Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[Jeanette_L]

Jeanette - I agree that we are to are to be grateful for our faith and to cherish it always. I sensed no barb from you against anyone, traditionalist or otherwise, and I agree that those who choose to act as if they have votings rights about Church Teaching do more harm than good.

Thank you for understanding my intent.

 

[Godi]

Is Catholicism a Democracy? No. A functioning family is not a democracy. The parents have authority to do what is best for the upbringing of the children. The children are submisive and obedient to the parents. The Church is our Mother.

 

[CatQuilt]

Well said JR. I suspect that part of the problem is cultural. American pluralism and individualism play a part in people’s attitudes and thought. These are not at all friendly to Catholicism.

I really should read the other posts before I respond but it is true, Catholicism is not a democracy and (I think) to try to make it so is a heresy called Americanism?

 

[DustinsDad]

I didn’t mean a barb against any one group really, I’m sorry if you took offense.

Quite alright.

I just see a lot of what looks like dissension on both sides, a great deal of unrest, and this shouldn’t be.

On the dissension. I’m not sure without going into exact areas what it is you are thinking about. On the one hand, I see folks dissenting from infallibly defined dogmas/doctrines of the Church…but I don’t think you can lay this at the feet of most traditional folks unless they are way out there in the sedevacantist camp or what not. I just haven’t seen very many of these folks on here - and none in real life.

Now with the traditional folks, you might find “dissention” from practices, of say - Communion in the hand and the modern ecumenical approach to non-Catholic religions, and some can go off into real disobediance and lack of charity and spiritual pride - such is a real danger and problem. But even in this case, it’s like comparing apples and oranges. In fact, it is because of the epidemic of dissention that traditional folks find the need to cling tightly to the traditions and disciplines of the past as a safeguard from such things. The argument can certainly be made that newer practices and approaches are not as effective at defending against such doctrinal/dogmatic dissentions - not saying you have to agree with this, but the argument certainly has some validity.

On the “unrest” issue - I agree with you that traditional folks have to guard against going of the deep end so to speak - giving in to dispair and what-not. We have to still remember that the Holy Spirit is guiding and protecting the Church. But on the other hand, there are two principals to keep in mind.

1. 
   *]It is quite proper and fitting to be concerned with the state of the Church - and when one member suffers, we all suffer.
   *]Christ’s promise is that the Church will prevail until the end of time and it doesn’t mean that - it doesn’t mean it will always be in our back yard if you know what I mean. There is a battle for souls that will be going on until the 2nd coming, and until the end, the attack against Christ’s Church - both from the outside and the inside. As members of the Church Militant, we need to do what we can to defend Her - and when necessary, that means defending her on both fronts. And that goes for clergy and lay-folk alike.
   

   I know there have to be people on guard against usurpers within who would promote their own agendas, but I can’t see that it should be done in a way that casts doubt on the real leading of the Holy Spirit to a better understanding of truth that has already been given.

   Yes there’s a balance in there between these two efforts - fighting the usurping vs defending the legitimate deepening of understanding. And that’s what all the discussion and debate is about. It certainly isn’t for everyone to get engaged in - and can be quite distressing for some folks to look at the arguments - since many MANY have never looked at or been shown anything that is older than 20 or 30 years and have in the meantime bought into “usurpings” as “deepening understandings” - the discovery can indeed be a shock to the faith because their not sure what to believe and who to trust or how to reconcile what is commonly said nowadays with what has been explicitly said before…all they know is there can not be two contradictory versions of infallible truth.
   

   The whole Church’s history is packed full of a continued and deeper understanding of truths that have always been there but never fully understood…

   Well sure, but that deeper understanding cannot contradict - cannot mean the opposite of - what has already been infallibly revealed through Christ’s Church. That’s crucial.
   

   Christ said ‘peace I leave unto you’. I find it disheartening if I watch too much of the bickering and fault finding, especially of the Magisterium and the Holy Fathers, I have to stay clear of it for the most part, for my own peace.

   I can appreciate that as well. Through all the great storms of this world, we should be at peace knowing that we are on the arc of Salvation, the bark of Peter, the One True Church. We stay close to Our Lord in prayer and in the Sacraments, and we’ll be at peace. (Although we should be concerned if large numers of folks start jumping overboard - concern for our neighbors and all that). So if you have a good strong parish and a good strong priest - then by all means support and encourage them and live out your faith, learn your faith and spread your faith as best you can. You won’t go wrong with that.
   

