From a Moral standpoint

[guanophore]

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.

No, T-one. The article offers opinion. If you consider people’s opinion to be equivalent to the facts, then it is no wonder you are having such difficulty accepting the Teachings of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Canon 749§3 is crucial: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such (Infallibiliter definita nulla intellegitur doctrina nisi id manifeste consti-terit).”

Now, the problem with this Canon is that it refers ONLY to DEFINED doctrines which must be held by all Catholics with the assent of FAITH (not just religious submission of the will and intellect). Unfortunately, most of the teachings of the UOM are what we call NON-DEFINED doctrines, so how are we to know definitively if a teaching has been infallibly defined?

I don’t see why that is such a problem for you, T-One. You already reject the ones that are not considered defined, because you cnnot accept them with submission of will and intellect. What difference would infallibility make?

You seem to be putting forth the premise that, if it were infallible, then you could accept it better. I dont think that is true.

What is it about the 10 commandments that you find “undefined”?

In Pius IX’s Tuas libenter, the pope affirmed that an act of faith was due 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.” So Pope Pius IX seems to be saying that in order to determine that something HAS in fact been taught infallibly by the UOM, it must be held universally by theologians.

No, T-one. Here is a little factoid about hermeneutics that might help. Whenever you are looking at a text and you see the word “therefore”, look and see what it is there for.

In this case, the action of the theologians is predicated upon the previous statement. So, the text is saying that the theologians hold their position BECAUSE of the infallible teaching. It is not their consensus that causes the infalliblity. On the contrary, the constant consent they give results from the infallibilty.

As I’m sure you can see, this poses a problem for teachings such as that on contraception with regards to infallibility, although many maintain that it HAS been infallibly taught.

I can sure see how you are trying to make it pose a problem, so as to justify your position being in dissent.

Lumen gentium holds that the bishops must be in agreement that “a particular teaching is to be held definitively (tamquam definitive tenendam}”. Unfortunately, many bishops are prevented from voicing any dissension from certain teachings whatsoever by papal directives, so how can we ever know when the bishops are in true agreement with such restrictions placed upon them.

Bishops to are heretics or who are teaching ideas contrary to the faith must assuredly be silenced.

Keep in mind that the above restrictions were NOT placed on bishops in the early years of Christianity and free debate and discussion was welcomed when establishing doctrine at synods and ecumenical councils (such as Trent).
[/qutoe]

I think when you study the history of your faith, it will become clear to you that heretical bishops were chasitized and silenced then, just as now. The Church is under no obligation to harbor wolves among the sheep.

 

[guanophore]

Canon 750 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law 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. In other words, the teaching should also be ACCEPTED by at least the majority of Catholics to be considered as having been taught infallibly.

The faithful who are in unity with the faithful Bishops will, of course, assent to the Apostolic faith as it has been handed down and infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing here about any “majority” of anyone. Christ’s faithful may be very small, compared to the “majority”. You are reading into the text.

As you can see from the above information, it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not a non-defined doctrine has been defined infallibly without a definitive pronouncement from the UOM that it has in fact been taught infallibly, but the UOM consistently remains silent on these matters, leaving the Catholic faithful to sit and wonder.

No, T-One. The Catholic faithful have no need to “sit and wonder” whatsoever. The Catholic faithful simply receive the guidance of the Magesterium in these matters. Those who have authority problems rebel, dissent, or at the least, “sit and wonder”.

It is no surprise then that Catholics find the infallibility of the UOM to be a difficult teaching when:
1.) The scope of infallibility cannot be agreed upon even by the Popes themselves
2.) It is nearly impossible to ascertain what non-defined dogmas have been infallibly taught by the UOM since the UOM itself remains silent on these issues and there is no formal process for declaring these teachings as such.

So there you have it: numerous canon laws, several different Papal opinions, encyclicals, etc. ALL affirming the total ambiguity of the infallibility of the teachings of the UOM. I will say it again: If the Church itself does not have a clear understanding of the infallibility of the UOM, how are we Catholics supposed to put our confidence in it?

