D
devoutchristian
Guest
I understand where you are coming from now:
catholicbible101.com/sacredtradition.htm
Understood 100%.
- Status
T
TimothyIgnatius
Guest
I do not disagree with any of these statements. However, it is my fear that too many Catholics use the Church teachings as a means of hate. There are many who speak about gays in a tone that is intrinsically violent and aggressive, despite the Pope clearly stating any sort of violence or discrimination against gays is wrong.
It helps immensely. I honestly feel much better about things now. About the bold, I think you meant no, but I had worded the question awkwardly, so it was my fault to begin with. Thanks for all the advice.
J
JRKH
Guest
Here you make a very good and important distinction. One cannot blame the church for the sin of her members. The Church teaches correctly even if some of her members do not act appropriately.
You are right - I was confused over the wording…glad you saw through it…
I hope that we have been of help to you.
Peace
James
P
PRmerger
Guest
One not ought to confuse “dogmatically defined” with “we just started to believe this when the Church defined it.”
The entire Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single dogmatic declaration was ever promulgated.
Take the concept of the Trinity. It was not dogmatically defined for 400 years.
Yet it would be a mistake to think that no one taught the Trinity until the Council of Nicea.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah, yes. And are there any saints that have proclaimed something contrary to the Catholic faith that you believe were proclaimed under the assistance of the Holy Spirit?
And how do you know that what they are saying is correct, in contrast to that which the CC teaches? What do you use to discern whether what they say is correct, or what the Church says is correct?
I hope, friend, it is not: well, when the saints proclaim something that agrees with my point of view, I say that it is the Holy Spirit guiding them, and when they proclaim something that disagrees with my POV, they are just wrong saintly human beings.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh, p-shaw!Yes and PRmerger too.
shaw:
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think you are on to something, Timothy!
You see that the Church can not be wrong in her orthodoxy, but may be demonstrating poor orthopraxy.
That is, the Church is correct in her orthodoxy (right teaching) but may not always be correct in her orthopraxy (right practice).
P
PRmerger
Guest
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Yes, of course, but not for the same purposes and in the same way or realm. Jesus gave central authority to His apostles, to bind and to loose, IOW, to guide doctrinally: to declare doctrine, singularly. Otherwise there is no central authority, and we’re all just free to run around raitonalizing what is and is not moral “to us, personally,” which of course is what a lot of people erroneously do. And we are an apostolic Church, meaning that the papacy is built on apostolic succession. (Again, one of the four marks.)
When I examine my conscience for confession, I invoke the Holy Spirit to help me out, and I specifically ask Jesus to send me His Spirit in that effort, so that my sins will be illuminated. (And He never fails to do just that.
) I also ask the Holy Spirit’s guidance regarding decisions in my life – personal/family decisions, career decisions, etc. And I try to listen for that guidance.But one thing I do not do: I do not ask the Holy Spirit, in pride, to give me a different interpretation of moral doctrine than the Holy Spirit has already provided to Jesus’ Church on earth. I don’t ask for “private” moral doctrine, unique to Elizabeth. That is one of the favorite ways the Evil One enjoys invading our consciences: setting up a “parallel [false] spirit” which allows us to rationalize our immoral decisions & judgments as moral. We can always, always, always create the excuse that “the Holy Spirit told me it was all right” (or that it was “all right” for X friend, relative, or acquaintance with whom I empathize). Then “the Holy Spirit” is just the corruption of Truth and is none other than excuses built on emotion or self-absolution. We all can easily fall into this trap of subjectivism, which is why an outside authority which is absolute and objective is so essential.
Relying on a contradicting “Holy Spirit,” proclaiming (or “whispering in our ear”) something opposed to the Church’s doctrine is either a manifestation of personal pride or it’s a signal of weak faith in the guidance of the True Holy Spirit which Jesus Himself, in Scripture, promised to send to guide His Church. The Church is unlike other institutions: that is why she is called **Holy, **not because her members or her leaders are perfect, but because her true guidance is perfect (i.e., reliable).