   I guess when you come to the Church from outside of her, and are drawn because you recognize her beauty, you see how God has formed her and led her through the ages, you can’t fathom that there would be so many within who doubt His leading.

   I’m not a convert so I can really reply into your impressions - perhaps it’s the ol’ human side of the Church that surprises folks. We’re aren’t on the other side just yet, and things ain’t always pretty or picture perfect on the human side of things. Or as I like to say - God’s part is always perfect - our part…well…not so much.
   
   Ah, but I don’t think you are describing most traditional folks in that they doubt God’s leading - our following, well, that’s another story.
   

   They can’t see the forest for the trees. I guess you could say I don’t see the trees for the forest.

   Heh - that might not be such a bad place to be. So long as you’re not going skiing

 

[Jeanette_L]

Heh - that might not be such a bad place to be. So long as you’re not going skiing

I’ll keep that in mind.

And I do want to clarify one thing, that my comments are more concerning those who are what I consider the extremes on each side, but of course no one thinks they *are *extreme, so what’re you gonna do.

Thanks for your reply, I do understand what you are saying.

 

[JReducation]

In fidelity to the Church and her teachings we must look carefully at what she’s saying.

As was stated before, the Council of Florence in 1442 stated

“It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church.”

In 1970, the Ecumenical Directory stated in Parr 75, “The hierarchy of truths" of Catholic doctrine should always be respected; these truths all demand due assent of faith, yet are not all equally central to the mystery revealed in Jesus Christ, since they vary in their connection with the foundation of the Christian faith.”

There is no denial of the truths taught by the Catholic Church. What it says is that not all truths are equally central, because of what the Church see as the connections of these truths to the foundation of Christian faith. In other words, some things are true; but even if we didn’t know them, they would not take anything away from the foundations or the essence of Christian faith.

When speaking about Protestants, who did not exist in 1442, the Church has had to address the issue of their conversion to the Roman Catholic faith. Therefore it concludes that “every Christian has the right for conscientious religious reasons, freely to decide to come into full Catholic communion” (Parr 99).

The Church reiterates its obedience to the revealed truth, but also acknowledges that the situation has become more complex than it was in the past. Therefore, the Church has to look at the situation as it has developed and come up with an appropriate response for today. The situation has changed since 1442. Therefore, the Church reviews what was said back then and makes a proper application for today.

How the Church makes this leap is a very complex and detailed process that we cannot explain here in detail. Those who are interested in the details must engage in a protracted study of the Ecumenical Directory, its development and the different positions that were discussed in putting it together.

The other option is to accept in faith that the Church is not abandoning the faith, but has made a serious and prayerful effort to respond to today’s situation. This means that we must trust the good will and the authority of the Pope and the Bishops involved in this process.

“The ecumenical movement seeks to be obedient to the Word of God, to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and to the authority of those whose ministry it is to ensure that the Church remains faithful to that apostolic Tradition in which the Word of God and the gifts of the Spirit are received The situations being dealt with in ecumenism are often unprecedented, and vary from place to place and time to time” (Parr 30).

There is a leap from the Council of 1442 to today.
“The Churches and ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation, for the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation. In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or ecclesial Community, their celebrations are able to nourish the life of grace in their members who participate in them and provide access to the communion of salvation (Parr 99).

However we must consider two things, first the understanding of non-Catholic communities that existed in 1442 and the understanding that the Church has of those communities today; second, the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church both in 1442 and in the year 2008, just as Christ made clear certain mysteries to the Apostles in stages, he continues to do so with the Church. It is up to us to accept in faith that the Holy Spirit will not steer us wrong, that if there is a change in wording or approach, it is by His grace and intervention. We must beware of the temptation to look for plots and errors where there may be none.

As to why the Church has not explained these details to the faithful, if one reads the document it places the burden of learning this on us, through schools of theology, universities, seminars, and other institutes of learning. The Magisterium is not saying that we don’t have a right to understand how we got from point A to point B. It’s simply saying that this is too much to be explained in detail in one simple lecture. If you want to understand the details go to school. This has been done since the beginning of the Church. The Church has not always explained every teaching in detail. The average Catholic doesn’t understand the details of the hypostatic union or how the Immaculate Conception is actually possible. Those are long drawn out theological and philosophical discussions and deliberations.