No, T-one. There is no ambiquity here at all, much less “total” ambiguity. All this seems like an excuse for you to justify your rejection of the church’s teaching on these issues. You needn’t spin so hard to do it. You are in a majority of American Catholics that reject the Teaching of the Church. You can feel confident about that.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thoughtfulone;7552442:

I’m surprised at your lack of understanding. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Pope John Paul II said in his letter…“In order to remove all doubt”. He was confirming and already infallible teaching of the Church via Apostolic Tradition and the constant teaching of the Ordinary and Universal The exact citation is:

Do you not know what a formal declaration is? To explain Pope John Paul II’s letter in itself is not infallible precisely because he is affirming and existing infallible teaching. His letter affirms an already existing infallible teaching an so is an exclamation point. However, had this issue previously not been infallible this declaration would have made it so. It’s amusing that you want to say that the Pope’s teaching isn’t infallible when he is afirming an already infallible teaching by formal declaration. So your assertion that His Holiness Pope Benedict is not in agreement is simply due to your own lack of understanding.

This narrative clearly supports Pope John Paul’s declaration. The below citation adds clarity:

Now to the matter of why I bring up Papal infallibility. I do so because it is linked to Apostolic Tradition (the 1st basis for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) and to the constant teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (the 2nd basis for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis). Pope Benedict completely supported the teaching and Pope John Paul’s letter.

With regard to you other questions on infallibilty…your the one making assertions regarding scope. I have no idea what you are talking about…what teachings is the Church failing to confirm…be explicit.

That’s the real story.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

That’s exactly what I said, that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis merely affirmed a teaching that PJP (and others) believed to be already infallible, and that it was NOT an ex cathedra statement in and of itself. My position is supported by Benedict as I have shown you, but unfortunately, you still seem to be under the impression that it would have been an ex cathedra statement otherwise, which is simply not true. You originally cited it as an example of an ex cathedra statement, which it is not, so you are the one who is confused.

How can I be more specific about the scope of the infallibility of the UOM? I have already explained (rather exhaustively) how the two objects of infallibility work, the first object being anything regarding faith and morals which has been divinely revealed. The second object of infallibility is where there is disagreement among various Popes and others as to scope (this object curiously not mentioned in the CCC, although it is a well-known concept). If you look at my previous post where I basically summarized the article for you, it is carefully explained.
The magisterium has failed to convene in order to confirm ANY of the most controversial teachings by the UOM (a.k.a. non-doctrinal teachings) as being infallible, let alone any other teachings, although teachings that are readily accepted by the majority of Catholics do not necessarily NEED confirmation, as there is no debate about them. Contraception comes to mind. All the magisterium has to do is come out and definitively declare it to be infallibly taught (no, Humanae Vitae doesn’t count, and the Pope is not really the one to confirm such a thing anyway, as that is the domain of the bishops and the magisterium, otherwise the Pope could just come out and declare any number of his pet causes as having been infallibly taught by the magisterium without speaking ex cathedra, and that would be a dangerous trend).

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The faithful who are in unity with the faithful Bishops will, of course, assent to the Apostolic faith as it has been handed down and infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing here about any “majority” of anyone. Christ’s faithful may be very small, compared to the “majority”. You are reading into the text.

No, T-One. The Catholic faithful have no need to “sit and wonder” whatsoever. The Catholic faithful simply receive the guidance of the Magesterium in these matters. Those who have authority problems rebel, dissent, or at the least, “sit and wonder”.

No, T-one. There is no ambiquity here at all, much less “total” ambiguity. All this seems like an excuse for you to justify your rejection of the church’s teaching on these issues. You needn’t spin so hard to do it. You are in a majority of American Catholics that reject the Teaching of the Church. You can feel confident about that.

If the Popes, the heads of the Church, cannot agree on the scope of infallibility, then clearly there is ambiguity Guanophore. You may want to pretend it doesn’t exist, but it is there (unless of course you have more insight into this than PJP and Benedict and Pius IX. Forget about the fact that no-one can agree on what has been taught infallibly and what has not. Nobody wants to even TOUCH that issue.

 

[guanophore]

The magisterium has failed to convene in order to confirm ANY of the most controversial teachings by the UOM (a.k.a. non-doctrinal teachings) as being infallible, let alone any other teachings,

Do you honestly believe that there are teachings that are “non-doctrinal”? Don’t you realize that ALL instruction emanates from doctrine? Your post makes it sound as though you think there are Teachings of the Church that are "other’ than those that relate to faith and morals.

Your tendency to separate your reproductive functions from faith and morals does not equate to the Church doing so.

although teachings that are readily accepted by the majority of Catholics do not necessarily NEED confirmation, as there is no debate about them.

Even the ones that are debated do not need such an act. The Truth exists, even if the majority of people depart from it.

