Misleading / Distortions / Confusion on purpose

[WatchingMedia]

My Dear Friends in Christ:

Over a brief period of time, I have noticed that there are a few folks who are on CAF merely to
‘Distort teachings of the Church’ or to
‘Confuse those without a solid foundation’.

This is to be expected, on an open public forum.

If anyone makes statements about our Church that do not seem quite right, never hesitate to ask them for a “Link to the Catholic Church documentation” that can prove or disprove what he/she is saying.

You will want to read it for yourself, and also make certain nothing is taken out of context.

Don’t let anyone try to distract you from getting the documentation link.
When people know they are wrong and are doing it on purpose - a common tactic is to change the subject, or attack by calling names etc.

Ask for the documentation link, over and over and over if you have to.
Do not let anyone mislead, distort or confuse others.

(You can even ask for documentation regarding News items or Political figures.)

If people insist on it, TRUTH will prevail.

 

[MarkThompson]

My Dear Friends in Christ:

Over a brief period of time, I have noticed that there are a few folks who are on CAF merely to
‘Distort teachings of the Church’ or to
‘Confuse those without a solid foundation’.

Links, please?

 

[paperwight]

Links, please?

Thanks for the laugh, Mark.

 

[AnneElliot]

Not all Church documents are online, so a “link” might not be readily available. HOWEVER, that said, there are sources (like the Denzinger, etc.) that one ought to be able to point to in order to demonstrate said teaching(s) of the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

Over a brief period of time, I have noticed that there are a few folks who are on CAF merely to
‘Distort teachings of the Church’ or to
‘Confuse those without a solid foundation’.

Anything specific on your mind?

 

[Sirach2]

HOWEVER, that said, there are sources (like the Denzinger, etc.) that one ought to be able to point to in order to demonstrate said teaching(s) of the Church.

Problem is that Denzinger only goes back to 1957, Pre-Vatican II. If anyone wants to know the present teaching of the Church, which they SHOULD, it is best to consult the 16 Documents promulgated by this last Council. Often the main problem with traditionalists that they stop at 1957 theology and make their private opinion of older documents, a matter of current law.

This is exactly what the OP was speaking about, “misleading distortions,” whether they are purposeful, or simply misinformed from lack of due diligence.

 

[AnneElliot]

Problem is that Denzinger only goes back to 1957, Pre-Vatican II. If anyone wants to know the present teaching of the Church, which they SHOULD, it is best to consult the 16 Documents promulgated by this last Council. Often the main problem with traditionalists that they stop at 1957 theology and make their private opinion of older documents, a matter of current law.

You sure do keep at it with those assumptions!!

The present teachings of the Church are the **same **as they were prior to the Second Vatican Council. Unless you contend that Vatican 2 changed the Church’s teachings… in which, I’m going to have to ask you for specifics (in a new thread). There is nothing wrong with using the Denzinger to cite previous papal or conciliar documents… especially those that are not readily availble online (like the documents of Vatican 2).

Since you are referring to me, I’m going to also remind you that I have made recourse to the documents of the Second Vatican Council in our discussions. The problem, is that you want to divorce Vatican 2 from history and pretend that everything prior to Vatican 2 is irrelevant. This is false and heretical. Vatican 2 must be understood like everything else… in light of the Deposit of Faith.

This is why our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has been so insistent on having a “hermeneutic of continuity”!

In the spirit of this thread:
From *Lumen Gentium *#1
“1. Christ is the Light of nations. Because this is so, this Sacred Synod gathered together in the Holy Spirit eagerly desires, by proclaiming the Gospel to every creature,(1) to bring the light of Christ to all men, a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church. Since the Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race, it desires now to unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission. This it intends to do **following faithfully the teaching of *previous ***councils.”

 

[Speramus]

Problem is that Denzinger only goes back to 1957, Pre-Vatican II. If anyone wants to know the present teaching of the Church, which they SHOULD, it is best to consult the 16 Documents promulgated by this last Council.

If anyone wants to know the constant teaching of the Church, which they SHOULD, it is best not to limit oneself to one Council, out of many, or to one generation, out of many.

This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.
Lumen Gentium #51

Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines.
Hebrews 13:8-9

 

[Bluegoat]

You sure do keep at it with those assumptions!!

The present teachings of the Church are the **same **as they were prior to the Second Vatican Council.

THis logic could make one a sola scriptura adherent if you took it far enough.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Problem is that Denzinger only goes back to 1957, Pre-Vatican II. If anyone wants to know the present teaching of the Church, which they SHOULD, it is best to consult the 16 Documents promulgated by this last Council. Often the main problem with traditionalists that they stop at 1957 theology and make their private opinion of older documents, a matter of current law.

This is exactly what the OP was speaking about, “misleading distortions,” whether they are purposeful, or simply misinformed from lack of due diligence.

If the last ecumenical Council contradicts or is different than previous then 'Houston, we have a problem…"

 

[PKinsale]

Well, there’s always the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It and the Compendium are online.

 

[AnneElliot]

THis logic could make one a sola scriptura adherent if you took it far enough.