This is what the Church wants us to do.

III-b) “When speaking of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, it is important to present their teaching correctly and honestly. Among those elements by which the Church itself is built up and given life, some—even many and very valuable ones—are to be found outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church. The Spirit of Christ therefore does not refuse to use these communities as means of salvation. Doing this also puts in relief the truths of faith held in common by various Christian confessions. This will help Catholics both to deepen their own faith and to know and esteem other Christians, thus making easier the search in common for the path of full unity in the whole truth.” Observe that the Church wants to help Catholics.

JR

to be continued

 

[JReducation]

Continuation:

The Church wants us to understand that “the Holy Spirit does not refuse to use non-Catholic communities as a means to salvation.” It is the hope of the Church that by accepting this we also come to appreciate those truths that we share in common with other people of faith, therefore building up the Body of Christ, rather than dividing it.

In the same section the Church recognizes that “these goods have borne fruit for example in the mystical tradition of the Christian East and the spiritual treasures of the monastic life, in the worship and piety of Anglicans, in the evangelical prayer and the diverse forms of Protestant spirituality.” One must remember that from 1442 to the present the Church has had over 550 years to see the fruit of these treasures that may not have been visible to the Church of 1442.

Finally, the Church wants us to “knock-off” the language that at one time may have been acceptable, but today she believes distorts the image and goodness that can be found in other faiths. “The spirit of charity, of respect, and of dialogue demands the elimination of language and prejudices which distort the image of other Christians “(III-68-a). In other words, you can’t bad-mouth your in-laws, because you’re right and they’re wrong in certain matters or because you think they’re idiots. They’re still family.

The Church is calling us to be charitable in our language when speaking to or about people of other faiths. She is not calling us to abandon our faith, but to put charity into practice, much as Paul called Peter to put charity into practice when he introduced the Gentiles to the first Jewish-Christians. Those two groups of Christians were not a homogeneous group either. In fact the Apostolic Churches are not homogeneous, but are truly apostolic, nonetheless.

Let’s remember Canon 333§3. “No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.” This is only allowed to another Pontiff, not to us.

The Church is not a democracy. I for one trust the Pope’s judgement when he approved this.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

Let’s remember Canon 333§3. “No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.” This is only allowed to another Pontiff, not to us.

The Church is not a democracy. I for one trust the Pope’s judgement when he approved this.

JR

That’s what I was trying to say.

 

[indyrex]

JR, thanks so much for your insightful posts.

Indyrex in Tex.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Regarding ecumenism, I am reminded of these comments by Dietrich von Hildebrand regarding Fr. John Hardon’s Catechism:

It behooves us to ask whether the decisive changes in the rite of Mass are not rather due to ecumenism than to any genuine development of doctrine. The outstanding German theologian Georg May, in a very fine article in the German review Una Voce, pointed out that no one can overlook the Protestantization of the liturgy. The architects of Church policy have tried to eliminate everything that might possibly separate us from the Protestants. Father Hardon even notes this with approval in that part of his “Catechism” dealing with ecumenism. One wonders why he does not link this very ecumenism with the changes in the liturgy. Here are his words, page 243: “On the practical level this means that Catholics should avoid any words, judgments or actions that do not correspond to what other Christians believe or do. Positively, they should engage in dialogue with separated brethren through discussion, co-operative action, and corporate prayer. Such dialogue presumes study and the desire to learn how the Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants worship, what they believe, and how their allegiance to Christ has affected their lives.”
The above passage is sad to contemplate. Here is a Roman Catholic Catechism whose author certainly intends to oppose liberal and progressive trends and to be strictly orthodox. Yet he says that Catholics must avoid words, judgments and actions which do not correspond to what other Christians believe. This attitude reflects not ecumenism, but rather the fatal disease which I call “ecumenitis”. Let us recall the recent Eucharistic Congress in Melbourne, Australia. Cardinal Knox, anticipating the suggestion of Father Hardon, purposely omitted the great Eucharistic procession so as not to offend the Protestants he had invited to participate. Indeed, eliminating the procession was one of the conditions of their presence at the Congress! Can we fairly call this consistent with genuine ecumenism? If we have real Christian love for our Protestant brethren, we must have the desire to see them find the one, true, authentic Christian faith. True love can only seek to have the individual Protestant convert to Catholicism. During my long life I have met innumerable ardent converts from Protestantism to Catholicism. (I am myself a convert, though from only a weak and merely formal Protestantism). But not a single convert I have known was ever converted by public dialogues between Catholics and Protestants; still less by Catholics who tried to make any compromises with Protestantism.

