From the synod: Mercy is not an abandonment of Church teaching [CNA]

[gracepoole]

No offense but I am not sure what an agnostic/atheist would know about what the church needs. if the church ceased to exist tomorrow it wouldn’t make a difference to someone outside the Church. You think the church needs to change because you aren’t a part of it.

I trust the bishops about as much as I trust congress and the president to uphold the constitution.

No offense but DaddyGirl is a longtime member here who’s offered knowledgeable, respectful (name removed by moderator)ut and questions over the years. And her comments here have focused solely on the members of the Church’s hierarchy and the questions and approaches that many of them have already acknowledged taking up at this synod. It’s a bit out of line, then, to claim that she thinks the “Church needs to change because [she isn’t] a part of it.”

And if you don’t trust this worldwide gathering of bishops. why are you part of the Church?

 

[Mongo]

No offense but DaddyGirl is a longtime member here who’s offered knowledgeable, respectful (name removed by moderator)ut and questions over the years. And her comments here have focused solely on the members of the Church’s hierarchy and the questions and approaches that many of them have already acknowledged taking up at this synod. It’s a bit out of line, then, to claim that she thinks the “Church needs to change because [she isn’t] a part of it.”

And if you don’t trust this worldwide gathering of bishops. why are you part of the Church?

It is irrelevant what her opinions have been; that still doesn’t give her the knowledge of what the church needs to change. There is an existential divide that can’t be bridged simply by talking about the subject at hand. The fact is that she is an atheist/agnostic, and her views of what the church needs are determined by that fact. that is the truth whether you like it or not; or whether you think it is polite or rude.

I am not catholic because of the bishops. That has never been my motivation to be Catholic.

 

[gracepoole]

It is irrelevant what her opinions have been; that still doesn’t give her the knowledge of what the church needs to change. There is an existential divide that can’t be bridged simply by talking about the subject at hand. The fact is that she is an atheist/agnostic, and her views of what the church needs are determined by that fact. that is the truth whether you like it or not; or whether you think it is polite or rude.

I am not catholic because of the bishops. That has never been my motivation to be Catholic.

You’re missing the point(s). Her comments in this thread were focused on the Church’s bishops and what they’ve said needs to be addressed. She’s using evidence from the Church’s members to offer something here. So again, whether she’s Catholic, atheist, or a fan of the flying spaghetti monster is irrelevant here. Her comments – not her – should be addressed. And the bishops are charged with teaching the Catholic faith. From VII: “The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the Universal Church.” You may not be Catholic because of the bishops but brushing them off because you don’t trust them isn’t a sign of faithful Catholicism.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

It is irrelevant what her opinions have been; that still doesn’t give her the knowledge of what the church needs to change. There is an existential divide that can’t be bridged simply by talking about the subject at hand. The fact is that she is an atheist/agnostic, and her views of what the church needs are determined by that fact. that is the truth whether you like it or not; or whether you think it is polite or rude.

I am not catholic because of the bishops. That has never been my motivation to be Catholic.

Agreed and the Catholic Church has had many heretical and genuinely sinful people within it but The Bride of Christ will always be The One True Faith. Remember we’ve had Araianism among MANY other heresies, Schisms, Popes fathering children, the reformation and We’re still Catholic.
Progressives want to ignore the past because they think anything old isn’t on the “right side of history” whatever that means. History is unpredictable but the Catholic Church and everlasting life isn’t. Stay Faithful!

 

[Prodigal_40s]

You’re missing the point(s). Her comments in this thread were focused on the Church’s bishops and what they’ve said needs to be addressed. She’s using evidence from the Church’s members to offer something here. So again, whether she’s Catholic, atheist, or a fan of the flying spaghetti monster is irrelevant here. Her comments – not her – should be addressed. And the bishops are charged with teaching the Catholic faith. From VII: “The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the Universal Church.” You may not be Catholic because of the bishops but brushing them off because you don’t trust them isn’t a sign of faithful Catholicism.

The Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ so if any prelate spews heresy, they are not only ignored but should leave the Church. Simple. Not interested in lengthy wordy diatribes. There is absolute truth which is Catholic and lies. K?

 

[gracepoole]

The Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ so if any prelate spews heresy, they are not only ignored but should leave the Church. Simple. Not interested in lengthy wordy diatribes. There is absolute truth which is Catholic and lies. K?

So now the bishops are heretics? Or are you calling other CAF members heretics?

