably end) in rebellion or ignorance). If a person approaches their difficulty with an attitude of humility (faith seeking understanding), then they will be able to be obedient and receptive to learning and will grow in wisdom.
Amen!
I think if you are honest with yourself T-one, it will be clear that no one here is lambasting anyone because they are having difficulty. People here get lambasted when they come across thinking they know more than the Church does, and dissent without having studied their faith. It is the prideful arrogance that draws the fire. People can have difficulty in a state of humility.
What did Thomas do when He was confronted by the Truth? Did he continue to defend his position, or did he fall to his knees in repentance?
He prayed “help my unbelief!” This is the best example of how we are to approach our “difficulties”.
Indeed.
And it will come much faster when we are on our knees, praying “Lord! Help my unbelief”.
Hogwash.
If people will turn away from the Truth because other people are acting badly it is because they are not that interested in the Truth. That is like saying “well, no wonder no one wanted to become Christian after Judas betrayed the Lord”. Why should Judas’ behavior be of any significance? Truth is not determined by those who depart from it.
Actually, people generally start out turned away from the Truth. It is our natural fallen state. When we come closer to the Truth, we often find ourselves in pain and angst because our natural man is opposed to it. It may seem to some like we are the odor of death:
2 Cor 2:15-16
15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life
For those who are inclined toward Truth, we are a sweet fragrance of Christ, but to those who are perishing, the stench of death.
The Catholic faith is not a “club” T-one, and it is not exclusive. Anyone can exclude themselves, though, but refusing to embrace the doctrines of the faith.
The position of the Church is that those Catholics who reject the teachings of the Church are schismatics, heretics, apostates, and a few other choice words. Yes, they will always have been baptized Catholic, but by their own choices, will fail to be united with the imperishable inheritance that awaits them in heaven.
G
guanophore
Guest
I find this very curious. I have been here for quite some time, and I have never had the impression that anyone here supoorted “slavishly folllowing” anything. Maybe you can show me an example?
Even so, it would not be a good idea to judge the faith from an Apologetics site, since people who come here do so often to attack the faith. Those attacks deserve a vigorous response, so there is much conflict and disagreement here. It would be difficult to find a more contentious environment that is fully Catholic.
Perhaps you will give some examples of these “arcane and outdated expressions” of the Truth?
I think you may be right, Grandma. I think the Catholicism that is practiced by the majority of American Catholics, including the religious and the ordained, is cafeteria catholicism. Personally, I don’t think there is such a thing. I think that cafeteria catholics have actually become Protestants, but don’t know it.
Yes, if that “cooperation” includes refusing the Teaching of the Church. It is quite possible to use one’s own maturity and conscience consistently with the Teachings.
I must have missed that post.
IT is not loving to confirm people in error.
While it is true that I wish the religious had not jettisoned the outer appearance of their inner faith, I certainly don’t think that beheading in is the answer.
G
guanophore
Guest
Maybe you missed the Catholic Living section?
You should not find that kind of material in the Apologetics threads. It would be off topic.
The Spirit of His commandments does not need to be lost by rules. We walk by the Spirit, so that we do not fulfill the desires of the flesh.
If you think you can walk in Jesus’ footsteps while flouting HIs commandments, the such practice would be of little eternal value.
Yes, this is a false dichotomy. There is no authentic practice of the faith that flouts the Apostolic Teaching preserved infallibly in the church by the Holy Spirit.
Only God can judge the heart of a person. However, He taught us that we shall know them by their fruits. If a person disobeys His commandments, the rotten fruit is quite evident.
Yes, it is a great travesty for the church, and for the souls of those who have fallen away from the faith.
Love always embraces Truth, and service is always obedient. There is no need to pit law against love and service. They exist in harmony with one another.
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
I am glad we are in agreement on this point. Where we don’ t seem to agree is that the Apostles taught that receiving the Body and Blood, while denying the Teaching they embody is a mortal sin. It is a lie to present oneself for communion when one denies the doctrines of the faith. It is not an “honest love for Christ”, but a form of dishonesty.
I agree, however, no one here seeks to “exclude” anyone. People who embrace heresies and defend disobedience exclude themselves. All we are doing is noticing that this has occurred.
