T
Teeliumtrozzle
Guest
Please don’t be mad, you’re entitled to your beliefs.
- Status
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Back to the original question, what constitutes heresy:
Heresy is the obstinate doubt or obstinate denial of a belief requiring the full assent of faith. The Magisterium teaches infallibly, but also at times non-infallibly. It is heresy to reject any infallible teaching: solemn definitions of the Pope or of an Ecumenical Council, teachings of the Universal Magisterium.
Non-infallible teachings require a different type of assent: the religious submission of will and intellect. If one disagreed with a non-infallible teaching, this would not be, per se, heresy. However, rejection of all non-infallible teachings, or of the teaching authority when it exercises its ability to teach non-infallibly, would be a heresy.
One can disagree to some extent with a decision that is a matter of discipline, or even with a particular point of a particular teaching that is taught non-infallibly. And even if a disagreement with a non-infallible is culpable, the culpability is not to such an extent as to constitute heresy.
But rejection of the teaching authority itself, or of all non-infallible teachings, or of the temporal authority itself, or of all matters of discipline, would be heresy.
Heresy is the obstinate doubt or obstinate denial of a belief requiring the full assent of faith. The Magisterium teaches infallibly, but also at times non-infallibly. It is heresy to reject any infallible teaching: solemn definitions of the Pope or of an Ecumenical Council, teachings of the Universal Magisterium.
Non-infallible teachings require a different type of assent: the religious submission of will and intellect. If one disagreed with a non-infallible teaching, this would not be, per se, heresy. However, rejection of all non-infallible teachings, or of the teaching authority when it exercises its ability to teach non-infallibly, would be a heresy.
One can disagree to some extent with a decision that is a matter of discipline, or even with a particular point of a particular teaching that is taught non-infallibly. And even if a disagreement with a non-infallible is culpable, the culpability is not to such an extent as to constitute heresy.
But rejection of the teaching authority itself, or of all non-infallible teachings, or of the temporal authority itself, or of all matters of discipline, would be heresy.
M
mikew262
Guest
Sorry, thats a “cop out” answer.
M
mikew262
Guest
This is what I was trying to say before, I think the Church has painted itself into a corner with these “absolutes/infallibles”, so even if leadership thought something needed to be changed/amended, they feel they can’t, w/o upsetting centuries of tradition.
You didn’t really answer my original question, which I suspected would happen.
BTW, if God wills it and the Church’s leadership listens, anything can be changed.
T
thistle
Guest
I did answer your question but you are ignoring it. As the Church CANNOT change an infallible teaching then your question is irrelevant because I could never be put in the hypothetical position you put forward. Let’s deal with reality here.
As for your last sentence it is of course nonsense.You obviously don’t understand the meaning of infallibility with regard to faith and morals. These doctrines CANNOT be changed. End of story.
As a Catholic you are obliged to accept that and have the humility to obey the Church. Obey God’s will and stop trying to bend God to your will.
J
JReducation
Guest
Cardinal William Levada, who succeeded Cardinal Ratzinger as the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith published these statements on the infallibility of moral statements made by the Pope. It is interesting, because he makes important distinctions.
First, he says that the only two recent infallible moral declarations were the condemnation of abortion and euthanasia, because they are grounded in scriptural revelation.
Second, he says that the Church prudently does not attach the weight of infallibility to any declaration that has to deal with natural law that cannot be found in scripture, because as further developments happen we come to clearer knowledge. This is not to say that we disobey. It simply means that we obey until the Church finds that it is infallibly correct or that a correction of a deceleration must be made, as was the case with Galileo.
Humanae Vitae was not covered by the Prefect’s definition of infallible moral declaration. This means that the Church may change its position. However, it is not a guarantee. So don’t take it to the bank.
