Is the Magesterium going to convince?

[nerfherder]

I have never found anywhere that the Church claims one can dissent and still be in full communion with The Church.

Even here the last Pope never states if a theologian cannot accept some teaching he is justified:

***INSTRUCTION
ON THE ECCLESIAL VOCATION
OF THE THEOLOGIAN ***

It is a type of reference and starting point. The problem I see is that some want to contradict what is there. Where is that justification found?

It is a life long proces. If one contradicts the Church then that would mean there are two Christs. One who is the authority that speaks through the Church and other Christs who dissent against themselves. Seems impossible, no?

Yes, impossible - and perhaps incomprehensible as you have put it. But I do agree that the development of conscience and moral judgement is a lifelong process, and I was wrong to put it the way I did. I think I felt that there was something in CCC that spoke down to Christians like popes, cardinals, bishops and other clerics, as well as lay people who are past the stage to which 1783 is addressed. Perhaps I am wrong here.

from fix but objectively to reject the teaching of the magisterium is to reject the authority of Christ.

from fix as a Catholic, he has the rights that derive from the nature of being a Catholic. He does not have rights that go against that nature. He has the right to everything that makes him more a Catholic, but not to what makes him less. To claim rights incompatible with the nature of being a Catholic means to denaturalize oneself as a Catholic; one thereby begins to de-catholicize oneself; to “ex-communicate” oneself in the literal if not in the juridical sense.

Is it only those who have been raised in the reformed church context (ie protestantism) that might believe that the authority of Christ is independent from and superior to that of the Magisterium? That loyalty to the interpretations of the Magisterium, as a Catholic, might sometimes be challenged by - for example - literal belief in the creation of Eve by God from the rib of Adam? That one might wish that the Church would ease up a bit on rules, doctrine and dogma and what one should not do, and concentrate somewhat more firmly on our prerogatives and responsibilities as Catholics in this world, following the examples set by Christ? (By the way, I have not seen a discussion on this Forum on the mission of Christ - why he came - and at Easter, this is core. What are the implications for us, as we sit and argue theology once again, ignoring what is out there. Christ came to heal. What do we do?)

OK, and if one becomes ‘denaturalised’ as a Catholic, what should one do then?

Jabulani

 

[guanophore]

Is it only those who have been raised in the reformed church context (ie protestantism) that might believe that the authority of Christ is independent from and superior to that of the Magisterium?

I think not, but one cannot be influence by such traditions and think otherwise. To be “protestant” (reformed) REQUIRES rejection of that authority.

That loyalty to the interpretations of the Magisterium, as a Catholic, might sometimes be challenged? That one might wish that the Church would ease up a bit on rules, doctrine and dogma and what one should not do, and concentrate somewhat more firmly on our prerogatives and responsibilities as Catholics in this world, following the examples set by Christ?

I think that most of us, at one time or another, have wished that the teachings were “eased up”. That was not Jesus’ way. There is no distinction between the doctrine/dogma, and the responsibilities of Catholics in the world, nor is there any distinction between them and the example of Christ. They are all a seamless garment.

(By the way, I have not seen a discussion on this Forum on the mission of Christ - why he came - and at Easter, this is core. What are the implications for us, as we sit and argue theology once again, ignoring what is out there. Christ came to heal. What do we do?)

Start a thread! You make it sound as if the dogma an doctrine somehow fail to fulfill His healing mission!

OK, and if one becomes ‘denaturalised’ as a Catholic, what should one do then?
Jabulani

I don’t know. I think it best to prevent it from happening. Jesus seems to indicate that it may not be able to restore flavor once the saltiness is lost. Matt 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men. "

You might be interested in this thread:

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=142925

 

[fix]

Yes, impossible - and perhaps incomprehensible as you have put it. But I do agree that the development of conscience and moral judgement is a lifelong process, and I was wrong to put it the way I did. I think I felt that there was something in CCC that spoke down to Christians like popes, cardinals, bishops and other clerics, as well as lay people who are past the stage to which 1783 is addressed. Perhaps I am wrong here.

I am trying to relate that truth is above conscience. I think we tend to view our conscience as a teacher. The point is our conscience is a pupil. It needs to be informed. The ultimate source is the person Jesus Christ who is truth. He cannot be separated from His Church.