Questions and doubts do not separate on from the Church unless they are conceived and fostered with an attitude of rebellion.
True, but this is no different than any other kind of sinful thought. If I am attracted to someone, I may not be able to help the lustful thought that pops in my head, but I do have a choice about how I respond to it.
If I choose to encourage the thought, and excuse myself on the basis that “I can’t help thinking it”, then I have not taking responsibility for my evil inclination and sought the grace to cope with it.
It may only have been recently introduced to you, T-one, but the Church has enjoyed this gift since Jesus established it. Infallibility was exercised in the successon of Judas, even before Pentecost. The book of Acts makes it quite clear how infallible decisions are made. The fact that it was dogmatized recently only means that a declaration had to me made to combat heresies, such as the one you posted here.
I think you will not be able to produce any support for this statement, either, as it is also a falsehood.
You may choose to believe it to excuse yourself from obedience to the church, but it does not change the facts.
I dont wonder about it at all. I see Catholics disobey the Apostolic Teachings because it serves their interests to do so. Human beings are, by nature, fallen creatures whose interests are geared to self serving.
G
guanophore
Guest
LOL. It really does boil down to the issue of authority. Americans, especially, resist authority. Our whole country was founded on rebellion against authority. It is sort of a civil ineheritance.
He said “put your hand into my side, and beleive!” That is all you are being asked to do, make an act of faith. Put your hand into the hand of the Holy Bride of Christ, and believe! Believe that He has kept His promises not to leave the Church orphaned, that the HS has led the Church into “all Truth”, just as He said.
It is true that those who refuse to put their hand into the side of the Church and believe do make the Church look bad. It gives a public scandal, especially in an environment such as CAF, where people are coming for Catholic answers. If one wishes to reject the teaching of the Church, at least on can do so privately, so as to avoid bringing condemnation upon the Church by outsiders.
That is just it, T-one, it is not “honestly questioning”. An honest response is one that believes Jesus’ promises are fulfilled as He said. An honest question is one where one does not lie with ones body by receiving the Eucharist while in a state of rebellion. An honest question is faith, seeking understanding.
If you are turned off by the bad behavior of some, you don’t belong in a Catholic Church. If you put your hand to the plough, and look back, you are not worthy.
Besides, it is preposterous to say that one will discard the Truth because an third person behaves badly. It is like saying “I can’t believe in Jesus because Judas betrayed Him”. It makes no logical sense whatsoever.
If a person is more concerned about getting warm fuzzies from other people, then such a person is not really ready to give their lives to God, in the Catholic Church, or anywhere else.
People tend to see according to their own perceptions (lenses, or “glasses” if you will). what you see really says more about you than it does anything else.
It is also a fact that we tend to project onto others what is true about ourselves but that we don’t want to see. That is why Jesus said we need to remove the log from our own eye before attending to the speck in others. So, if we take your statements as a commentary on your lenses, we would (and do) read your statement as “I am a bitter, self-righteous, condescending drivel”.
You are so right, there are a number of very skilled apologists in this thread.
However, all we are trying to keep in check are misperceptions about the Catholic faith. People who are misled are not “riff raff” but in need of catechesis. CAF is here to address such persons. If they did not come here, then we would have nothing to say.
And yet, there are people here, such as yourself, who are posting “drivel” (errors, calumny, and outright lies) about the Catholic faith. When this happens, it is our duty to defend the faith.
No, He said if you do not believe, you are CONDEMNED ALREADY!
If this is what you feel you are called to do, T-One, then it would be most prudent for you to find a door to door ministry in your area where you can go and reach out to the lost. Or perhaps street ministry, or prison ministry. Get out of that locked room, stop criticizing the “idiots” you are seeing here on CAF, and fuflill your vocation before God.
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
The Scope of the Object of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium
The relatively new category of church teaching considered in Ad tuendam fidem, definitive doctrine, yields a host of difficulties.(28) It is noteworthy that many of the recent claims made regarding the infallible exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium (e.g., the teaching on the ordination of women in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, and the intrinsically evil character of homosexual acts included in the Professio fidei for Nugent) are concerned not with dogma but definitive doctrine. The expansion of such claims has been facilitated, in the minds of many, by a subtle re-interpretation of the scope of the category of definitive doctrine.