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
A Catholic cannot disagree at all with the Church so far as its teachings on faith and morals are concerned. A Catholic can disagree with certain personages in the Church as to certain policies, such as whether or not priests should marry. The bishops can even disagree with each other on a variety of matters, so long as the matters are not the settled policy of the Church. Some Catholics make it their life mission to disagree with the pope and the bishops on just about everything that distinguishes Catholics from Protestants. Many of them are really Protestants without knowing it.
E
edwest2
Guest
Where do you get the idea that Vatican II was about reform or change? I’d be grateful if you can supply a source for that statement.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Regarding homosexual rights. Have you read any Church teaching that fully explains the Church’s actions in that area today?
Regarding non-violent drug offenders, have you read any Church teaching about the use of illegal drugs?
Yes, you have a free will. I can guarantee a priest will not be pounding on your doot on Monday demanding to know why you weren’t at Mass on Sunday.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Please provide specific examples of Catholics using Church teaching today to promote hate. Your argument would carry more weight than simply saying you fear this is the case.
You also mention violence and discrimination. Which specific Catholics are doing this? Without solid evidence, the reader is left with the idea that you think it’s happening without showing that it is happening.
Hope this helps,
Ed
T
TimothyIgnatius
Guest
Vatican II:
infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/vatican-council-second.html
Quoted from the above link:
"Vatican Council, Second, popularly called Vatican II, 1962–65, the 21st ecumenical council (see council, ecumenical) of the Roman Catholic Church, convened by Pope John XXIII and continued under Paul VI. Its announced purpose was spiritual renewal of the church and reconsideration of the position of the church in the modern world. The most spectacular innovation of the council, which convened Oct. 11, 1962, was the invitation extended to Protestant and Orthodox Eastern churches to send observers; the meetings were attended by representatives from many of those churches. Another obvious feature was the diversity of national and cultural origins shown among those who attended from all over the world.
One of the announced aims of the conference was to consider reform of the liturgy, primarily to bring the layman into closer participation in the church services and therefore to encourage some diversity in language and practice."
With regard to specific examples of Catholics being aggressive or hateful, I can only offer personal experiences. But one could find examples of such behavior on this very board. Not to mention the inclination of predominantly Christian nations to support death laws for homosexuality…
C
Cinette
Guest
*I have enjoyed reading this thread because James’ responses have been so spot on and reminded me of certain points. We sometimes forget these points and these threads certainly help to revise and strengthen our knowledge of our Catholic faith. Lately I have been feeling isolated and out of my depth. I watched a talk on TED about "the different shades of gay(grey) and I posted comments about my beliefs without being bigoted or aggressive but you would have thought that is what I was. They do not tolerate my views on traditional marriage etc. I was censured ie some of my posts were deleted (I was not banned) but I was right in the middle of a bunch of militant gays. It was not good and being on CAF I feel that I am among people who can debate with reason.
I am sure Timothy once you have digested all that has been put forward here you will think differently and it will give you all the assurance you need.
God bless
Cinette
*
J
JRKH
Guest
Not sure what the above is intended to convey…You expressed concern in post number 8 that, “Why does it seem like all of that work was completely abandoned?” And we have asked for examples so that we might possibly help clear up the matter. The above quote provides no such example, except for the liturgy and that change has most certainly not been abandoned. In fact, I would say that the liturgical reform has been expanded in recent years with the reintroduction of the so called “Traditional Latin Mass” (TLM) (now referred to as the Extraordinary Form (EF)) along side the Ordinary Form (OF) of the Most Holy Mass.
One can find all of the Documents that Vatican II produced HERE. Now as I say I have not read all of the council documents or even summaries of all of them - but if you wish to assert that the Church has abandoned the intent and the work of the council…then I would suggest that the official documents are a good place to start.
