New ‘Declaration of Truths’ Affirms Key Church Teachings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Genesis315
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If a bishop doesn’t agree with something in this letter…well again, see above about basic Catholic doctrine.
 
KMG said:
If a bishop doesn’t agree with something in this letter…well again, see above about basic Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
I see it as in conflict with Catholic doctrine in several areas. Judaism and celibacy have been mentioned earlier in the thread - the issue there are obvious. I think the same is true for Islam. I see the passage on the death penalty as at least challenging Church teaching, even if it is not technically in conflict.

If the goal were to clear up misunderstandings or confusion (and I don’t think that was the goal), I don’t see how this document does that. The accompanying “explanatory note” is also problematic, in my opinion.
 
The degree to which one thinks the content of this letter is problematic is a measure of exactly what these bishops are talking about when they speak of “doctrinal confusion.”
 
KMG said:
The degree to which one thinks the content of this letter is problematic is a measure of exactly what these bishops are talking about when they speak of “doctrinal confusion.”
Click to expand...
So you hold this document above the teachings of the Church? If not, why do you resolve the discrepancies between this document and the Church’s teachings in favor of this document?
 
KMG said:
There is nothing in this document that conflicts with Church doctrine.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that, but you have not addressed the several discrepancies pointed out in this thread. The direct contradiction on the teaching on the salvation of the Jews is by itself very troubling.

One can agree or disagree with the Popes, but they are the ones with the authority to say what the Church teaches.
 
The Jews are not somehow exempt from needing Christ for salvation.

The letter of these bishops is perfectly in line with perennial Catholic doctrine.
 
KMG said:
The Jews are not somehow exempt from needing Christ for salvation.

The letter of these bishops is perfectly in line with perennial Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that Jews that are saved are saved through Christ, but also teaches that Jews do not need to convert to be saved. This document contradicts that, and thus directly contradicts Church teaching. I guessing you already knew that, though.
 
All are called to conversion to Christ. The Jews are not somehow the sole exception to that universal truth.
 
KMG said:
All are called to conversion to Christ. The Jews are not somehow the sole exception to that universal truth.
Click to expand...
You seem to be using deliberately cryptic language. Can you answer directly - do you deny that the Church teaches that Jews may be saved without converting?
 
Emeraldlady said:
When an expression of doctrine is no longer reflecting revelation, God gave us the Holy Spirit to guide the Churchs hand to ensure authentic transmission.
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Doctrinal teaching can certainly develop. But the development of doctrine means that a teaching is formulated and presented with a deeper and clearer understanding of what has already been taught, believed, and held to be true always and everywhere. It does not and cannot mean the opposite of what was once taught, believed, and held to be true. So if I read a doctrinal statement from a catechism published 10, 50, or 500 years ago, the doctrinal teaching would still be true today. True development of doctrine would not change that fact. Language may be updated; statements may be reformulated, but the content and substance of the teaching would remain intact.
 
The letter signed by these bishops offers timeless Catholic doctrine. Teachings don’t change because this or that pope decides to change them. The pope is a servant of tradition; he is not an innovator whose every innovation must suddenly be accepted as the new and prevailing truth.
 
TMC said:
You seem to be using deliberately cryptic language. Can you answer directly - do you deny that the Church teaches that Jews may be saved without converting?
Click to expand...
The Church proposes the possibility that non-believers may be saved, so that is not a unique position of the Church for the Jews only. I personally pray that Jews come to see that Jesus is the fullness of the Abrahamic covenant and that they accept Him as their Jewish Messiah. In fact, to pray for everyone’s conversion EXCEPT the Jews would seem to me to be anti-Semitic. Even St. Paul stated, “My heart’s desire and prayer to God on their [the Jews] behalf is that they be saved” Rom 10:1). And I’m sure there were Jews then who criticized Paul for what he said.
 
Last edited:
irenaeus1 said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
When an expression of doctrine is no longer reflecting revelation, God gave us the Holy Spirit to guide the Churchs hand to ensure authentic transmission.
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Doctrinal teaching can certainly develop. But the development of doctrine means that a teaching is formulated and presented with a deeper and clearer understanding of what has already been taught, believed, and held to be true always and everywhere. It does not and cannot mean the opposite of what was once taught, believed, and held to be true. So if I read a doctrinal statement from a catechism published 10, 50, or 500 years ago, the doctrinal teaching would still be true today. True development of doctrine would not change that fact. Language may be updated; statements may be reformulated, but the content and substance of the teaching would remain intact.
Click to expand...
Take the Church’s statements regarding capital punishment. 500 years ago it was inconceivable that a nation would legitimately ban its use as a penalty. Changed circumstances, evolved understanding of human dignity, improved capacity to suppress and confine criminals was inconceivable so couldn’t be expressed in Church teaching.

Today though, all those aspects influence the expression of the Church’s position to the point that the Church can say that capital punishment is ‘cruel and unnecessary’ (Pope StJPII) and inadmissible (Pope Francis update of the Catechism).

Some people are trying to say that this is not a development. That it is a reversal or change of doctrine. It isn’t. It is an expression of the doctrine in the light of revelation that provides fullness. That is something that most of the Catholic world happily accept. Not Burke unfortunately.
 
The continuing abusive tone toward a prince of the Church is amazing to note in a forum where the slightest question of anything the pope says is treated by some as tantamount to blasphemy.
 
Small wonder there is confusion though, when no less than an attaché of the Holy See Press Office (Father Rosica) has uttered what must be the most sycophantic, ultramontane statement in recent Church history: “Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.”
 
KMG said:
Small wonder there is confusion though, when no less than an attaché of the Holy See Press Office (Father Rosica) has uttered what must be the most sycophantic, ultramontane statement in recent Church history: “Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.”
Click to expand...
Huh? I think you’ve shot yourself in the foot here.
 
Hardly. Simply offering one example of the madness that currently reigns in some quarters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top