Contraception comes to mind. All the magisterium has to do is come out and definitively declare it to be infallibly taught

Now why would you think such a declaration would matter? Don’ t you thik Catholics ignore or oppose infallible teaching as well?

(no, Humanae Vitae doesn’t count,

This is probably the most telling comments you have made. For a faithful Catholic to state that the pastoral instruction of the successor of Peter “doesn’t count” says volumes about what kind of a state that person is in regarding unity with the successor of Peter, and the flock over which he has been given charge.

and the Pope is not really the one to confirm such a thing anyway, as that is the domain of the bishops and the magisterium, otherwise the Pope could just come out and declare any number of his pet causes as having been infallibly taught by the magisterium without speaking ex cathedra, and that would be a dangerous trend).

You have some very strange ideas about how the faithful are to be instructed by the persons God placed in authority.

 

[guanophore]

If the Popes, the heads of the Church, cannot agree on the scope of infallibility, then clearly there is ambiguity Guanophore. You may want to pretend it doesn’t exist, but it is there (unless of course you have more insight into this than PJP and Benedict and Pius IX. Forget about the fact that no-one can agree on what has been taught infallibly and what has not. Nobody wants to even TOUCH that issue.

It is not a matter of touching it, or not. It is that, even if the Church were to make the infallible or ex-cathedra statements you seem to be seeking, it would have no impact. People who wish to disobey the authority appointed by Christ to shepherd the flock will always find an excuse, even in the face of infallibility.

 

[Dark_Prince]

Everything christianity claims to be truth, are nothing but lies, if you want the truth, this you must read:
www.joyofsatan.org
www.exposingchristianity.com

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Do you honestly believe that there are teachings that are “non-doctrinal”? Don’t you realize that ALL instruction emanates from doctrine? Your post makes it sound as though you think there are Teachings of the Church that are "other’ than those that relate to faith and morals.

The term non-doctrinal refers only to teachings that have not been officially doctrinally defined…would non-dogmatic suit you better?

Your tendency to separate your reproductive functions from faith and morals does not equate to the Church doing so.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

It is not a matter of touching it, or not. It is that, even if the Church were to make the infallible or ex-cathedra statements you seem to be seeking, it would have no impact. People who wish to disobey the authority appointed by Christ to shepherd the flock will always find an excuse, even in the face of infallibility.

Bull. Many people would be forced to accept the teaching and many others would leave the Church in droves. The Church is very aware of this.

 

[guanophore]

The term non-doctrinal refers only to teachings that have not been officially doctrinally defined…would non-dogmatic suit you better?

Yes, thank you. That is much more clear.

This has nothing to do with that, Guanophore. The teaching on contraception is just one example of something the Church refuses to define as infallible.

It is curious that your demands of the Church to meet you desires not being fulfilled is projected onto the Church as a “refusal”. This perspective demonstrates that, rather than coming to the church for instruction and guidance, you expect the Church to conform to how you see your own needs.

But it would be of immense help to some of us to hear from the Church that certain teachings will never change and are absolutely immutable in the eyes of God. Some people don’t need that assurance and some do.

I agree. My point is, if you are unwilling to follow the precepts that have already been so defined, it is not likely that you would do so even if you had this. One that has already rejected the immutable is not likely to appreciate the declaration of other immutable truths.

It would absolutely matter. The reality is that with the teaching on contraception, MANY Catholics do not believe the Church to be correct and will never believe it until they have an infallible teaching in front of them that forces them to confront it and either obey or leave the Church.

Their refusal to accept the Teaching of the Church will not change if there is a declaration. Most Catholics beileve the Church is not correct because assent to the Teachings of the Church would require that they allow God to be Lord of their reproductive and sexual functions, and they want to reserve for themselves the divine perogative over themselves.

The problem is, the Church does NOT want to do this for several reasons:

1.) The Church knows how many people disagree with the teaching on contraception and they know that if they were to hold their feet to the fire on the matter, people would leave the Church in droves (which I know would not bother most of the people here at CAF, but the Church knows that parishes all across the country would shut down and souls possibly lost as a result).

No, T-One. These people have already left the Church through their lack of faith and disobedience. This has already happened in droves. The disobedient acts in themselves excommunicate the individuals committing them.

Besides, the current Holy Father is in favor of a smaller, more pure Church. the Church is not well served by persons calling themselves Catholics that are really Protestants, and don’t know it.

2.) They and the canon lawyers want wiggle room. The fact is that they know declaring that the contraception teaching is infallible is an irrevocable act which would prevent them from going back on it in the future. It is in their best interest to let some people THINK it is infallible and to let others think of it as mere discipline so that if they need to change it in the future, they can.