fatima.org/crusader/cr44/cr44pg18.asp

 

[JReducation]

Regarding ecumenism, I am reminded of these comments by Dietrich von Hildebrand regarding Fr. John Hardon’s Catechism:

It behooves us to ask whether the decisive changes in the rite of Mass are not rather due to ecumenism than to any genuine development of doctrine. The outstanding German theologian Georg May, in a very fine article in the German review Una Voce, pointed out that no one can overlook the Protestantization of the liturgy. The architects of Church policy have tried to eliminate everything that might possibly separate us from the Protestants. Father Hardon even notes this with approval in that part of his “Catechism” dealing with ecumenism. One wonders why he does not link this very ecumenism with the changes in the liturgy. Here are his words, page 243: “On the practical level this means that Catholics should avoid any words, judgments or actions that do not correspond to what other Christians believe or do. Positively, they should engage in dialogue with separated brethren through discussion, co-operative action, and corporate prayer. Such dialogue presumes study and the desire to learn how the Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants worship, what they believe, and how their allegiance to Christ has affected their lives.”
The above passage is sad to contemplate. Here is a Roman Catholic Catechism whose author certainly intends to oppose liberal and progressive trends and to be strictly orthodox. Yet he says that Catholics must avoid words, judgments and actions which do not correspond to what other Christians believe. This attitude reflects not ecumenism, but rather the fatal disease which I call “ecumenitis”. Let us recall the recent Eucharistic Congress in Melbourne, Australia. Cardinal Knox, anticipating the suggestion of Father Hardon, purposely omitted the great Eucharistic procession so as not to offend the Protestants he had invited to participate. Indeed, eliminating the procession was one of the conditions of their presence at the Congress! Can we fairly call this consistent with genuine ecumenism? If we have real Christian love for our Protestant brethren, we must have the desire to see them find the one, true, authentic Christian faith. True love can only seek to have the individual Protestant convert to Catholicism. During my long life I have met innumerable ardent converts from Protestantism to Catholicism. (I am myself a convert, though from only a weak and merely formal Protestantism). But not a single convert I have known was ever converted by public dialogues between Catholics and Protestants; still less by Catholics who tried to make any compromises with Protestantism.

fatima.org/crusader/cr44/cr44pg18.asp

Once again, you’re choosing to ignore the Magisterium’s authority and power to make such changes.

Why does it seem so difficult to accept that the Pope cannot be questioned on these matters?

No one is asking us what we like. We’re being told what to do and how to do it by the Vicar of Christ.

It is what it is.

You and I can call it whatever we want, but in the end, it’s the power of Peter speaking. Where it leads is only known to the Holy Spirit.

We need to stop looking for evil and errors where there are none. Peter cannot desire to destroy the Church. He may destroy his soul, but not the Church. It is in conflict with Christ’s promise.

Yes, we have stopped using all language that is offensive to non-Catholics, but by a decree of Peter who has the power given to him by Christ to demand that we stop and to declare that such language violates charity.

If we stick to the literal assault of non-Catholics, then we run the risk of becmong fundamentalist Catholics. This is not the wish of the Church. In the end the wish of the Church is also the wish of Christ who guides it. Also, once Peter declares that such language is a violation of Charity, he has put a moral spin on its use. He cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

Also, if they are trying to bridge the separation between Catholicism and Protestantism, without disavowing dogma, they are doing Christ’s will by working toward the unity of the universal Church. Christ himself prayed that we may all be one.

Read the documents, study the dialogues of the Bishops involved in putting it together, the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Pope and you will see that it is not a horrific plot, but a plan to save all souls through that which unites us, rather than continue to battle over what separates us, since such a battle has proven futile after 500 years.

God bless,

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

In fidelity to the Church and her teachings we must look carefully at what she’s saying.