According to Jean-Francois Chiron, explicit claims to the exercise of the charism of infallibility with respect to non-revealed truths can be traced back to the 17th-century Jansenist controversy in which the magisterium was presumed to be teaching infallibly, not only in its condemnation of the five heretical propositions held to be present in Cornelius Jansen’s Au-gustinus, but also in its determination that these affirmations were, in fact, present in the work. While the judgment of heresy clearly concerned divine revelation, the judgment of fact did not.(29)
The possibility of the exercise of infallibility with respect to non-revealed truths was affirmed in the 18th- and early-19th-century seminary manuals. After Vatican I, the explicit distinction between two objects of infallibility, the primary object corresponding to revealed truths and a secondary object corresponding to non-revealed truths, became common in the manuals. In some cases, the second category was defined quite narrowly as those facts necessary to defend revelation, and, in other instances, defined quite broadly as facts merely “connected” to revelation.(30) Vatican I did not address the matter explicitly in its two constitutions. However, Pastor aeter-nus, the decree on papal infallibility, stated that the pope defines “a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held (tenendam) by the whole church.”(31) The use of tenenda rather than credenda suggests that the pope might teach infallibly on a matter not itself divinely revealed and therefore a matter not to be “believed” but “held.” Bishop Gasser, in his relatio offered to the council, made explicit mention of the possibility of the Church’s infallibility extending to non-revealed truths, but presents these as truths taught infallibly only to the extent that they are necessary to safeguard divine revelation.(32) Even so, both Gasser and the manualists after Vatican I were in agreement that the position that infallibility extended to non-revealed truths was not itself revealed but merely “theologically certain.” (33)
While Vatican II does not treat this topic explicitly, Lumen gentium states that the exercise of infallibility “extends just as far as the deposit of divine revelation that is to be guarded as sacred and faithfully expounded” (no. 25). The stress is clearly placed on divine revelation itself, as the extension of the object of infallibility is justified strictly in terms of safeguarding of revelation.(34) The council’s Theological Commission took up this question explicitly, opting for a narrow scope for the secondary object, which it described as those teachings “required in order that the same deposit may be religiously safeguarded and faithfully expounded.”(35) This interpretation was followed in 1973 in Mysterium ecclesiae, a pronouncement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.(36) It is this narrow interpretation that, in substance, finds its way into the new clause that John Paul II had inserted into the Code of Canon Laws as canon 750§2: “… each and every proposition required for the sacred preservation and faithful explanation of the same deposit of faith must be firmly embraced and maintained.”(37)
Against the restrictive interpretation of the secondary object of infallibility evident in Vatican I and II and enshrined in the canonical insertion promulgated in Ad tuendam fidem, an earlier passage in the apostolic letter, and an assertion in the Ratzinger/Bertone commentary, broaden the scope considerably beyond “matters required for the sacred preservation and faithful explanation of the same deposit of faith” to include teachings which are connected to divine revelation by “logical” or “historical necessity.” This more ambiguous formulation had already emerged in earlier documents under John Paul II’s pontificate, most notably in the “Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian.”(38) These more recent formulations signal a return to a broader interpretation of the scope of the secondary object, for there are many teachings which might have a historical or logical connection to revelation but which are not, strictly speaking, necessary for safeguarding revelation. This shift to a broad interpretation s unfortunate. How does one go about distinguishing teachings “logically connected” to divine revelation from those proposed as authoritative doctrine? In fact, is there not a danger of collapsing the third category of church teaching, authoritative doctrine, into this second category by way of convoluted demonstrations of logical or historical necessity? As Chiron observed in his careful study of the treatment of the extension of the object of infallibility in the tradition, “it has always been a question, on the part of the most qualified authors and of the councils, of protecting revelation itself, and not of enlarging, more or less surreptitiously, the field of infallibility.” (39)
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
The Problem of Verification
Timothy Zapelena, in a dogmatic manual whose first edition was published decades before Vatican II, warned of the difficulties involved in verifying the consensus of bishops in the teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium.(42) Today it is commonly recognized that one of the vexing features of the exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium arises because no clearly defining act is involved. This creates serious difficulties for verifying that a given teaching has, in fact, been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium. The difficulties in this process of verification become even greater when one recognizes that the sought after episcopal consensus, past and present, cannot simply be a matter of tacit episcopal agreement on a particular teaching. Lumen gentium holds that the bishops must be in agreement that “a particular teaching is to be held definitively (tamquam definitive tenendam}” (no. 25). This final clause suggests that there must be not only agreement among the bishops but an agreement that such a teaching is to be proposed irrevocabiliter.(43) One cannot exclude the possibility that the bishops might agree upon a given teaching but hold that it was, to use the language of the theological notes, only “theologically probable” and not a matter “to be held as definitive.” How then, apart from explicit consultation of the bishops, is the note they assign to a teaching to be ascertained? Sullivan suggests that “it is possible that some ordinary papal teaching, while not openly contradicted, might be given a rather passive reception or might even be qualified by a significant number of bishops.”(44) Indeed, have there not been significant moments in church history when a bishop or bishops may have lacked the requisite experience or knowledge to give a teaching any more than this kind of passive acceptance? (45)