“The human process of formulating moral norms is marked by an essential dependence upon the data of human experience… The variabilities which marked the human process of its discovery and formulation made such particular applications inherently unsuited to be considered for infallible definition… For such formulations must remain essentially open to modification and reformulation based upon moral values as they are perceived in relation to the data and the experience which mark man’s understanding of himself… Even though there is nothing to prevent a council or a pope from extending [infallibility] to questions of the natural moral law from the point of view of their authority to do so, nevertheless the “prudential” certitude which characterizes the non-scriptural norms of the natural law argues against such an extension…” (Doctoral dissertation, Infallible Church Magisterium and the Natural Law, 1971)
The individual politician, like any Catholic, who is at odds with the teaching of the Church about the principle involved, i.e., that abortion constitutes the killing of innocent human life and is always gravely immoral (cf. Evangelium Vitae, nn. 57-62), has an obligation to reflect more deeply on the issue, in the hope of allowing the persuasive character of this infallibly taught teaching to become part of his belief and value system. I say infallibly taught not because Pope John Paul II has assumed in Evangelium Vitae the special prerogative recognized for individual papal teachings in the First Vatican Council, but rather because he has called attention explicitly to the fact that Catholic teaching on abortion has been an infallible doctrine of the Church by virtue of the universal ordinary Magisterium, recognized for the teachings of the Pope and worldwide college of bishops together by the Second Vatican Council. In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul was writing about a specific principle of natural law, found in Scripture, and declaring that the principle is protected by infallibility. (From The Catholic Sentinel, 6/2/1995.)
You can rest assured that if Benedict XVI appointed Levada to succeed him, that Levada is not a screaming liberal. He’s very orthodox and very scholarly for Benedict XVI and John Paul II both made sure that they were surrounded by scholars.
JR
First, he says that the only two recent infallible moral declarations were the condemnation of abortion and euthanasia, because they are grounded in scriptural revelation.
Second, he says that the Church prudently does not attach the weight of infallibility to any declaration that has to deal with natural law that cannot be found in scripture, because as further developments happen we come to clearer knowledge. This is not to say that we disobey. It simply means that we obey until the Church finds that it is infallibly correct or that a correction of a deceleration must be made, as was the case with Galileo.
Humanae Vitae was not covered by the Prefect’s definition of infallible moral declaration. This means that the Church may change its position. However, it is not a guarantee. So don’t take it to the bank.
“The human process of formulating moral norms is marked by an essential dependence upon the data of human experience… The variabilities which marked the human process of its discovery and formulation made such particular applications inherently unsuited to be considered for infallible definition… For such formulations must remain essentially open to modification and reformulation based upon moral values as they are perceived in relation to the data and the experience which mark man’s understanding of himself… Even though there is nothing to prevent a council or a pope from extending [infallibility] to questions of the natural moral law from the point of view of their authority to do so, nevertheless the “prudential” certitude which characterizes the non-scriptural norms of the natural law argues against such an extension…” (Doctoral dissertation, Infallible Church Magisterium and the Natural Law, 1971)
The individual politician, like any Catholic, who is at odds with the teaching of the Church about the principle involved, i.e., that abortion constitutes the killing of innocent human life and is always gravely immoral (cf. Evangelium Vitae, nn. 57-62), has an obligation to reflect more deeply on the issue, in the hope of allowing the persuasive character of this infallibly taught teaching to become part of his belief and value system. I say infallibly taught not because Pope John Paul II has assumed in Evangelium Vitae the special prerogative recognized for individual papal teachings in the First Vatican Council, but rather because he has called attention explicitly to the fact that Catholic teaching on abortion has been an infallible doctrine of the Church by virtue of the universal ordinary Magisterium, recognized for the teachings of the Pope and worldwide college of bishops together by the Second Vatican Council. In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul was writing about a specific principle of natural law, found in Scripture, and declaring that the principle is protected by infallibility. (From The Catholic Sentinel, 6/2/1995.)
You can rest assured that if Benedict XVI appointed Levada to succeed him, that Levada is not a screaming liberal. He’s very orthodox and very scholarly for Benedict XVI and John Paul II both made sure that they were surrounded by scholars.
JR
M
mikew262
Guest
Thistle, take note concerning the statement made on Humanae Vitae. Not infallible.Cardinal William Levada, who succeeded Cardinal Ratzinger as the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith published these statements on the infallibility of moral statements made by the Pope. It is interesting, because he makes important distinctions.
First, he says that the only two recent infallible moral declarations were the condemnation of abortion and euthanasia, because they are grounded in scriptural revelation.