First off, recognize that you are comparing a clear cut definitive infallible statement of a Chruch Council with a very wordy and in many places ambiguous essay type work. And again, if it’s ambiguous (can be taken in more than one way), one must take it in the way that is consistant with what has already been infallibly defined. And while the newer document is authoritative, it is not necessarily protected by the distinguishing marks of infallibility, and given the essay format and ambiguities therein, it is important to remember that if there is anything in there than would contradict an infallibly defined truth, we must either assume that it is in error or our interpretation of it is in error. Truth cannot contradict truth. Fair enough?

For the purposes of this post, I will address what you are presenting of your intepretations of the 1970 document.

Here’s the current “directory” I believe. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html

As was stated before, the Council of Florence in 1442 stated

“It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church.”

Got it. Okay. Pretty clear up there.

In 1970, the Ecumenical Directory stated in Parr 75, “The hierarchy of truths” of Catholic doctrine should always be respected; these truths all demand due assent of faith, yet are not all equally central to the mystery revealed in Jesus Christ, since they vary in their connection with the foundation of the Christian faith."

Okay - we’ve got something in there that’s a new term - “hierarchy of truths”. But since it says that they ALL demand the assent of the faith - “these truths all demand due assent of faith”, no problem yet - nothing contradictory. Just, eh, new.

There is no denial of the truths taught by the Catholic Church. What it says is that not all truths are equally central, because of what the Church see as the connections of these truths to the foundation of Christian faith. In other words, some things are true; but even if we didn’t know them, they would not take anything away from the foundations or the essence of Christian faith.

Right away you’re drifting into trouble. As this document mentioned above, these truths demand the assent of the faith, therefore, they would not take anything away from the essence of the Christian faith only if we were not culpable for the ignorance. If we do culpably reject them or culpably refuse to know them - the essence of the Christian faith is utterly destroyed and lost because we would be rejecting culpably rejecting or refusing to hear Christ. (He who hears you, hears me - he who rejects you, rejects me).

When speaking about Protestants, who did not exist in 1442, the Church has had to address the issue of their conversion to the Roman Catholic faith. Therefore it concludes that “every Christian has the right for conscientious religious reasons, freely to decide to come into full Catholic communion” (Parr 99).

The phrase “every Christian has the right for conscientious religious reasons, freely to decide to come into full Catholic communion” (i.e. convert to the Catholic Church) goes for every human being that ever walked the face of the earth - now or then. More importantly though, is that not only is it a right to freely decide to enter the One True Church, it is a responsibility out of obediance to the will of Christ Himself. for them to decide to come into the Catholic Church.

continued…

 

[DustinsDad]

The Church reiterates its obedience to the revealed truth, but also acknowledges that the situation has become more complex than it was in the past. Therefore, the Church has to look at the situation as it has developed and come up with an appropriate response for today. The situation has changed since 1442. Therefore, the Church reviews what was said back then and makes a proper application for today.

Um, okay that’s fine. But don’t forget that we aren’t taking one step from 1442 to 1970 - the Church applied the Truth to problem of protestantism for 400+ years in the meantime - consistantly.

Perhaps the most detailed encyclical on this matter is the wonderful Mortalium Animos from Pope Pius XI in 1928. Please read it if you haven’t already.

How the Church makes this leap is a very complex and detailed process that we cannot explain here in detail. Those who are interested in the details must engage in a protracted study of the Ecumenical Directory, its development and the different positions that were discussed in putting it together.

C’mon - what about a protracted study of the previous 400 years you seem to imply can be skipped? What about the encyclicals of all the popes in between that addressed these issues? What of the dogmas and canons of Trent and the First Vatican Council?

How do you know you are reading these new documents* in light of Tradition* if you are ignorant of the infallible encyclicals and Councils that took place in the skipped 400+ years?

The other option is to accept in faith that the Church is not abandoning the faith, but has made a serious and prayerful effort to respond to today’s situation. This means that we must trust the good will and the authority of the Pope and the Bishops involved in this process.

I totally agree - but the protection of infallibility mean that no formal error can be bound for the faithful, not that every approach will work and not that there won’t be some major crisis along the way to the end of time (only that it will survive them in the long run) and not that there won’t be some ambiguous troublesome documents along the way. And again, if something is ambiguous, it must be taken in light of the infallible Truth already revealed - truth cannot contradict it.