More serious are the difficulties raised by the possibility of a consensus virtually coerced by papal directive. One can admit that the Vatican prohibition of free discussion among the bishops on a particular topic might be prudent in certain circumstances. However, when such a prohibition has been imposed, any subsequent claims to episcopal unanimity on that topic will inevitably be compromised as such unanimity will appear as little more than episcopal acquiescence to a Vatican directive.
Beyond the question of directly discerning episcopal consensus, Sullivan has also proposed two other criteria for discerning whether a teaching has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium: the consensus of theologians, and the consensus fidelium. He finds his first criterion in Pius IX’s Tuas libenter, where the pope affirmed that an act of faith was due as well to those teachings proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium and “therefore are held by the universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith.” Sullivan writes: “In this final clause, Pius IX is clearly proposing a criterion by which one can identify doctrines that have been taught by the ordinary universal magisterium as divinely revealed: there will be a universal and constant consensus among Catholic theologians that such doctrines are de fide.”(46) Sullivan further emphasizes that such consensus must be constant. “This suggests that the kind of consensus by which we can conclude that a doctrine has been infallibly taught must be one that perseveres and remains firm.”(47) He offers two examples: polygenism and artificial contraception. For a time it was possible to recognize a theological consensus on the Church’s condemnation of polygenism, particularly in the years between Vatican I and Humani generis, but that consensus did not “persevere” among theologians after Vatican II. In like manner, a long-standing consensus regarding the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception was shattered in the years after Humanae vitae. In each case, an apparent unanimity dissolved in the face of significant new developments or new interpretive frameworks. I would extend this judgment to include both the teaching on the ordination of women and the moral character of homosexual acts; both have been the subject of considerable theological reflection drawing on new interpretive contexts. Consequently, it would seem difficult to judge any purported consensus regarding these two teachings as one which “perseveres and remains firm.”
The second criterion Sullivan offers is suggested by canon 750 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This canon refers to those teachings that are to be believed by “divine and catholic faith,” whether proposed by a solemn definition or taught by the ordinary universal magisterium “which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium.” In this clause, an addition to canon 1323§1 of the previous Code of Canon Law, one finds a rare reference to the ecclesio-logical notion of “reception of church teaching” by the faithful.(48) As Sullivan suggests, the common adherence of the faithful is another way of verifying that a teaching has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary universal magisterium.
Timothy Zapelena, in a dogmatic manual whose first edition was published decades before Vatican II, warned of the difficulties involved in verifying the consensus of bishops in the teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium.(42) Today it is commonly recognized that one of the vexing features of the exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium arises because no clearly defining act is involved. This creates serious difficulties for verifying that a given teaching has, in fact, been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium. The difficulties in this process of verification become even greater when one recognizes that the sought after episcopal consensus, past and present, cannot simply be a matter of tacit episcopal agreement on a particular teaching. Lumen gentium holds that the bishops must be in agreement that “a particular teaching is to be held definitively (tamquam definitive tenendam}” (no. 25). This final clause suggests that there must be not only agreement among the bishops but an agreement that such a teaching is to be proposed irrevocabiliter.(43) One cannot exclude the possibility that the bishops might agree upon a given teaching but hold that it was, to use the language of the theological notes, only “theologically probable” and not a matter “to be held as definitive.” How then, apart from explicit consultation of the bishops, is the note they assign to a teaching to be ascertained? Sullivan suggests that “it is possible that some ordinary papal teaching, while not openly contradicted, might be given a rather passive reception or might even be qualified by a significant number of bishops.”(44) Indeed, have there not been significant moments in church history when a bishop or bishops may have lacked the requisite experience or knowledge to give a teaching any more than this kind of passive acceptance? (45)
More serious are the difficulties raised by the possibility of a consensus virtually coerced by papal directive. One can admit that the Vatican prohibition of free discussion among the bishops on a particular topic might be prudent in certain circumstances. However, when such a prohibition has been imposed, any subsequent claims to episcopal unanimity on that topic will inevitably be compromised as such unanimity will appear as little more than episcopal acquiescence to a Vatican directive.