 

[roveau]

We wouldn’t need CAF at all if there was one site where the ultimate authoritative Catholic answers could be had via an internal search engine. However, even if there were such a site, many definitive answers turn out not to be so definitive depending on interpretation and of course also due to the influence of regional authorities, for instance.

I don’t think anyone sets out to confuse and deceive, though it may seem like that. The thing is that we are a very diverse community in CAF, with all levels of spirituality, orthodoxy, intelligence, knowledge… plus there is quite a range of religions represented here. That’s what I like about CAF and the vast majority of us are truly seeking God in some way. I pray for us all every day.

 

[Bluegoat]

It is not only post Vat II documents that become superfluous if there is no development of doctrine.

 

[AnneElliot]

It is not only post Vat II documents that become superfluous if there is no development of doctrine.

“The faith which God has revealed has not been proposed like a theory of philosophy, to be elaborated upon by human understanding, but as a divine deposit to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared. Therefore, that sense of sacred dogmas is to be kept forever which Holy Mother Church has once declared, and it must never be deviated from on the specious pretext of a more profound understanding. Let intelligence, and science, and wisdom increase, but only according to the **same **dogma, the **same **sense, the **same **meaning. If anyone shall have said that there may ever be attributed to the doctrines proposed by the Church a sense which is different from the sense which the Church has once understood and now understands: let him be anathema.” Vatican Council I, Dei Filius

 

[Bluegoat]

“The faith which God has revealed has not been proposed like a theory of philosophy, to be elaborated upon by human understanding, but as a divine deposit to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared. Therefore, that sense of sacred dogmas is to be kept forever which Holy Mother Church has once declared, and it must never be deviated from on the specious pretext of a more profound understanding. Let intelligence, and science, and wisdom increase, but only according to the **same **dogma, the **same **sense, the **same **meaning. If anyone shall have said that there may ever be attributed to the doctrines proposed by the Church a sense which is different from the sense which the Church has once understood and now understands: let him be anathema.” Vatican Council I, Dei Filius

Uh-huh. So you reject the Catholic understanding of development of doctrine? If not, where you you draw the line? What year did it stop?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Uh-huh. So you reject the Catholic understanding of development of doctrine? If not, where you you draw the line? What year did it stop?

If someone believes in Vatican I he rejects the development of doctrine? That is just the difference. The proper development of doctrine always makes the doctrine more clear and more specific, not more vague or less specific. You can’t have a Vatican III muddying what is meant by transubstantiation, for example. If anything in Vatican II actually makes what was already clearly and increasingly more specifically defined less clear or specific, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with it because it is not a legitimate development of doctrine. Of course, John XXIII and Paul VI both clearly said that they had no intention of changing (developing… because that is the only possible kind of change in doctrine) doctrine but merely presenting it in a new way to modern man.

 

[Bluegoat]

If someone believes in Vatican I he rejects the development of doctrine? That is just the difference. The proper development of doctrine always makes the doctrine more clear and more specific, not more vague or less specific. You can’t have a Vatican III muddying what is meant by transubstantiation, for example. If anything in Vatican II actually makes what was already clearly and increasingly more specifically defined less clear or specific, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with it because it is not a legitimate development of doctrine. Of course, John XXIII and Paul VI both clearly said that they had no intention of changing (developing… because that is the only possible kind of change in doctrine) doctrine but merely presenting it in a new way to modern man.

No, you need to read through the thread again. THat is not what I was saying at all.

 

[AnneElliot]

Uh-huh. So you reject the Catholic understanding of development of doctrine? If not, where you you draw the line? What year did it stop?

You’ll have to show me where the Catholic Church defines ‘development of doctrine’. Though, I have to say, I think you are reading much more into my posts than what is actually there. Sirach2 apparently believes that the Second Vatican Council changed all the teachings of the Church such that anything (and everything prior to Vatican II is irrelevant). I was refuting her charge and pointing out that the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI specifically cautions against that very error.

 

[Bluegoat]

You’ll have to show me where the Catholic Church defines ‘development of doctrine’. Though, I have to say, I think you are reading much more into my posts than what is actually there. Sirach2 apparently believes that the Second Vatican Council changed all the teachings of the Church such that anything (and everything prior to Vatican II is irrelevant). I was refuting her charge and pointing out that the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI specifically cautions against that very error.

Cardinal Newman wrote a lot on this idea. Essentially it explains how ideas like the Immaculate Conception, or transubstantiation, can become part of Catholic doctrine when they did not exist throughout the history of the Church. It says that these ideas were implicit in what the Church believed before, but over time are made explicit and worked out in detail.

From this perspective, reading only older documents could indeed be a problem, because although they would not be exactly untrue, they might be missing information.

But rejecting this idea is a serious problem for a Catholic, as many Catholic teachings cannot be justified without it.

If what you say is indeed true, you should be quite happy to deal with the documents that come from after Vatican II, since they cannot contradict what came before, but may explain it in a better way, or add details particularly pertinent to modern situations. Older documents, on the other hand, can more easily be misunderstood because we are not reading them in the same context.