“The ecumenical movement seeks to be obedient to the Word of God, to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and to the authority of those whose ministry it is to ensure that the Church remains faithful to that apostolic Tradition in which the Word of God and the gifts of the Spirit are received The situations being dealt with in ecumenism are often unprecedented, and vary from place to place and time to time” (Parr 30).

Okay - sounds good so far.

There is a leap from the Council of 1442 to today.

Oy! Again with the leaping of 400+ years!

"The Churches and ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation, for the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation. In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or ecclesial Community, their celebrations are able to nourish the life of grace in their members who participate in them and provide access to the communion of salvation (Parr 99).

And does this mean these groups are salvific in and of themselves, that they can culpably yet safely reject truths that just above it said demanded the assent of faith? Such is impossible in light of Tradition

Or does it mean that those completely and inculpably ignorant of the fullness of truth might be saved if they are inculpable for their ignorance and/or rejection of Christ’s One True Church, are validly baptized or have at least the implicit desire thereof, and die with no unrepentant mortal sin on their soul?

If the former, the document is in error. If the latter, it is taking an awful looooooong document with alot of fluffy sounding words to say what Pope Pius X said clearly enough just a few decades earlier, and it’s saying it in such an ambiguous way as to be very distressing and confusing for the faithful. A less charitable person might call it sophistry. Here is Pope St. Pius X’s clear and precise language:

Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

(Catechism of Pope Pius X, #29)

However we must consider two things, first the understanding of non-Catholic communities that existed in 1442 and the understanding that the Church has of those communities today; second, the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church both in 1442 and in the year 2008, just as Christ made clear certain mysteries to the Apostles in stages, he continues to do so with the Church.

And again, any deepening of understanding of a divinely revealed truth cannot contradict a previous understanding

continued…

 

[DustinsDad]

It is up to us to accept in faith that the Holy Spirit will not steer us wrong, that if there is a change in wording or approach, it is by His grace and intervention.

With all due respect, you are applying infallibility to many documents that do not fall under the umbrella of infallibility, and even of those that do, infallibility means no formal error can be bound - not that they are going to be crystal clear in what they say.

We must beware of the temptation to look for plots and errors where there may be none.

And we must be on guard, with the light of all the Church has Divinely Revealed through the ages, to recognize error when we see it.

And we shouldn’t be so naive as to think that individual members of the Church can’t fall into heresy and teach them as truth until called on the carpet for such errors? Isn’t it true that most major heresies actually started with fallen bishops?

As to why the Church has not explained these details to the faithful, if one reads the document it places the burden of learning this on us, through schools of theology, universities, seminars, and other institutes of learning. The Magisterium is not saying that we don’t have a right to understand how we got from point A to point B. It’s simply saying that this is too much to be explained in detail in one simple lecture. If you want to understand the details go to school. This has been done since the beginning of the Church. The Church has not always explained every teaching in detail.

When the Church (I say when not if) finally gets around to addressing the ambeguities explicitly, it will face a firestorm from the modern world. Hunker down. For when it does really address them clearly and unambiguously, they will be understood by all as in the light of Apostolic Tradition (which of course is mean-spirited and bigoted ). For example, just a little teeny weeny bit of clarity - such as with the recent CDF explanation of subsists - look at the reaction of the world. Pope Benedict wants to rewrite a traditional prayer for the conversion of the Jews, retaining the conversion part, and look at the firestorm.

When the Lord raises up another Pius X (perhaps Benedict XVI will become this man, he seems to be going that way), look out…and again…hunker down.

The average Catholic doesn’t understand the details of the hypostatic union or how the Immaculate Conception is actually possible.

Ever talk to kids raised in traditionalist homes? 6th graders can answer understand and explain these dogmas my friend. Yet the most learned and educated struggle to define exactly what this new “ecumenism” is.

For example, can you finish this statement: Ecumenism is ____________________.

(here’s a good article that goes into this in more detail: Ecumenism as a Virus.

This is what the Church wants us to do.

III-b) "When speaking of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, it is important to present their teaching correctly and honestly.

Of course.

Among those elements by which the Church itself is built up and given life, some - even many and very valuable ones - are to be found outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.

And remember that anything true outside the Church is also found within Her. The elements of truth not yet rejected by these groups are good building blocks and signs that call them and point them to the One True Church to whome these elements of yruth have been entrusted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Spirit of Christ therefore does not refuse to use these communities as means of salvation.