Beyond the question of directly discerning episcopal consensus, Sullivan has also proposed two other criteria for discerning whether a teaching has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium: the consensus of theologians, and the consensus fidelium. He finds his first criterion in Pius IX’s Tuas libenter, where the pope affirmed that an act of faith was due as well to those teachings proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium and “therefore are held by the universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith.” Sullivan writes: “In this final clause, Pius IX is clearly proposing a criterion by which one can identify doctrines that have been taught by the ordinary universal magisterium as divinely revealed: there will be a universal and constant consensus among Catholic theologians that such doctrines are de fide.”(46) Sullivan further emphasizes that such consensus must be constant. “This suggests that the kind of consensus by which we can conclude that a doctrine has been infallibly taught must be one that perseveres and remains firm.”(47) He offers two examples: polygenism and artificial contraception. For a time it was possible to recognize a theological consensus on the Church’s condemnation of polygenism, particularly in the years between Vatican I and Humani generis, but that consensus did not “persevere” among theologians after Vatican II. In like manner, a long-standing consensus regarding the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception was shattered in the years after Humanae vitae. In each case, an apparent unanimity dissolved in the face of significant new developments or new interpretive frameworks. I would extend this judgment to include both the teaching on the ordination of women and the moral character of homosexual acts; both have been the subject of considerable theological reflection drawing on new interpretive contexts. Consequently, it would seem difficult to judge any purported consensus regarding these two teachings as one which “perseveres and remains firm.”
The second criterion Sullivan offers is suggested by canon 750 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This canon refers to those teachings that are to be believed by “divine and catholic faith,” whether proposed by a solemn definition or taught by the ordinary universal magisterium “which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium.” In this clause, an addition to canon 1323§1 of the previous Code of Canon Law, one finds a rare reference to the ecclesio-logical notion of “reception of church teaching” by the faithful.(48) As Sullivan suggests, the common adherence of the faithful is another way of verifying that a teaching has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary universal magisterium.
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
In the early Church it was commonly held that when the bishops proclaimed the apostolic kerygma, they did so in confidence that they were united with their brother bishops in the proclamation of the one faith in Jesus Christ. This daily preaching and teaching was the “ordinary” mode by which bishops exercised their authority as preachers and teachers. Only when a proximate threat was raised against the received faith was it deemed necessary to “define” the faith in a more solemn fashion, initially by way of councils, and eventually by way of solemn papal judgments as well. 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. Claims to the exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium have changed in significant ways. It is only in recovering the more ancient ecclesiological vision of the universal consensus of the churches and their bishops that the problematic features of this shift can be overcome.
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zJmATOsVJFEJ:www.ministryforwomen.org/teaching/gaillard.asp+ordinary+universal+magisterium+infallibility&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
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!
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?
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.
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zJmATOsVJFEJ:www.ministryforwomen.org/teaching/gaillard.asp+ordinary+universal+magisterium+infallibility&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
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!
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?
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.
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
In the early Church it was commonly held that when the bishops proclaimed the apostolic kerygma, they did so in confidence that they were united with their brother bishops in the proclamation of the one faith in Jesus Christ. This daily preaching and teaching was the “ordinary” mode by which bishops exercised their authority as preachers and teachers. Only when a proximate threat was raised against the received faith was it deemed necessary to “define” the faith in a more solemn fashion, initially by way of councils, and eventually by way of solemn papal judgments as well. 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. Claims to the exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium have changed in significant ways. It is only in recovering the more ancient ecclesiological vision of the universal consensus of the churches and their bishops that the problematic features of this shift can be overcome.