Second, he says that the Church prudently does not attach the weight of infallibility to any declaration that has to deal with natural law that cannot be found in scripture, because as further developments happen we come to clearer knowledge. This is not to say that we disobey. It simply means that we obey until the Church finds that it is infallibly correct or that a correction of a deceleration must be made, as was the case with Galileo.
Humanae Vitae was not covered by the Prefect’s definition of infallible moral declaration. This means that the Church may change its position. However, it is not a guarantee. So don’t take it to the bank.
“The human process of formulating moral norms is marked by an essential dependence upon the data of human experience… The variabilities which marked the human process of its discovery and formulation made such particular applications inherently unsuited to be considered for infallible definition… For such formulations must remain essentially open to modification and reformulation based upon moral values as they are perceived in relation to the data and the experience which mark man’s understanding of himself… Even though there is nothing to prevent a council or a pope from extending [infallibility] to questions of the natural moral law from the point of view of their authority to do so, nevertheless the “prudential” certitude which characterizes the non-scriptural norms of the natural law argues against such an extension…” (Doctoral dissertation, Infallible Church Magisterium and the Natural Law, 1971)
The individual politician, like any Catholic, who is at odds with the teaching of the Church about the principle involved, i.e., that abortion constitutes the killing of innocent human life and is always gravely immoral (cf. Evangelium Vitae, nn. 57-62), has an obligation to reflect more deeply on the issue, in the hope of allowing the persuasive character of this infallibly taught teaching to become part of his belief and value system. I say infallibly taught not because Pope John Paul II has assumed in Evangelium Vitae the special prerogative recognized for individual papal teachings in the First Vatican Council, but rather because he has called attention explicitly to the fact that Catholic teaching on abortion has been an infallible doctrine of the Church by virtue of the universal ordinary Magisterium, recognized for the teachings of the Pope and worldwide college of bishops together by the Second Vatican Council. In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul was writing about a specific principle of natural law, found in Scripture, and declaring that the principle is protected by infallibility. (From The Catholic Sentinel, 6/2/1995.)
You can rest assured that if Benedict XVI appointed Levada to succeed him, that Levada is not a screaming liberal. He’s very orthodox and very scholarly for Benedict XVI and John Paul II both made sure that they were surrounded by scholars.
JR
M
mikew262
Guest
No, you did not answer my question, you side-stepped it.
As mentioned above, take note on the statement made on Humanae Vitae; it may not be infallible.
As far as God willing something and the Church listening and maybe changing some doctrine? Remember, with God, anything is possible. Knowing that, if you still consider my statement nonsense, then I suppose that is between you and God. Good luck with that.
T
thistle
Guest
Yes your statement is still nonsense. What is it you do not understand about using a contraceptive and the Church teaching.
Its intrinsically evil. That is the Church teaching. Are you really so naive you think one day the Church will say the Holy Spirit gave us bad advice. Its no longer intrinsically evil. The Holy Spirit has changed his mind. Now we think its good? Give us a break. I can’t find any posters who agree with your position.
By the way if someone has an infection then they simply abstain. If they don’t that is not the Church’s fault. Such people are rejecting God.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I’m not sure your interpretation of the statements are correct. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has previously asserted (in “Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei”) that Evangelium Vitae contains three infallible teachings, direct abortion, direct euthanasia, and murder.
None were held to be infallible by virtue of an Ex Cathedra teaching, but by virtue of what we saw in your quote. That is, by “virtue of the universal ordinary Magisterium, recognized for the teachings of the Pope and worldwide college of bishops together by the Second Vatican Council.”
Basically, they are infallible because they are universally held to be true by the Bishops, hence representing the infallibility of the Church. John Paul II actually polled all the Bishops before promulgating the encyclical. The Pope also beautifully tied the teachings to the inalienable rights of the human person, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, bringing in ecumenical authority, which is the form of unison we consider most infallible for the Bishops.
But the Pope asserted in the encyclical that we do not have specific scriptural guidance with regards to either abortion or euthanasia. And even Holy Tradition is not crystal clear. For example, Tertullian, whom John Paul II quoted in the encyclical actually describes a gruesome late term abortion, seemingly for the purposes of euthanasia of a deformed child, as inarguably just in his treaty on the soul.