Only inasuch as they are not culpable for their ignorance/rejection of the truths not found in their groups, or only inasmuch as such elements of truth move them to enter the fullness of truth - the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ.

Doing this also puts in relief the truths of faith held in common by various Christian confessions. This will help Catholics both to deepen their own faith and to know and esteem other Christians, thus making easier the search in common for the path of full unity in the whole truth." Observe that the Church wants to help Catholics.

Very problematic. Full unity already exists in the Catholic Church. Those separated from Her need to enter Her for the salvation of their souls and for the Glory of God. Period. You have to read the above statement with this understanding. It can be done. With some difficulty, but it can be done.

That’s all for tonight I think.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Once again, you’re choosing to ignore the Magisterium’s authority and power to make such changes.

Why does it seem so difficult to accept that the Pope cannot be questioned on these matters?

No one is asking us what we like. We’re being told what to do and how to do it by the Vicar of Christ.

It is what it is.

You and I can call it whatever we want, but in the end, it’s the power of Peter speaking. Where it leads is only known to the Holy Spirit.

We need to stop looking for evil and errors where there are none. Peter cannot desire to destroy the Church. He may destroy his soul, but not the Church. It is in conflict with Christ’s promise.

Yes, we have stopped using all language that is offensive to non-Catholics, but by a decree of Peter who has the power given to him by Christ to demand that we stop and to declare that such language violates charity.

If we stick to the literal assault of non-Catholics, then we run the risk of becmong fundamentalist Catholics. This is not the wish of the Church. In the end the wish of the Church is also the wish of Christ who guides it. Also, once Peter declares that such language is a violation of Charity, he has put a moral spin on its use. He cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

Also, if they are trying to bridge the separation between Catholicism and Protestantism, without disavowing dogma, they are doing Christ’s will by working toward the unity of the universal Church. Christ himself prayed that we may all be one.

Read the documents, study the dialogues of the Bishops involved in putting it together, the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Pope and you will see that it is not a horrific plot, but a plan to save all souls through that which unites us, rather than continue to battle over what separates us, since such a battle has proven futile after 500 years.

God bless,

JR

I second DustinsDad’s posts. Also, Dietrich von Hildebrand certainly has a right to critique Fr. Hardon’s catechism, and there is nothing amiss with what he said.

Also, it does not seem that the Principles and Norms would qualify as an infallible document. The overall troubling issue, especially to a regular Catholic, is that it seems as if it could easily give the impression that one can just as easily be saved in a Protestant church as in the Catholic Church and that there is no real reason to become Catholic.

And naturally, of course one does not want to begin talking to a Protestant by saying, “Hey, you big fat jerk…”

 

[po18guy]

Also, I find it interesting that this phenomenon is more common among North Americans (including Canadians) and Europeans. What is in it for us to debate? Why can’t we spend our time and energy understanding how to be good Christians and how to apply the spiritual principles that we have inherited to our daily lives and our dealings with others. It would seem to me that time would be better spent understanding how to be saints, such as the great mystics did. Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton’s last words on her deathbed to her daughters were, “Be children of the Church.” She didn’t tell them to go out and challenge the Church’s every decision or teaching. I don’t get it.

Amen! Americans in particular, have a tradition of disobedience (the revolution). The European equivalent, I suppose, is the reformation. Faith is about obedience. Period. Once you lapse into disobedience, you insult God by doubting His ability to preserve the faith. You doubt His mercy and love toward His elect. The reformation was begun with disobedience via the ego. Every heresy, every schism has its roots in disobedience from the ego. Christ could have asked to be served, but he chose to serve and taught the Apostles to do the same. Obedience is the child of humility. I pray for humility.

Christ’s peace, and welcome home!

 

[JMMK]

The overall troubling issue, especially to a regular Catholic, is that it seems as if it could easily give the impression that one can just as easily be saved in a Protestant church as in the Catholic Church and that there is no real reason to become Catholic.

For the vast majority of my life as a cradle catholic, all I really knew are these recent wordings of the teachings. And I never got that out of them.

The way I’ve always known it is the only way to obtain eternal life in the Kingdom is through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ established his Church on Earth and we call it the Catholic Church. We have it easy since we have the fullness of truth and so we can follow Him and be worthy of his promises.

