New ‘Declaration of Truths’ Affirms Key Church Teachings

[Tis_Bearself]

Bishops are supposed to teach the doctrines of the Church. That’s their job. I don’t get how you can talk about two bishops like they’re somehow not part of “the Church”.

 

[TMC]

Bishops are supposed to teach the doctrines of the Church. That’s their job. I don’t get how you can talk about two bishops like they’re somehow not part of “the Church”.

They are part of the Church, with teaching authority over their dioceses (for those that have a diocese). They do not have teaching authority over the Pope and the Magisterium.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Well, if you thought the Pope and Magisterium had things a bit wrong, and you were a cardinal, wouldn’t you try to point that out in some way?

 

[TMC]

Well, if you thought the Pope and Magisterium had things a bit wrong, and you were a cardinal, wouldn’t you try to point that out in some way?

Yes, I would. But I would not do it in a public document that includes an “explanatory note” that accuses the Magisterium of lethargy, of sowing confusion and of violating its Apostolic Duties.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t mind Pope Francis, but it’s undeniable that he seems to create confusion regularly when he speaks on something. Even if I write off 2/3 of that to biased media coverage, he’s still creating confusion 1/3 of the time. I pray regularly for him to speak prudently but it is a problem. And I’m saying that as one who generally thinks he’s okay and is also used to Jesuits who push the envelope and think out loud.

 

[TMC]

I don’t mind Pope Francis, but it’s undeniable that he seems to create confusion regularly when he speaks on something. Even if I write off 2/3 of that to biased media coverage, he’s still creating confusion 1/3 of the time. I pray regularly for him to speak prudently but it is a problem. And I’m saying that as one who generally thinks he’s okay and is also used to Jesuits who push the envelope and think out loud.

Do you really think that having a bishop publicly accuse the Pope of violating his Apostolic Duties is helping reduce confusion in the Church?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

After what Bishop Schneider has been through, I think he’s earned the right to be frank. If he says anything contrary to Catholic teaching, the Pope can discipline him.

As for Cardinal Burke, I generally like him too, he has done a number of very good things. I don’t fully agree with him on everything or on every way he goes about doing things, and unfortunately I was not able to join his latest prayer group because I didn’t fully agree with its platform. However, I don’t think this sort of disagreement within a large organization is the end of the world either. I’m also not seeing where he has said anything directly contrary to Church teaching. It seems to be an issue of clarity and tone more than of substance.

 

[Ender]

Do you really think that having a bishop publicly accuse the Pope of violating his Apostolic Duties is helping reduce confusion in the Church?

Whether or not it is helpful would seem to be determined entirely by whether their statement is true. I would think that should be the focus of the discussion.

Provided that the “truth” is also in line with the established teaching of the current Magisterium

Suppose what the current Magisterium teaches conflicts with what was taught by previous Magisteriums (Magisteria?) What then? Are we to accept that truth is nothing more than the opinions of whoever is “current”?

 

[graciew]

The is no such thing as the previous Magisteria or Magisteriums .This wouldn’ t be a Catholic concept.
There is the Magisterium.

 

[Ender]

The is no such thing as the previous Magisteria or Magisteriums .This wouldn’ t be a Catholic concept.
There is the Magisterium.

While this may be true it doesn’t resolve the problem: what are we to believe when what the Magisterium teaches today contradicts what it taught before? Are we to assume that truth is really fluid and not fixed for all time?

 

[Phatmass1]

While this may be true it doesn’t resolve the problem: what are we to believe when what the Magisterium teaches today contradicts what it taught before? Are we to assume that truth is really fluid and not fixed for all time?

They used to teach slavery was fine and now they teach it isn’t. Are you conflicted by that?

 

[Ender]

They used to teach slavery was fine and now they teach it isn’t. Are you conflicted by that?

This is a comment from the First Vatican Council.

And as the things which the Holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

If you can show that slavery was something that had the unanimous consent of the Fathers, you might have a point…but it wasn’t, and you don’t.

 

[Bataar]

It’s not calumny if it is true.
He is denying current church teaching and helping to divide the Church even more.

Church doctrine cannot change. If current church teaching contradicts previous doctrine, than the current teaching is wrong. Official church teaching is that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church. There is nothing that contradicts that. Nothing true can contradict that since it is infallible doctrine.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Unless the leader IS actually leading some people into sin, of course. Not declaring that to be the case per se, but of course it is a possibility. One can be infallible in faith and morals and still lead others astray or into sin. Just ask Pope Alexander VI.

 

[Emeraldlady]

One can be infallible in faith and morals and still lead others astray or into sin.

Who is teaching you this as true? These are the statements that blow my Catholic mind. When the Church teaches a thing regarding faith or morals, who are we ordinary Catholics to think we can make that judgement and reject it? If we don’t have faith in the authority of the Pope to lead, guide and teach with the protection of the Holy Spirit, we aren’t Catholic anymore.

 

[KMG]

The Church has never sanctioned slavery.

And yes, infallibility does not mean that someone cannot lead someone else into sin. Infallibility is extremely narrow in its scope.

 

[Emeraldlady]

And yes, infallibility does not mean that someone cannot lead someone else into sin. Infallibility is extremely narrow in its scope.

Who determines what we can accept and reject from Church teaching? Are the many people that reject the teaching on contraception using your tenet that "infallibility is extremely narrow’, are they exercising the same conscience right that you are?

 

[13pollitos]

There are quite a few popes throughout history that have lived immoral lives and could very well be considered to have led people into sin.

 

[Emeraldlady]

There are quite a few popes throughout history that have lived immoral lives and could very well be considered to have led people into sin.

So in your opinion, that is a sound reason to make our own personal judgement about whether a Popes teachings should obeyed and submitted to or not?

 

[13pollitos]

If something is not spoken ex cathedra and is not supported by doctrine and Tradition, I believe that it is reasonable to use a well formed conscience to evaluate for yourself.