This is an interesting fantasy. One has to wonder why a canon lawyer would have a “best interest” in such a position.

It is entirely irrelevant, of course, since canon lawyers have nothing to do with defining doctrine, nor are they involved in any way with infallible pronouncements.

Such a concept seems to reflect some paranoia on the part of the accuser…Imaging that a group of people would benefit by something that is withheld from oneself, a group that has no ability to benefit.

3.) It is NOT an infallible teaching and the Church knows it. If it were, the Pope would have made an ex cathedra statement long ago or an ecumenical council would be convened to declare it as such.

Here again is a false conclusion, based upon a false premise.

The conclusion that an ex cathedra statement would have to be made “long ago” because many Catholics disobey the Teaching of the Church is not accurate. The Teaching is clear, and there is no heresy that requires a public proclamation of this kind. It is a simpel case of disobedience. Disobedient Protestants who claim (or even believe) they are Catholic in faith are not the cause for making ex-Cathedral statements.

 

[guanophore]

This is the most important and divisive issue in the Church today and the fact that neither of these things have been done to set the record straight once and for all speaks volumes.

It may seem that way to you because you are personally separated from the Teachings of the Church by your position on these matters, however, there is nothing in the Teachings that is “divisive”. The division comes when those who refuse to accept the Teachings are disobedient, then try to justify their rebellion by finding fault with the Church. The Apostle “speaks volumes” about those who have fallen from the faith.

2 Peter 2:17-3:1

17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm; for them the deepest darkness has been reserved. 18 For they speak bombastic nonsense, and with licentious desires of the flesh they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for people are slaves to whatever masters them. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb,

“The dog turns back to its own vomit,”

and,

“The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.”

**

I didn’t say that it “doesn’t count” in a general sense Guanophore, I stated that it Humanae Vitae was not equivalent to assuring the Catholic public that the teaching on contraception is infallible. **

That does not give the faithful permission to disregard it. That is my point. You are contending that if an ex-cathedra statement were to be made, then the Teaching of the Church would be humbly received as one ought to do. However, it is clear from the fact that many of the “faithful” refuse the Teaching of Humanae Vitae that this is not the case. It is just an excuse to foment rebellion.

Thoughtfulone:

Of course it has value as a pastoral document and should be taken seriously by all Catholics,

I don’t suppose you would like to speculate about why it is not?

but the bottom line is that it is the domain of the bishops of the world in concert with one another to come together and decide the matter once and for all to determine if the teaching rises to the level of infallibility.

No, T-One. It is not the duty of the bishops to cater to your personal needs that the Church conform to your standards. The popes and bishops have been providing authoritive teaching on this for nearly a century. Refusal of that Teaching does not give the “faithful” the right to demand a higher level of proclamation. As Jesus taught:

Luke 19:26
26’I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

Those who receive the instruction of the bishops/Magesterium will have more revelation given to them about this matter. Those who refuse it will have even less.

That, or the Pope needs to make an ex cathedra statement. Neither has or will happen. Why do you think that is?

Because people who are unfaithful in little will be unfaithful in much.

And before you jump all over me, I follow the Church’s teaching on contraception.

I do recall that,and have written my statements hopefully to respect that, and also to address those reading the thread that think like you do, but justify acting in disobedience.

 

[guanophore]

Bull. Many people would be forced to accept the teaching and many others would leave the Church in droves. The Church is very aware of this.

That is just it,T-one. Matters of faith are not to be “forced” on anyone. This is not the way of Christ, and it is not how the Apostles taught that we are to accept the faith.

1 Peter 2:1-3
2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation — 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

Remember that Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven is approached with childlike faith? Which child is it who argues with the parent, who demands that the rules be changed, or expressed differently so that they are acceptable to the offspring? You are a parent, no? Recognize the rebellious reasoning of adolescence?

James 1:21
21 Therefore rid yourselves of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness, and welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls.

Where is the meekness that is receptive to the implanted word? Instead of meekness, you are saying that the Word, given to the faithful by the pastoral instruction, is not coming from God.

the other point that you can 't seem to accept is that persons who reject these teachings HAVE ALREADY LEFT the Church. Their bodies might be there, but by their actions, they have excommunicated themselves.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

It may seem that way to you because you are personally separated from the Teachings of the Church by your position on these matters, however, there is nothing in the Teachings that is “divisive”. The division comes when those who refuse to accept the Teachings are disobedient, then try to justify their rebellion by finding fault with the Church. The Apostle “speaks volumes” about those who have fallen from the faith.