Is it only those who have been raised in the reformed church context (ie protestantism) that might believe that the authority of Christ is independent from and superior to that of the Magisterium?

I am not sure of what you mean here? I admit many do not understand that Christ speaks through His Church on matters of faith and morals. That folks do not perceive that yet does not make their understanding correct.

That loyalty to the interpretations of the Magisterium, as a Catholic, might sometimes be challenged by - for example - literal belief in the creation of Eve by God from the rib of Adam?

I do know the Church teaches we must accept there were two original parents. The particulars of Genesis I am not an expert on.

That one might wish that the Church would ease up a bit on rules, doctrine and dogma and what one should not do, and concentrate somewhat more firmly on our prerogatives and responsibilities as Catholics in this world, following the examples set by Christ?

I would say there is no shortage of folks who grasp the social Gospel. It is the rest of the story that is not known or rejected. I do not think the Pope wants Catholics to appear to non believers as simply moralists. That does not mean that those who have accepted the Catholic faith should not grow deeper in understanding. The moral law is openly questioned and rejected. That needs to be addressed through catechesis, through patient explanations, and by good example.

(By the way, I have not seen a discussion on this Forum on the mission of Christ - why he came - and at Easter, this is core. What are the implications for us, as we sit and argue theology once again, ignoring what is out there. Christ came to heal. What do we do?)

I think there are discussion here that address that. I, also, think folks tend to dismiss things like moral theology because it makes them uneasy. Instead of finding freedom in loving God we hate His rules because it means we must change the way we live.

OK, and if one becomes ‘denaturalised’ as a Catholic, what should one do then?

Repent, pray, and cheerfully accept.

 

[TheApologist]

I think that people who regect the Magesterium don’t see it as the teaching of Christ.

Yes, but they are still rejecting the teaching of Christ in reality, regardless of what they “see.” I wonder where Protestants think all the “erroneous” Catholics prior to the Reformation went after they died…After all they didn’t reject the “non-teaching of Christ” right?

 

[guanophore]

Yes, but they are still rejecting the teaching of Christ in reality, regardless of what they “see.” I wonder where Protestants think all the “erroneous” Catholics prior to the Reformation went after they died…After all they didn’t reject the “non-teaching of Christ” right?

I believe that a lot of them did. I think it was the sinfulness and selfishness in the clergy, the greed adn power hungry clerics and sometimes bishops as well as secular “Catholic” leaders that fomented the Reformation. If more of them had been living holy Catholic lives, I think the reformation would not have happened. It would not have been necesary!

 

[TheApologist]

I believe that a lot of them did. I think it was the sinfulness and selfishness in the clergy, the greed adn power hungry clerics and sometimes bishops as well as secular “Catholic” leaders that fomented the Reformation. If more of them had been living holy Catholic lives, I think the reformation would not have happened. It would not have been necesary!

I wonder if God let the Reformation happen to strengthen the faith of Catholics everywhere…I mean once we have to defend the faith, we have to know and share the faith moreso. Ursula Le Guin said that “to oppose something is to maintain it.” I mean if all the Reformers hadn’t opposed certain doctrine, they wouldn’t have been reaffirmed and many Catholics wouldn’t know them because they would never have encountered them. God let’s wrong and difficult things into our lives to challenge us and make us better people right? Now I don’t know about you, but opposition to Catholicism has made my faith ever stronger.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I believe that a lot of them did. I think it was the sinfulness and selfishness in the clergy, the greed adn power hungry clerics and sometimes bishops as well as secular “Catholic” leaders that fomented the Reformation. If more of them had been living holy Catholic lives, I think the reformation would not have happened. It would not have been necesary!

Luther wasn’t wrong to call for reform. The problem was that many of his specific reforms were the wrong ones.
However states would have wanted to extend their power over the Church, because changes in communications had put enormous power into the hands of the central adminstration. As one of the 39 articles puts it
“General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes.”

 

[nerfherder]

I wonder if God let the Reformation happen to strengthen the faith of Catholics everywhere…I mean once we have to defend the faith, we have to know and share the faith moreso. Ursula Le Guin said that “to oppose something is to maintain it.” I mean if all the Reformers hadn’t opposed certain doctrine, they wouldn’t have been reaffirmed and many Catholics wouldn’t know them because they would never have encountered them. God let’s wrong and difficult things into our lives to challenge us and make us better people right? Now I don’t know about you, but opposition to Catholicism has made my faith ever stronger.

This is the first quiet indication I have seen on this Forum that the ‘rebels’ might actually have played a vital role in the preservation of the mother church. As an historian, I have always seen the Reformation thus: RCC down and almost run out of legitimacy; rebels move in and out; rebels move out; RCC forced to reassess.

There is still a question for me about the legitimacy of the apostolic succession in all of this, but I can leave that for now because I am pleased there is some flexibility on the role Luther and others played in helping to shore up a wobbly Church.

 

[guanophore]

I wonder if God let the Reformation happen to strengthen the faith of Catholics everywhere…I mean once we have to defend the faith, we have to know and share the faith moreso. Ursula Le Guin said that “to oppose something is to maintain it.” I mean if all the Reformers hadn’t opposed certain doctrine, they wouldn’t have been reaffirmed and many Catholics wouldn’t know them because they would never have encountered them. God let’s wrong and difficult things into our lives to challenge us and make us better people right? Now I don’t know about you, but opposition to Catholicism has made my faith ever stronger.

Yes, this is true for me also, but it would have happened equally well from without the Church. I read this week that the separations between us are the sixth wound of Christ, and I can believe it. I think His heart, and that of His mother, ache over our differences.

 

[guanophore]

This is the first quiet indication I have seen on this Forum that the ‘rebels’ might actually have played a vital role in the preservation of the mother church. As an historian, I have always seen the Reformation thus: RCC down and almost run out of legitimacy; rebels move in and out; rebels move out; RCC forced to reassess.

There is still a question for me about the legitimacy of the apostolic succession in all of this, but I can leave that for now because I am pleased there is some flexibility on the role Luther and others played in helping to shore up a wobbly Church.

Luther did not help to shore up a wobbly church. There were saints and theologians that did do this, but Luther’s method was divisive, and fractured the church. I agree that dissent can play a vital role in the growth of the church, and has throughout her lifetime. But dissent must happen in such a way that it preserves unity, as this is the charism to which Christ has called us.

 

[nerfherder]

Luther did not help to shore up a wobbly church. There were saints and theologians that did do this, but Luther’s method was divisive, and fractured the church. I agree that dissent can play a vital role in the growth of the church, and has throughout her lifetime. But dissent must happen in such a way that it preserves unity, as this is the charism to which Christ has called us.

I have no doubt the reform came from within. But maybe Luther held up the mirror.

I have to go back to the authoritative book on it that I picked up two weeks ago - I am a slow reader these days so it may take some time.

One needs to know a deal more about the Magisterium as well, its history in particular, and how it derived its divinely inspired nature.

The story of the Church of Rome is exceedingly convoluted.

 

[guanophore]

I have no doubt the reform came from within. But maybe Luther held up the mirror.

Certainly, but don’t you think this can be done from within?

I have to go back to the authoritative book on it that I picked up two weeks ago - I am a slow reader these days so it may take some time.

Given the vast amount of reading you do, it is a wonder you cover so much ground!

One needs to know a deal more about the Magisterium as well, its history in particular, and how it derived its divinely inspired nature.

Yes. I was reading on another thread about Catholicism “developing doctrine”. This is a complaint that comes from Protestant and Catholic alike. I have do say, I find myself mystified by it. I don’t see how the Apostles could know how things would be. Of course, they have given us the seeds, but they could not have envisioned cloning, stem cell research, HIV, etc. How could the Church NOT be expected to sort these things out?!

The story of the Church of Rome is exceedingly convoluted.

Yes, complex and complicated. It is interest for me to study Orthodoxy, and the years before “Rome” was so central to the faith. There is very little of anything “Roman” in the Byzantine church I attend. It is very Greek, and oriental in practice. It is a real mind bender for me, having been raised with customs of the Latin Rite, and believing that there was only one “right” way to do things.