 

[Peebo]

No offense but I am not sure what an agnostic/atheist would know about what the church needs. if the church ceased to exist tomorrow it wouldn’t make a difference to someone outside the Church. You think the church needs to change because you aren’t a part of it.

I trust the bishops about as much as I trust congress and the president to uphold the constitution.

So do you think yourself as some sort of authority on what the church needs…whatever you think of the Bishops…the Pope or whoever… is irrelevant…the Holy Spirit has guided the church from error for 2000 years and will do so until the return of Jesus Christ…period.

 

[Mongo]

You’re missing the point(s). Her comments in this thread were focused on the Church’s bishops and what they’ve said needs to be addressed. She’s using evidence from the Church’s members to offer something here. So again, whether she’s Catholic, atheist, or a fan of the flying spaghetti monster is irrelevant here. Her comments – not her – should be addressed. And the bishops are charged with teaching the Catholic faith. From VII: “The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the Universal Church.” You may not be Catholic because of the bishops but brushing them off because you don’t trust them isn’t a sign of faithful Catholicism.

She gave no evidence of any position. She made the assertion that the pope and the bishops know what needs changed in the church at this time. There was no evidence to back it up. It was an assertion from a particular point of view, so her point of view is very relevant. The fact that she is an atheist/agnostic is the central point since she asserted an opinion on the churches need of change.

I never brushed the bishops off, but I still don’t trust them.

 

[gracepoole]

She gave no evidence of any position. She made the assertion that the pope and the bishops know what needs changed in the church at this time. There was no evidence to back it up. It was an assertion from a particular point of view, so her point of view is very relevant. The fact that she is an atheist/agnostic is the central point since she asserted an opinion on the churches need of change.

I never brushed the bishops off, but I still don’t trust them.

We actually don’t know anything about DaddyGirl’s religious beliefs so they can’t very well be relevant. Her comments are based on the fact that the Church has a hierarchy and to a fellow Catholic or an outsider, it seems decidedly off for a Catholic to disregard this hierarchy in favor of his or her own view. She, like the rest of us, can read the news and recognize that the pope and bishops have taken up certain issues at this synod. It’s hardly earth-shattering, then, to make mention of this fact. And notice that she didn’t claim that doctrine needs to change…

I fail to see how one can not trust the bishops but not brush off their teachings.

 

[Mongo]

So do you think yourself as some sort of authority on what the church needs…whatever you think of the Bishops…the Pope or whoever… is irrelevant…the Holy Spirit has guided the church from error for 2000 years and will do so until the return of Jesus Christ…period.

Do you think the practical acceptance of divorce is consistent with the indisolubility of marriage? Is it an organic development from the doctrine of indisolubility to support divorce and remarriage by allowing the remarried to receive the Eucharist as if nothing happened?

Maybe all our doctrines exist only in the noumenal realm. They don’t exist for practical life, but only for contemplation.

 

[gracepoole]

Do you think the practical acceptance of divorce is consistent with the indisolubility of marriage? Is it an organic development from the doctrine of indisolubility to support divorce and remarriage by allowing the remarried to receive the Eucharist as if nothing happened?

Maybe all our doctrines exist only in the noumenal realm. They don’t exist for practical life, but only for contemplation.

I wasn’t aware that the final relatio had been released.

 

[Mongo]

We actually don’t know anything about DaddyGirl’s religious beliefs so they can’t very well be relevant. Her comments are based on the fact that the Church has a hierarchy and to a fellow Catholic or an outsider, it seems decidedly off for a Catholic to disregard this hierarchy in favor of his or her own view. She, like the rest of us, can read the news and recognize that the pope and bishops have taken up certain issues at this synod. It’s hardly earth-shattering, then, to make mention of this fact. And notice that she didn’t claim that doctrine needs to change…

I fail to see how one can not trust the bishops but not brush off their teachings.

I trust them as much as St. John Chrysostom did.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

So now the bishops are heretics? Or are you calling other CAF members heretics?

That is a typically progressive response; all or nothing and a complete misinterpretation of my post. Read it and don’t act dumb. Anyone who preaches heresy is a heretic. Get it?

 

[pnewton]

Confession wouldn’t matter anymore, really.

If you can go to communion while carrying one mortal sin, why not the rest?

No possibility under discussion would effect the validity of confession. This is a made up straw man. No one has suggested that remarried go to communion without repentance. In confession, there is no sin, from murder to lying, that bears any parallel to the state of one who is remarried, as that is the only sin that carries this canonically status as a “state.” Any other sin, every other sin, can simply be confessed.