2 Peter 2:17-3:1

17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm; for them the deepest darkness has been reserved. 18 For they speak bombastic nonsense, and with licentious desires of the flesh they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for people are slaves to whatever masters them. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb,

“The dog turns back to its own vomit,”

and,

“The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.”

**

That does not give the faithful permission to disregard it. That is my point. You are contending that if an ex-cathedra statement were to be made, then the Teaching of the Church would be humbly received as one ought to do. However, it is clear from the fact that many of the “faithful” refuse the Teaching of Humanae Vitae that this is not the case. It is just an excuse to foment rebellion.

I don’t suppose you would like to speculate about why it is not?

No, T-One. It is not the duty of the bishops to cater to your personal needs that the Church conform to your standards. The popes and bishops have been providing authoritive teaching on this for nearly a century. Refusal of that Teaching does not give the “faithful” the right to demand a higher level of proclamation. As Jesus taught:

Luke 19:26
26’I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

Those who receive the instruction of the bishops/Magesterium will have more revelation given to them about this matter. Those who refuse it will have even less.

Because people who are unfaithful in little will be unfaithful in much.

I do recall that,and have written my statements hopefully to respect that, and also to address those reading the thread that think like you do, but justify acting in disobedience.**

Well, we’re not going to agree on this, but I do want to touch a couple of issues that I feel are important.

I’m sure that the Vatican’s canon lawyers know their work very well and I am sure they have researched the issue exhaustively and made it clear to the Pope that there is still a bit of wiggle room regarding the teaching on contraception should the church ever see the need to change it, a loophole that I’m sure the Church is reluctant to close.

I firmly believe that if the Church were to declare either through an ecumenical council or by an ex cathedra statement that the teaching on contraception is infallible and non-negotiable, most Catholics would either accept the teaching and follow it or leave the Church for good. What you don’t understand is that most Catholics have no idea what Humanae Vitae is. I could literally ask 1000 Catholics and less than 100 would have ever heard of it. Most Catholics simply believe that the teaching on contraception is a discipline and that is reaffirmed by most priests who just tell people to do what they think is right. I’m 34 and I believed this up until about 5 years ago.

The fact is that if the teaching on contraception IS infallible (which I do not believe, but for the sake of argument…) the only reason the Church doesn’t just formally declare it as such is because they fear the backlash from Catholic parishioners. About 90% of married Catholics practice contraception when they don’t wish to conceive. If it IS an infallible teaching, the Church should come out and say it, and saying that it wouldn’t do any good Guanophore is really just a cop-out.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Iowa Mike;7553788:

That’s exactly what I said, that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis merely affirmed a teaching that PJP (and others) believed to be already infallible, and that it was NOT an ex cathedra statement in and of itself. My position is supported by Benedict as I have shown you, but unfortunately, you still seem to be under the impression that it would have been an ex cathedra statement otherwise, which is simply not true. You originally cited it as an example of an ex cathedra statement, which it is not, so you are the one who is confused.

How can I be more specific about the scope of the infallibility of the UOM? I have already explained (rather exhaustively) how the two objects of infallibility work, the first object being anything regarding faith and morals which has been divinely revealed. The second object of infallibility is where there is disagreement among various Popes and others as to scope (this object curiously not mentioned in the CCC, although it is a well-known concept). If you look at my previous post where I basically summarized the article for you, it is carefully explained.
The magisterium has failed to convene in order to confirm ANY of the most controversial teachings by the UOM (a.k.a. non-doctrinal teachings) as being infallible, let alone any other teachings, although teachings that are readily accepted by the majority of Catholics do not necessarily NEED confirmation, as there is no debate about them. Contraception comes to mind. All the magisterium has to do is come out and definitively declare it to be infallibly taught (no, Humanae Vitae doesn’t count, and the Pope is not really the one to confirm such a thing anyway, as that is the domain of the bishops and the magisterium, otherwise the Pope could just come out and declare any number of his pet causes as having been infallibly taught by the magisterium without speaking ex cathedra, and that would be a dangerous trend).

Your lack of understanding of infallibility is collosal. You apparently can’t read with comprehension to come to the conclusion that Pope Bendict did not confirm Apostolic Tradition, the constant teaching of the Magesterium and the Apostolic Letter which affirmed an already infallible teaching of the Church.