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zJmATOsVJFEJ:www.ministryforwomen.org/teaching/gaillard.asp+ordinary+universal+magisterium+infallibility&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
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!
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?
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
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zJmATOsVJFEJ:www.ministryforwomen.org/teaching/gaillard.asp+ordinary+universal+magisterium+infallibility&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
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!
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?
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
K
kozlosap
Guest
When you stand before the Lord, you are there alone with your fully formed conscience, not you and your list of “RULES” taped to your lapel. If you do not take the time and effort to study, research and pray about what you believe to be a true sin or not, then you have checked your God given brain at the door and picked up a box of crayons. Have you read what Aquanis writes about the conscience. Might be a good place to begin. Obviously the Church does not discriminate against educated people who question - if they did, the Church would not exist as it does today. If those who want an “exclusive” club were to prevail - they would drive 90% of parishioners in the Western World away, and YES, the most prominate disagreement normally involves the use of birth control being a sin.
Thank goodness parish life is joyful and giving with our huge parish feeding the homeless 4 times a month, etc. I don’t think I’ve ever heard our group of workers try to claim that those who don’t completely agree with the Church’s teachings on private sexual matters be not called “Catholic” -they would laugh and get on with helping those in need.
Thank goodness parish life is joyful and giving with our huge parish feeding the homeless 4 times a month, etc. I don’t think I’ve ever heard our group of workers try to claim that those who don’t completely agree with the Church’s teachings on private sexual matters be not called “Catholic” -they would laugh and get on with helping those in need.
D
Denise1957
Guest
I don’t think that the Chruch herself refers to her teachings as “rules,” exactly. The Church has a perfect understanding of human nature, and as such, forms her teachings accordingly, in concert with sacred scripture and tradition.When you stand before the Lord, you are there alone with your fully formed conscience, not you and your list of “RULES” taped to your lapel. If you do not take the time and effort to study, research and pray about what you believe to be a true sin or not, then you have checked your God given brain at the door and picked up a box of crayons. Have you read what Aquanis writes about the conscience. Might be a good place to begin. Obviously the Church does not discriminate against educated people who question - if they did, the Church would not exist as it does today. If those who want an “exclusive” club were to prevail - they would drive 90% of parishioners in the Western World away, and YES, the most prominate disagreement normally involves the use of birth control being a sin.
Thank goodness parish life is joyful and giving with our huge parish feeding the homeless 4 times a month, etc. I don’t think I’ve ever heard our group of workers try to claim that those who don’t completely agree with the Church’s teachings on private sexual matters be not called “Catholic” -they would laugh and get on with helping those in need.
There are good and sound reasons why the Church teaches what she does regarding the forbidding of artificial contraception. It should also be remembered that we were formed by God, and we belong to Him. We cannot, as Catholics, do whatever we want with our bodies, regardless of what our conscience may tell us (if our conscience tells us that it’s alright to do something sinful). And yet, if we do sin, we have the consolation of reconcilation through confession and the absolution of sin. There’s a great joy in this.
I think it’s wonderful that your parish feeds the homeless, which is something that has been a bit lost in the Church today. I myself would like to get involved in helping to feed the hungry, but our parish doesn’t offer this at this time. Helping the poor and hungry is a great thing, but it cannot atone for sin.
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
Actually, 1 Peter 4:8 says “Love covers over a multitude of sins.”
P
PJM
Guest
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
P
PJM
Guest
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.
[Iwoa Mike:
My friend, because it is FACT that there can be and is only a single Truth per issue; AND ALL TRUTH TOUCHING MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS, with God’s personal guarentee are found ONLY in His Catholic Church. [John 17: 14-19] “I [Jesus] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.** And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.”** AND John John 14: 15-17 has the Holy Spirit “forever” in the midst of th CC. No other church can support such a claim.
There are over ONE BILLION “Catholics” and sadly a GREAT MANY of them neither know there faith, or practice it; but that seems to not deter some from sharring there views. Such is life. That’s the vineyard we toil in.
- Status