Some secularists point to this as proof of error, but I think that is inaccurate at best. Again, teachings cannot really be practiced and analyzed in isolation. Sometimes competing moral objectives seem to collide and we look to the Magisterium to help us find the proper balance for our locale and age.
J
JReducation
Guest
Cardinal Levada acknowledges that Evangelium Vitae is an infallible declaration because it addresses three issues: abortion, euthanasia and direct abortion all of which have sound scriptural basis.
What he teaches is that other moral declarations that are not explicitly found in the scriptures are deliberately not declared as infallible statements because, “the “prudential” certitude which characterizes the non-scriptural norms of the natural law argues against such an extension…" In other words it would not be a prudent to extend infallibility to any moral doctrine that is non-scriptural or where we may have an incorrect understanding of scripture, such as the Creation story.
His reasoning is that “The human process of formulating moral norms is marked by an essential dependence upon the data of human experience.” In other words the Church depends on certain facts to make moral law. The facts are not always available or completely available. Therefore, the best the Church can do is take a moral position based on the information that it has available.
A good example was the condemnation of the solar system theory. The data that the Church had available was from the Bible. In light of scientific proof that the Sun is the center of our solar system and that the Earth revolves around it and orbits on its axis producing the effects of day and night, the Church could no longer hold that the description of the universe as found in Genesis was the true message of Genesis. Therefore, she had to recant her condemnation and all those who had previously been condemned as being immoral heretics had to be reinstated.
For this reason, the current Prefect for the Faith and the Sacred Congregation prudently withhold the application of infallibility to any moral decree and “remain essentially open to modification and reformulation based upon moral values as they are perceived in relation to the data and the experience.” In other words, moral decrees that cannot be substantiated by scripture are prudentially declared without the weight of infallibility pending further insight. The Cardinal and the Sacred Congregation leave the door open for further data that can be received either through human experience, such as science or through future revelation by the Holy Spirit.
That being said, he does not say that the Pope does not have the authority to extend infallibility to a moral decree. He only says that as a rule of prudence, the Popes do not do so. He supports this practice. Cardinal Levada says these decrees must be obeyed because they come from the Vicar of Christ, but don’t be surprised if like other things; in a century or more we discover more data on the problem and have to reformulate the decree.
In essence he is saying that the Church makes moral judgments based on the data that it has and on revealed truths. If one or the other is insufficient, it prudently withholds the extension of infallibility. Because the Church must protect the faithful from sin, it will declare based on the knowledge it has at the time. She is acting in good faith.
A good example is the rule governing the reception of communion by non-Catholics. Pope Benedict XVI gave communion to Tony Blair before he became a Catholic. Traditionalists have raised holy hell about this. What people don’t know is that there is a theological opinion that says that non-Catholics can be admitted to the Eucharist, if they truly believe in the real presence and in cases where denial would violate charity. This is an exception, not a rule. When asked, the Pope’s spokesman said that he gave Blair communion because he (Blair) met both criteria. He believed in the real presence and it would have been uncharitable to deny it to him. In other words, the Pope is applying what Cardinal Levada is saying. In the presence of other facts, the law did not apply. Benedict is not only the Pope, but also a theologian with many years of experience and three PhDs, if I’m not mistaken. He knew about this theological opinion and applied it in good faith. It was an opinion shared by Pius X and John Paul II.
Levada says that the Church prudentially leaves the door open for deeper understanding. Even though the whole of truth has been revealed, this does not mean that we have achieved a full understanding. There are still many mysteries in nature that we do not understand.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church used similar wording when speaking about homosexual acts. It says that they are objectively wrong and cannot be sanctioned. However, it also adds a clause that says that it is a condition whose origins are still unclear. This is an important statement and consistent with what Levada is saying. By saying that something is still unclear, it means that the Church is still willing to hear more (name removed by moderator)ut that is reasonable in the light of faith and human experience. The operative word here is “reasonable.” We don’t change moral laws on a whim.
I hope this helps.
JR
What he teaches is that other moral declarations that are not explicitly found in the scriptures are deliberately not declared as infallible statements because, “the “prudential” certitude which characterizes the non-scriptural norms of the natural law argues against such an extension…" In other words it would not be a prudent to extend infallibility to any moral doctrine that is non-scriptural or where we may have an incorrect understanding of scripture, such as the Creation story.