That said - there can be no doubt that there has been much experimentation conducted “in the spirit of Vatican II”. Some of that experimentation has been good…some of it not so good…but that is the nature of experimentation. Now - some 50 years after the council - the Church is taking a hard look at the results of these various experiments and making adjustments, keeping the good and discarding the bad.
So - let’s talk - either here, or in a new thread - which might get wider (name removed by moderator)ut.
Peace
James
N
nicolakirwan
Guest
It’s often argued that there are only two options–assent to the Church’s teaching or rely solely on “personal opinion.” It’s not either/or. Scripture and Church teaching are clear that believers have the Holy Spirit within them who will witness to truth.
Before people rush to counter this, think about the different contexts in which the term “teaching” applies. Church leaders can teach dogma, and they can also teach and encourage practices that do not actually rise to the level of dogma. Thus, the term “Church teaching” often refers both to infallible teachings and also to possibly fallible judgments and actions promoted because of sin.
Some say, well, the Church is the most trustworthy regarding everything, even outside of official dogma; but I think that both past and present struggles within the Church suggest that Christians would do well to stay as close as possible to Christ by the Holy Spirit to discern whether what they are being led to do is of God.
The Church’s teaching is unassailable with respect to dogma. Catholic leaders may and have by word and deed violated the very teaching they uphold as absolute truth. Recognizing these instances demands discernment. (for one’s own spiritual life, knowing the difference between opinion and discernment is vital)
Think of the saints who found themselves persecuted and subject to inquisitors? Think of the abuses that caused scandal during the time of the reformers. Think today of the complicity of many leaders in covering up the victimization of children. I recall that at one point, there was only one bishop in the Church not given over to the heresy of Arianism. One bishop out of all of them! We might marvel from our point in history that this shows the perseverance of truth in the Church. But think about what that meant for believers during that time. They would have had to know the truth well enough for themselves not to be carried away by the sin of their leaders. That includes knowing the real teaching of the Church, but also that just because someone who is a spiritual authority is teaching something doesn’t make it right or true.
The perseverance of God’s truth through the ages is one thing. The trustworthiness of individual leaders is something entirely different.
Before people rush to counter this, think about the different contexts in which the term “teaching” applies. Church leaders can teach dogma, and they can also teach and encourage practices that do not actually rise to the level of dogma. Thus, the term “Church teaching” often refers both to infallible teachings and also to possibly fallible judgments and actions promoted because of sin.
Some say, well, the Church is the most trustworthy regarding everything, even outside of official dogma; but I think that both past and present struggles within the Church suggest that Christians would do well to stay as close as possible to Christ by the Holy Spirit to discern whether what they are being led to do is of God.
The Church’s teaching is unassailable with respect to dogma. Catholic leaders may and have by word and deed violated the very teaching they uphold as absolute truth. Recognizing these instances demands discernment. (for one’s own spiritual life, knowing the difference between opinion and discernment is vital)
Think of the saints who found themselves persecuted and subject to inquisitors? Think of the abuses that caused scandal during the time of the reformers. Think today of the complicity of many leaders in covering up the victimization of children. I recall that at one point, there was only one bishop in the Church not given over to the heresy of Arianism. One bishop out of all of them! We might marvel from our point in history that this shows the perseverance of truth in the Church. But think about what that meant for believers during that time. They would have had to know the truth well enough for themselves not to be carried away by the sin of their leaders. That includes knowing the real teaching of the Church, but also that just because someone who is a spiritual authority is teaching something doesn’t make it right or true.
The perseverance of God’s truth through the ages is one thing. The trustworthiness of individual leaders is something entirely different.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
The Church’s teaching is also unassailable with respect to doctrine. If you don’t understand this yet, hopefully you will very soon.
It’s essential to know this to be a practicing Catholic in communion with Rome.The non-trustworthiness of any particular Catholic, lay, clergy, or religious, has zero effect on the absolute character of defined doctrine.
- Status