The synod discussion will be much different than discussion here. The participants are too educated to allow logical fallacies to a foothold. The issues themselves are complex enough with the added rhetoric.

I trust God will continue to lead his Church, just like he promised. Moreover, reading and listening to these bishops, compared to the news media and the blogosphere, I find a and exemplification of the very Fruits of the Spirit by which we are to test such matters.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. - Galatians 5:22-23

 

[Ender]

No one has suggested that remarried go to communion without repentance.

Actually, this is precisely what is being proposed. What bars the divorced and remarried from receiving communion today is not the one time sin of adultery, but the fact that it is not repented of. Repentance requires the intent not to repeat the sin, but most couples are not willing to give up sexual relations, therefore there is no repentance, the sin is not absolved, and communion is not possible. How could the divorced/remarried possibly receive unless this restriction was…altered?

In confession, there is no sin, from murder to lying, that bears any parallel to the state of one who is remarried, as that is the only sin that carries this canonically status as a “state.” Any other sin, every other sin, can simply be confessed.

It is the unwillingness to stop the sin that is the problem. It is a choice the individuals make: to have sex or to have communion.

Ender

 

[gracepoole]

That is a typically progressive response; all or nothing and a complete misinterpretation of my post. Read it and don’t act dumb. Anyone who preaches heresy is a heretic. Get it?

Beg your pardon? Typically progressive? Acting dumb? Your attacks on my character aside, I asked whom you called a heretic, mostly out of shock that you’d describe bishops this way before they’ve even done anything of significance at this synod:

The Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ so if any prelate spews heresy, they are not only ignored but should leave the Church. Simple. Not interested in lengthy wordy diatribes. There is absolute truth which is Catholic and lies. K?

So no, I don’t “get it.” K?

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Beg your pardon? Typically progressive? Acting dumb? Your attacks on my character aside, I asked whom you called a heretic, mostly out of shock that you’d describe bishops this way before they’ve even done anything of significance at this synod:

So no, I don’t “get it.” K?

No you didn’t and if you can’t interpret your own posts you definitely don’t “get it”.

 

[pnewton]

I asked whom you called a heretic, mostly out of shock that you’d describe bishops this way before they’ve even done anything of significance at this synod:

“Heresy” is one of those words that get thrown out a lot here. The topics under discussion at the synod are not strictly doctrinal. In no case, is doctrine going to be challenged. I define doctrine as that which the Church teaches, not that which different theologians say the Church teaches, or that which we here believe to be what the Church teaches. An example is the indissolubility of marriage. That will not change.

Here, we see all the modifiers; “might as well say,” " practically the same as," “leads to’” and a score of other attempts to equate various opinions of doctrine to doctrine. But no, there will be no heretic proclaimed at this synod, no doctrine denied, and none of the name-calling that we see here. These bishops and priests were chose for their education, authority, poise and maturity.

 

[Ender]

I define doctrine as that which the Church teaches, not that which different theologians say the Church teaches, or that which we here believe to be what the Church teaches. An example is the indissolubility of marriage. That will not change.

Which of these teachings do you believe are not doctrines?

• A person may not receive communion if he has committed an unconfessed grave sin.
• A sin cannot be absolved without the intent to avoid it in the future.
• Adultery is a grave sin.
• A person who divorces from a valid marriage and remarries commits adultery.

Ender

 

[gracepoole]

“Heresy” is one of those words that get thrown out a lot here. The topics under discussion at the synod are not strictly doctrinal. In no case, is doctrine going to be challenged. I define doctrine as that which the Church teaches, not that which different theologians say the Church teaches, or that which we here believe to be what the Church teaches. An example is the indissolubility of marriage. That will not change.

Here, we see all the modifiers; “might as well say,” " practically the same as," “leads to’” and a score of other attempts to equate various opinions of doctrine to doctrine. But no, there will be no heretic proclaimed at this synod, no doctrine denied, and none of the name-calling that we see here. These bishops and priests were chose for their education, authority, poise and maturity.

Precisely – I’m in total agreement. And my reading of DaddyGirl’s comments aligns with your final sentence here.

No you didn’t

Yes, I did. I asked two questions meant to find out whom you were describing with the word “heresy.”

and if you can’t interpret your own posts you definitely don’t “get it”.

It’s a real pleasure trying to have a conversation with you. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your comments. :tiphat: