Jesuit general: all doctrine is subject to discernment [CWN]

[Blue_Horizon]

You can always respond to what I’ve actually written.

This from the contributor who rebuts with “I have several more reasons” which he doesn’t produce .
But let’s see if this is really about a proclivity to always have the last word no matter how empty of content…

 

[JPUSC]

Well then…I think that the Catholic doctrine of “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (“outside the Church there is no salvation”) should be discerned.

Since I am also discerning the doctrines of papal infallibility and the magisterium, let’s not use Church documents and other sources not from Scripture.

Instead this is what’s in Scripture:

Let us notice the three things, just enumerated: St. Paul in Romans 3:29 asks: “Is He the God of the Jews only? No, He is also the God of the gentiles.” It means that if God made salvation depend on knowing and following the law of Moses, He would act as if He cared for no one but Jews. But God does care for all. Paul insists God makes salvation possible by faith for them (cf. Romans chapter 4)

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT

Even before it was fully revealed that he was the Messiah, Jesus himself taught that “salvation is from the Jews” (Jn 4:22). He pointed the woman of Samaria to the body of believers existing at that time, through which salvation would be offered to all mankind: the Jews…

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)…

Similarly, he wrote: “*s God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith” (Rom 3:29-30).

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means*

 

[TMC]

When there is a radical divergence in interpretation then clarification by prounouncement is appropriate. Lack of clarification in such circumstances is lack of leadership by definition, as the Church is not being “lead”, but rather being scattered.

This has been the teaching of the Church in previous times.

Well, I disagree. The Church has gone through other periods during which teaching was discussed and debated. We have been discussing this particular issue a few years, which is not long in the big picture. Leading by pronouncement does not result in true teaching, just in blind obedience. The Pope is leading, and I would suggest that your opinion that he is not may have more to do with your dissatisfaction with his direction than it does with his leadership style.

 

[TMC]

You may not understand Catholicism. Local traditions are one thing, but moral teachings and Eucharistic practices are not supposed to vary from locality to locality. That’s highly problematic.

And quite frankly, the pope is supposed to lead by pronouncement in accordance with doctrine and deposit of the faith. Christ gave the pope and disciples the authority and duty to lead, to bind and loose, as it were. What I never saw Christ say was for each bishop to decide his own truths.

This issue isn’t tantamount to something like giving an absolution to eat meat when St. Patrick’s Day falls on a Friday.

LOL, back to the old CAF tactic of dismissing by charging ignorance instead of actually discussing. I assure you that I am well catechized, but thanks for your concern.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Do you think that brief words chiselled on stone 4000 years ago in an another language (eg Do not commit adultery) or brief statements written on papyrus 2000 years ago (eg Jesus re divorce) suffer from similar “limitations” and hence require discernment?
All the more so for situations very different from the one Jesus addressed.

Given the ArgDraft it now seems clear to most people that Pope Francis meant pretty much what some people feared in AL from the start.

My writings on this forum do not have the same authority as divinely inspired Scripture, nor are my writings followed by an organisation which was commissioned by God himself to authoritatively spread those teachings across the globe while being promised that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. The Church has already spoken with authority on the matters discussed here through 2,000 years of clear moral teaching and traditional practice.

Nobody questions the validity of “discernment” in the sense of analysing the situation, its components and context AND the Church’s teaching, and then determining how to act in accord with the Church’s teaching; it is the Church which infallibly communicates teaching on matters of faith and morals. It is when people drop the word “discernment” into every sentence to disguise an attempt to discern contrary to the Church’s teaching.

Private letters to Bishops which the Pope has refused to repeat, reinforce or present an argument for, are not infallible expressions of the Magisterium’s teachings on matters of faith and morals, as you well know.

Those who want a change in teaching on the immorality of sex outside of marriage and the subservience of conscience to objective truth expressed in Church moral teaching have already decided what destination they wish to arrive at, and are trying to use any argument available to get there as though “the practical ends justify the theological means”.

This is precisely why nobody is talking about Cardinal Kasper’s “penitential pathway” any longer. His argument served its practical purpose, and now it and the principles on which it was based and its theological reasoning have been discarded now that a different argument based on the “sovereignty of personal conscience” has been found which is thought to be more useful in advancing the agenda.

 

[Ghosty]

This from the contributor who rebuts with “I have several more reasons” which he doesn’t produce .
But let’s see if this is really about a proclivity to always have the last word no matter how empty of content…

You haven’t answered the reasons I did present, so why should I bother writing more? I would like to dialogue with you, but you haven’t yet responded to what I actually wrote.

Haphazardly throwing out an example of Christ’s actions is not an answer to my point. The Pope is not God, and a post-synodal exhortation on moral praxis is not Divine Revelation guided by the Holy Spirit.

If you have a response that applies to our current situation then please share it, but don’t presume that “but Christ did such and such” suffices as an answer.

 

[Mongo]

True enough. After all, supposedly (as there were no scribes around) Jesus said that peacemakers were blessed. But he never describes how they make peace. Maybe the spirit is guiding us, via the example of WW2, that the best way to achieve peace is through the fist of blessed nuclear weapons. Maybe now the church can toss off this misguided “doctrine” of near pacifism.

Yes, wouldn’t the world be a peaceful place without humans to disturb the peace?

I personally thing the Bible was speaking figuratively and to the time when it speaks about limits on sexual behavior outside of marriage. I think one night stands are alright under certain circumstances.

 

[Mongo]

Don’t just read the extract read the full text magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/02/22/marriage-and-divorce-the-general-of-the-jesuits-jesus-too-must-be-reinterpreted/

The whole interview, in Italian, can be found here rossoporpora.org/rubriche/interviste-a-personalita/672-gesuiti-padre-sosa-parole-di-gesu-da-contestualizzare.html

He says that they didn’t have tape recorders so how do we know what Jesus truly said. Well they didn’t have video cameras either, so how do we know if Jesus truly resurrected? So the Holy Spirit speaks to him directly, but it was unable to keep error out of the
Bible. I discern I don’t need him, or his ideas.

I also discerned a while ago that unless Pope Francis speakes ex cathedra, I can ignore him also.

I wonder whether Jesus ever even spoke. I need to discern whether the Holy Spirit is indicating to me that the words of the Bible were just made up.

 

[Ghosty]

Well, I disagree. The Church has gone through other periods during which teaching was discussed and debated. We have been discussing this particular issue a few years, which is not long in the big picture. Leading by pronouncement does not result in true teaching, just in blind obedience. The Pope is leading, and I would suggest that your opinion that he is not may have more to do with your dissatisfaction with his direction than it does with his leadership style.

The issue of divorce and remarriage has been around for more than a few years. It was addressed by Christ Himself, and by the Council of Trent. Treating this whole issue as if it’s new ground that must be carefully discerned by the Church is ignorant, if not outright dishonest.

Everything that is being discussed today must be examined in the light of what has come before, especially when the pronouncements that came before, and they were pronouncements from Christ and from Councils, were both clear in their day and have been expounded upon since. This isn’t to say that canonical praxis of these teachings can’t develop. For example, we can say that anyone in a second marriage is forbidden to receive Communion, or we can say that such people can receive Communion if they live continently, or we can say that in very specific circumstances some people may find themselves in a valid “second marriage” when their first marriage is invalid in fact, but can’t be declared such by a Tribunal. In this last case these people may be spiritually open for Communion, but their circumstances make it appear outwardly that they are not. All three of these approaches may be valid, though we may question the appropriateness of any of them.

If the situation stopped with the Argentinean approach then I believe we would have a challenging situation, but one that falls within the scope of 2000 years of tradition and praxis. We have seen, however, that this debate is spreading further than the Argentinean interpretation, and that some are proposing that that merely “feeling at peace” with one’s state in life is sufficient for reception of Communion. This flies in the face of 2000 years of tradition and moral theology, and deserves a more direct response than silence.

I am not a sedevacantist, and I have defended Papal Primacy on these forums in depth for years. I believe Pope Francis is protected by the Holy Spirit, as he is the center of unity for the Church which is itself protected by the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t mean that I don’t see serious problems with how this matter is being handled, and in such cases criticism is appropriate. History may prove his approach correct, but I don’t live with the luxury of foresight and I must speak from what I know.

 

[Mongo]

You haven’t answered the reasons I did present, so why should I bother writing more? I would like to dialogue with you, but you haven’t yet responded to what I actually wrote.

Haphazardly throwing out an example of Christ’s actions is not an answer to my point. The Pope is not God, and a post-synodal exhortation on moral praxis is not Divine Revelation guided by the Holy Spirit.

If you have a response that applies to our current situation then please share it, but don’t presume that “but Christ did such and such” suffices as an answer.

It is pointless to argue with blue horizon. He doesn’t believe in the effectiveness of the sacraments. Transubstantiation is superstition to him, and so is the effectiveness of every other sacrament. That is what he told me in another thread a while back on the subject of marriage. I was superstitious because I believed in transubstantiation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You haven’t answered the reasons I did present, so why should I bother writing more? I would like to dialogue with you, but you haven’t yet responded to what I actually wrote.

Haphazardly throwing out an example of Christ’s actions is not an answer to my point. The Pope is not God, and a post-synodal exhortation on moral praxis is not Divine Revelation guided by the Holy Spirit.

If you have a response that applies to our current situation then please share it, but don’t presume that “but Christ did such and such” suffices as an answer.

I am not the one who made the absurd assertion that lack of clarification of seriously divergent interpretations of a teaching is by definition a failing in leadership.

As by Jesus’s own example, and that of many great spiritual masters, sometimes this very approach is useful for advancing the insight of followers. It is undeniably attested in the Bible.

And your rebuttal is simply Jesus’s example doesn’t apply here for some vague reason .

"Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it…From that time on, many of His disciples turned back.”

You either get it or you don’t. You don’t because despite belonging to a faith based community you seem unable to tolerate serious lack of certainty/clarity for extended periods of time. Instead, like the disciples who fell away, you look for fault in your leader instead of yourself. Even to go so far as to say this must be true by definition re unclarity.
On the contrary, it is a part of faith, by definition, that we walk in darkness sometimes.
There is nothing more to say.

 

[Ghosty]

I am not the one who made the absurd assertion that lack of clarification of seriously divergent interpretations of a teaching is by definition a failing in leadership.

As by Jesus’s own example, and that of many great spiritual masters, sometimes this very approach is useful for advancing the insight of followers. It is undeniably attested in the Bible.

And your rebuttal is simply Jesus’s example doesn’t apply here for some vague reason .

"Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it…From that time on, many of His disciples turned back.”

You either get it or you don’t. You don’t because despite belonging to a faith based community you seem unable to tolerate serious lack of certainty/clarity for extended periods of time. Instead, like the disciples who fell away, you look for fault in your leader instead of yourself. Even to go so far as to say this must be true by definition re unclarity.
On the contrary, it is a part of faith, by definition, that we walk in darkness sometimes.
There is nothing more to say.

Instead of answering you resort to ad hominems yet again. I’m seeing a pattern here, and though I’ve tried to charitably engage you I won’t any further.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is pointless to argue with blue horizon. He doesn’t believe in the effectiveness of the sacraments. Transubstantiation is superstition to him, and so is the effectiveness of every other sacrament. That is what he told me in another thread a while back on the subject of marriage. I was superstitious because I believed in transubstantiation.

Mongo this is a polite but firm warning that your uncontrolled negative emotion is crossing a line…more so with your post in similar vein in my regards on another topic today.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Private letters to Bishops which the Pope has refused to repeat, reinforce or present an argument for, are not infallible expressions of the Magisterium’s teachings on matters of faith and morals, as you well know.