His reasoning is that “The human process of formulating moral norms is marked by an essential dependence upon the data of human experience.” In other words the Church depends on certain facts to make moral law. The facts are not always available or completely available. Therefore, the best the Church can do is take a moral position based on the information that it has available.
A good example was the condemnation of the solar system theory. The data that the Church had available was from the Bible. In light of scientific proof that the Sun is the center of our solar system and that the Earth revolves around it and orbits on its axis producing the effects of day and night, the Church could no longer hold that the description of the universe as found in Genesis was the true message of Genesis. Therefore, she had to recant her condemnation and all those who had previously been condemned as being immoral heretics had to be reinstated.
For this reason, the current Prefect for the Faith and the Sacred Congregation prudently withhold the application of infallibility to any moral decree and “remain essentially open to modification and reformulation based upon moral values as they are perceived in relation to the data and the experience.” In other words, moral decrees that cannot be substantiated by scripture are prudentially declared without the weight of infallibility pending further insight. The Cardinal and the Sacred Congregation leave the door open for further data that can be received either through human experience, such as science or through future revelation by the Holy Spirit.
That being said, he does not say that the Pope does not have the authority to extend infallibility to a moral decree. He only says that as a rule of prudence, the Popes do not do so. He supports this practice. Cardinal Levada says these decrees must be obeyed because they come from the Vicar of Christ, but don’t be surprised if like other things; in a century or more we discover more data on the problem and have to reformulate the decree.
In essence he is saying that the Church makes moral judgments based on the data that it has and on revealed truths. If one or the other is insufficient, it prudently withholds the extension of infallibility. Because the Church must protect the faithful from sin, it will declare based on the knowledge it has at the time. She is acting in good faith.
A good example is the rule governing the reception of communion by non-Catholics. Pope Benedict XVI gave communion to Tony Blair before he became a Catholic. Traditionalists have raised holy hell about this. What people don’t know is that there is a theological opinion that says that non-Catholics can be admitted to the Eucharist, if they truly believe in the real presence and in cases where denial would violate charity. This is an exception, not a rule. When asked, the Pope’s spokesman said that he gave Blair communion because he (Blair) met both criteria. He believed in the real presence and it would have been uncharitable to deny it to him. In other words, the Pope is applying what Cardinal Levada is saying. In the presence of other facts, the law did not apply. Benedict is not only the Pope, but also a theologian with many years of experience and three PhDs, if I’m not mistaken. He knew about this theological opinion and applied it in good faith. It was an opinion shared by Pius X and John Paul II.
Levada says that the Church prudentially leaves the door open for deeper understanding. Even though the whole of truth has been revealed, this does not mean that we have achieved a full understanding. There are still many mysteries in nature that we do not understand.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church used similar wording when speaking about homosexual acts. It says that they are objectively wrong and cannot be sanctioned. However, it also adds a clause that says that it is a condition whose origins are still unclear. This is an important statement and consistent with what Levada is saying. By saying that something is still unclear, it means that the Church is still willing to hear more (name removed by moderator)ut that is reasonable in the light of faith and human experience. The operative word here is “reasonable.” We don’t change moral laws on a whim.
I hope this helps.
JR
M
mikew262
Guest
The Holy Spirit would never give bad advice. The Holy Spirit can give advice all day long, it’s up to sinful and foolish man to listen and implement it correctly. I’m not convinced that has always happened.
Your problem is your blinders are on so tight, it seems to leave no room for independent thought and wonder outside of what the Church teaches. I’m not asking you to go against any Church teaching, just try think outside of the box and understand where I’m coming from.
As far as not anybody agreeing with me, I could care less. This is a forum, where opposing opinions are allowed (I would hope anyway).
F
fix
Guest
T
thistle
Guest
So you are calling the Popes and Magesterium sinful and foolish? Interesting!
As you brought it up do tell us all when the Magesterium has been so foolish not to correctly follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Be specific please. Which infallible teaching did they misinterpret?