Those outside the Church have it much harder. They don’t have the sacraments (usually), they don’t have all the church teachings from 2000 years of study and revelation, all they have is the Bible. The bible isn’t any less true just because you aren’t in the Catholic Church, but without the proper teachers its harder to be Faithful to Christ.

Harder still are those who do not even have the Bible as a reference and only have the obvious truths of God reflected in His creation.

Ultimately, God judges us all. He knows His own and lets them in. Ordinarily, His own would be those taught by the Successors of the Apostles and obeyed. Extraordinarily, you have those He still claims, either through invincible ignorance or baptism of desire. So there is salvation outside the temporal body of the church, but there is no salvation outside the mystical body of the church which is Jesus who is the Living Word.

My understanding of this has grown with time and study, and I’m realizing just how hard it is to be outside the temporal body of the church but stay in the mystical body. Improbable but not Impossible.

Anyway. I’m not ordained, I’m not a theologian aside from a hobby. I just thought I’d give my view as a young adult raised in a post-Second Vatican Coucil household.

 

[po18guy]

Unity requires discipline. However, discipline is not the same as traditionalism. Unity is a goal and discipline is an internal attitude, not a custom. JR

Amen! to everything you say. The reformation was disobedience. The American revolution was disobedience. The results were mixed. However, the mindset is destructive when applied to absolute truths. Christ didn’t command us to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow whenever we agreed with Him. Denial of self requires humility. The children of humility are obedience and discipline. Revolution and dissent, especially in faith, are products of the ego. Ego was present at Eden. Ego lead Saul, David and so many of the Lord’s chosen to sin. Father Abraham, in actions so rich in prophecy, denied his ego, denied his love of his son, for the greater love of God and obedience to Him. Who are we to judge ourselves greater than him?

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[po18guy]

This is my opinion. You will get others. Traditionalists are saying that Vatican II **was a valid council **and **ALL the Popes **have been valid. What we often argue about is the style in which the documents were written. They often seem to be ambiguous which have led many to interpret them differently.

Ah, but look at the times in which VII was taught. The era of, not freedom, but license. The sexual revolution, dissidence in the church, “doing your own thing”. It is more a matter of how the teachings were conducted rather than the teachings themselves. This was an age of light for the church, but an age of darkness for its teachings. When did the sex scandals begin? When did the exodus begin? The minute that moral absolutes were cast to the wind.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Jeanette_L]

I just wanted to add a thought concerning the difficulty of many in the Church today being able to comprehend or come to terms with VII’s teaching on salvation outside of the temporal Church. Bear with me please.

If you look back over the whole of the 20th Century in the worldwide Church, one of the themes or messages that keeps coming to the surface, all over the place, is the Divine Mercy of God and the urgency in which He wants us to open up to it, understand it, participate in it and spread the good news far and wide.

Until we start to see the world, and every soul in it as God sees, we will never ‘get’ what it is He’s trying to tell us. God will go to the ends of the universe to save every last soul, if only they will respond, even to their dying breath. Each soul is of such infinite value to him, I don’t think we truly get that or we would be rejoicing - praising him day and night for what He is showing us.

Sometimes I think that our hearts are just not big enough to comprehend all that He has done and all that He is doing. We pull back in discomfort when He reveals even a speck of that Light of Mercy that He wants to pour out on us and on the whole world. Is it possible we have a hard time comprehending a God who is so Merciful, because we - in and of ourselves - aren’t?

The VII’s teachings have been unsettling to many, not because it is saying something different about the nature of God and Salvation - Christ crucified on the cross says it all - it’s because it is emphasizing it in a way that is asking us- all of us - to trade in our hearts of stone for hearts of flesh that bleed for the world like our Savior’s.

Sure there have been abuses since VII, but I think if we are reasonable, we can see that the secular culture in which we are living is more to blame for this, it has infected our minds like a virus, and those who weren’t solid in their faith were completely overtaken by it - but God is moving and healing and things are settling back into a healthy state again. This wounding and healing seems agonizingly slow to us because it has happened over the course of our lifetime, but in the timetable of Church history it has all happened very quickly.

Maybe in order to realign ourselves with the Merciful Heart of God, we should all take another look at “The Passion of The Christ” this Lenten season, there is a Mercy that knows no bounds. I know I am long overdue.