You ignore the declarations of Vatican I.

You ignore 2000 years of teaching as if it doesn’t count.

You simply don’t get it.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

The problem is that we are not qualified to “attach” that label. That is the purview only of the pastoral authority over the person, or an official council or tribunal of the Church.

We do not have the perogative to do it because we cannot know the depth of a person’s heart, and we do not have the investigative tools needed to establish that they meet the criteria of heretics.

The Church teaches that not all who embrace heresies can, or should, be called heretics, so it is important for us to exercise prudence in this area. It is sufficient to state that they have embraced doctrines contrary to the faith, or that they appear to have departed from the Teachings of the Apostles

False quan…citations please. The teaching on heresy is quite clear. If a person lives in heresy…they are a heretic by their own words and actions.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

The problem is that we are not qualified to “attach” that label. That is the purview only of the pastoral authority over the person, or an official council or tribunal of the Church.

We do not have the perogative to do it because we cannot know the depth of a person’s heart, and we do not have the investigative tools needed to establish that they meet the criteria of heretics.

The Church teaches that not all who embrace heresies can, or should, be called heretics, so it is important for us to exercise prudence in this area. It is sufficient to state that they have embraced doctrines contrary to the faith, or that they appear to have departed from the Teachings of the Apostles

You can preach this until the cows come home guan but it is not true. You don’t need to judge a persons heart to judge their actions. They are separte things entirely.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Uhhhh WOW…

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

Debra…help me out here. What do you call people who claim to be faithful Catholics that do not believe one or more of the dogmas of the faith?

These terms convey a meaning. A cafeteria-Catholic simply is one that picks and chooses what articles of faith they will believe.

If a Catholic fails to accept all that has been proposed by the Church, they place themselves outside the Church. For them to present themselves as faithful Catholics in-spike of their dissent spreads scandal and may mislead people who are less well formed in their faith that you can dissent and remain a Catholic in good standing…that is not possible.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thoughtfulone;7554307:

Your lack of understanding of infallibility is collosal. You apparently can’t read with comprehension to come to the conclusion that Pope Bendict did not confirm Apostolic Tradition, the constant teaching of the Magesterium and the Apostolic Letter which affirmed an already infallible teaching of the Church.

You ignore the declarations of Vatican I.

You ignore 2000 years of teaching as if it doesn’t count.

You simply don’t get it.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

MY comprehension? You are the one failing to grasp the secondary object of infallibility after being told about it numerous times. That, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

Anyway, let’s take it slowly and see if you can understand Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was written by PJP as a means of reaffirming to the public the idea that the teaching on the ordination of women had been infallibly taught by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

IF it had not already been taught infallibly (which many people still argue), Ordinatio Sacerdotalis WOULD NOT constitute on its own an ex cathedra (and therefore infallible) statement that women cannot be ordained. You, on the other hand, were claiming that it would be sufficient, as you used this writing as an example of an ex cathedra statement earlier on, which it is NOT.

Pope Benedict, in his writings, has made it very clear that he sees the teaching on the ordination of women to be an infallible one by the UOM and not through an ex cathedra statement by PJP II as some (including yourself earlier in this thread) have claimed.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Iowa Mike;7555426:

MY comprehension? You are the one failing to grasp the secondary object of infallibility after being told about it numerous times. That, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

Anyway, let’s take it slowly and see if you can understand Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was written by PJP as a means of reaffirming to the public the idea that the teaching on the ordination of women had been infallibly taught by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

IF it had not already been taught infallibly (which many people still argue), Ordinatio Sacerdotalis WOULD NOT constitute on its own an ex cathedra (and therefore infallible) statement that women cannot be ordained. You, on the other hand, were claiming that it would be sufficient, as you used this writing as an example of an ex cathedra statement earlier on, which it is NOT.

You don’t get it. No faithful Catholic rejects the infallibility of this teaching because it places them outside the faith and the fact that your theologian disagrees makes no difference. So where does that leave you? VI, Chapter 3, On Faith…this is what you must believe to be Catholic. Apostolic Teaching confirms the infallibility. The Magisterium has held this for 2000 years. Pope John Paul II spoke definitively to make clear to people like you that it is a required belief. Pope Benedict upheld all three. There is no dissention save you.

G

Pope Benedict, in his writings, has made it very clear that he sees the teaching on the ordination of women to be an infallible one by the UOM and not

through an ex cathedra statement by PJP II as some (including yourself earlier in this thread) have claimed.