No I don’t well know anything of the sort. Infallibility is not an issue for me.

His letter makes very clear how he wants AL to be understood.
Anyone who still believes he didn’t mean that some active irregulars may one day be permitted to receive Communion is just not where the debate is.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

you haven’t yet responded to what I actually wrote.

Like Pope Francis hasn’t responded to the Dubia?

A post-synodal exhortation on moral praxis is not Divine Revelation guided by the Holy Spirit.

The odds are that it is and most Catholics would likely find it disturbing that you are so certain it is impossible for it to be so.

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon

"Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it…From that time on, many of His disciples turned back”

And still Jesus intentionally refused to “pronounce” and left his gainsayers in the dark to stew in their juices or convert. No loss of leadership, let alone “by definition” there from what I can see…despite the fineprint above.
Don’t presume that “but Christ did such and such” suffices as an answer.

It does for most Christians, especially when repeated by His Vicar on earth .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The issue of divorce and remarriage has been around for more than a few years. It was addressed by Christ Himself, and by the Council of Trent. Treating this whole issue as if it’s new ground that must be carefully discerned by the Church is ignorant, if not outright dishonest…

Can you quote from Trent where it anathematises any irregulars ever being able to receive Communion as a matter of doctrine?

The Church has never had a completely unified teaching and practice re all the complex issues of divorce, remarriage and communion from day one. Even the Gospels were endlessly argued about on these matters by local leaders down the centuries.
Anyone who has studied Patristics, Councils and the Penitential Manuals for the first 1000 years knows that. Though conservatives like to gloss over counter witnesses and the finer points to pretend there is.

So no its not new ground, it has been raked about endlessly from the beginning on the smaller points.

 

[Ghosty]

The odds are that it is and most Catholics would likely find it disturbing that you are so certain it is impossible for it to be so.

No. I refer you to the Catechism, paragraphs 66 and 67 in particular. I think most educated Catholics would be quite comfortable with this fact.

It does for most Christians, especially when repeated by His Vicar on earth .

Most Christians don’t get themselves Crucified to expiate the sins of humanity. There is context for everything, and merely saying that Christ acted a certain way does not suffice to show that such an action is always appropriate in every circumstance, nor does it go without saying that the two situations are comparable.

If I am giving directions on how to perform surgery it is inappropriate to leave the instructions vague and open to debate. Obviously things can’t always be neatly layed out, and no rule can account for all contingencies, but to argue that vagueness is always an appropriate form of direction and leadership requires a stronger argument than merely pointing out that Christ sometimes let some followers fall away without clarifying His teachings.

 

[Ghosty]

Can you quote from Trent where it anathematises any irregulars ever being able to receive Communion as a matter of doctrine?

Can you cite anywhere that I’ve said that all irregulars are anathemized and forbidden Communion?

The Church has never had a completely unified teaching and practice re all the complex issues of divorce, remarriage and communion from day one. Even the Gospels were endlessly argued about on these matters by local leaders down the centuries.
Anyone who has studied Patristics, Councils and the Penitential Manuals for the first 1000 years knows that. Though conservatives like to gloss over counter witnesses and the finer points to pretend there is.

So no its not new ground, it has been raked about endlessly from the beginning on the smaller points.

I’m aware of the debates. I’m not aware of anything more solemn than the Twenty Fourth session of the Council of Trent and its decrees, however.

 

[Ginny89]

The odds are that it is and most Catholics would likely find it disturbing that you are so certain it is impossible for it to be so.

Someone said this today:
“Do come back to us when you have serious references other than repetition of your own personal lay theology.”

I knew I wouldnt need to look far to find examples of the personal lay theology you have been filling these boards with. It is beyond absurb to state that any pope after St.Peter himself has been a source of revelation. Again, people need to aquaint themselves with the distinction between revelation and doctrine, and between the office of the apostles and the teaching office of the church in the Popes and the Bishops.

Now, let the adominems flow. The pattern I have picked up is when you are caught making an elementary error, they follow in a blessed flood.