F
fix
Guest
But, that the origin is unknown does not change the evilness of such an act. Is there any authentic debate that intrinsically evil acts are just that…evil?The Catechism of the Catholic Church used similar wording when speaking about homosexual acts. It says that they are objectively wrong and cannot be sanctioned. However, it also adds a clause that says that it is a condition whose origins are still unclear. This is an important statement and consistent with what Levada is saying. By saying that something is still unclear, it means that the Church is still willing to hear more (name removed by moderator)ut that is reasonable in the light of faith and human experience. The operative word here is “reasonable.” We don’t change moral laws on a whim.
R
Renton405
Guest
Catholics who are pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality would be considered heretics I believe. I think a definatle support and justification of sin would be apostacy
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I understood before. The problem is that there is no direct, sound scriptural basis for those particular teachings. And, that is not just my opinion, but the Pope’s (John Paul II).
The infallibility of the three teachings, and the argued foundation, were affirmed by the Congregation of the Doctrine in the document I cited above. That document was signed by then Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone.
As a Catholic, I have no problem with this, since it is in keeping with the dogmatic constitution of the church:
But I do have a problem with the assertion of scriptural foundation, both in this case, and as a criteria for the infallibility of the Church. That would seemingly contradict the express opinion of both our present and previous pope, and run contrary to the Catholic dogma.
While it is certainly possible that Cardinal Levada expressed a belief that the Pope, Prefect, and Secretary were all wrong, your selected quotes lead me to believe that it is your understanding of the Cardinal’s expressed position that is more likely to be in error.
J
JReducation
Guest
My last point on this and then I’ll leave it up to you to decide for yourself.
Cardinal Levada is the current Prefect for the Sacred Congregation, appointed Pope Benedict XVI. I am sure that the Pope knew Levada’s opinions on moral declarations and infalability.
Also, Cardinal Levada is not saying that moral decree should be ignored on a whim. If you read his dissertation, he is saying that the Church does not usually extend infallibility to its moral decrees because it is not always prudent to do so.
In his current position as the Defender of the Faith, it becomes obvious that he is going to suggest caution in making moral decrees under the umbrella of infallibility, as he believes this is neither necessary nor always the prudent thing to do. He also believes that decrees can be reworked until they are consistent with human experience and revelation.
As I metioned before, there have been cases in the past where a moral decree was made and had to be recanted or restated differently in light of scientific evidence.
JR
Cardinal Levada is the current Prefect for the Sacred Congregation, appointed Pope Benedict XVI. I am sure that the Pope knew Levada’s opinions on moral declarations and infalability.
Also, Cardinal Levada is not saying that moral decree should be ignored on a whim. If you read his dissertation, he is saying that the Church does not usually extend infallibility to its moral decrees because it is not always prudent to do so.
In his current position as the Defender of the Faith, it becomes obvious that he is going to suggest caution in making moral decrees under the umbrella of infallibility, as he believes this is neither necessary nor always the prudent thing to do. He also believes that decrees can be reworked until they are consistent with human experience and revelation.
As I metioned before, there have been cases in the past where a moral decree was made and had to be recanted or restated differently in light of scientific evidence.
JR
G
GraceDK
Guest
For a long time through history The Catholic Church had married priests and… when it was eventually made forbidden it was out of reasons we would probably not use today. Then it was about cultic impurity - they believed the sexual act made the priest impure and therefore he was not fit to deal with the Eucharist - today we dont think the marital act is dirty and we keep celebacy in the Church for more practical reasons. Celibacy is now seen as a discipline that can and might be changed if the Church wants to at some point.In “the culture of the time,” contraception was widely, if somewhat unsuccessfully, practiced. The Jewish priesthood, too, was married, as was every pagan priesthood, except, that I know of, the Galli of Cybele–because they were eunuchs.
But more importantly, we do not accept the Catholic Church on the basis of Scripture. We accept Scripture on the basis of the Catholic Church.
when it comes to your last words I think they contain a logical contradiction. The Catholic Church came into existence at the time of Jesus and especially the Pentecost. But a great part of Scripture was already existing and had existed for a long time. The first covenant people, the first ECCLESIA, Israel, had the law and prophets. Lets not forget that by using a simplistic pseudo-apologetic perspective.
- Status