T
TMC
Guest
Have you read the Church documents that explain the teaching? The Church explains the teaching well.
- Status
I
irenaeus1
Guest
With regards to whether we have a right to disagree with Church teaching and then attempt to distinguish that from the right to say that the Church should not teach something is really a distinction without a difference. If I disagree with an official teaching of the Church, then I am (at least implicitly) stating that I believe the Church to be in error and that my own position is the correct one. It follows from this that the Church does not have the right to teach error (since I think that I am the one who is correct) nor does the Church have the right to oblige me or others to hold to that error. Thus, we are stating by implication that the Church may not teach something.
With that said, I believe all that the Church teaches and proposes for my belief.
I don’t believe that the authors disagree with the Church; they disagree with the ambiguity and confusion that in turns leads to erroneous teachings… and I agree with them in that. Their clarity in affirming certain truths of the Catholic and apostolic faith is refreshing.
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
But, as, it has been said many times already, some of what +Burke, et al is saying is NOT Church teaching.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
What statement specifically, for example? I know there’s been discussion on a number of things, most recent in this long thread was about the Jews. I’m sure that it was quoted somewhere, but what specifically? Thanks.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. I can disagree with someone or some entity without denying that entity’s right to make that decision. Those are very different things. Saying the Church is wrong is not the same thing as saying the Church lacks teaching authority.
I think you are completely wrong about this. I do think you have the right to think it, though. (See - different.)
M
Malcolm
Guest
Does the Pope have the authority to command Catholics to believe that black is white and/or has always been white ?
My understanding (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the fundamental teachings of the Church can’t change fundamentally. So for instance if the Church has always taught that marriage is the sacramental union of one man and one woman with no divorce then this teaching can’t be subsequently changed to allow divorced remarried people to receive communion etc
If you do not see the Pope’s clarification of Amoris laetitia as being like the “black is really white” example is there then no limit at all ? Will you also see nothing wrong with actively gay married priests giving communion to protestants and muslims because the host is really just a symbol of universal brotherhood? After all didn’t Jesus support “good things” like universal brotherhood ?
Before you accuse me of exaggerating please explain what the difference is in principle between the above cases.
My understanding (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the fundamental teachings of the Church can’t change fundamentally. So for instance if the Church has always taught that marriage is the sacramental union of one man and one woman with no divorce then this teaching can’t be subsequently changed to allow divorced remarried people to receive communion etc
If you do not see the Pope’s clarification of Amoris laetitia as being like the “black is really white” example is there then no limit at all ? Will you also see nothing wrong with actively gay married priests giving communion to protestants and muslims because the host is really just a symbol of universal brotherhood? After all didn’t Jesus support “good things” like universal brotherhood ?
Before you accuse me of exaggerating please explain what the difference is in principle between the above cases.
Last edited:
K
KMG
Guest
The unfortunate reality is that this pope is EXTREMELY clear about some topics (e.g., his distaste for so-called “rigid” Catholics), and just as EXTREMELY ambiguous about other issues (“Who am I to judge?” “Let’s not wait for the theologians.” “I forget about McCarrick.” etc etc).
Fortunately, however, magisterial teachings are not delivered by off the cuff airplane interviews.
Fortunately, however, magisterial teachings are not delivered by off the cuff airplane interviews.
T
TMC
Guest
I think this is an interesting question. I think the answer is “no”. As I referred to in an earlier post, I think the only true challenge to a doctrinal development would be to argue that the change in doctrine was so severe and sharp as to bring the authority of the proponent of the change into question.
I have always heard something like what you posit - that the fundamental teachings cannot change. I am unsure of the source of that, however. Regardless, that leaves the question as to what is fundamental. A good argument can be made the the Creed is the only fundamental teaching. One could also argue that the Great Commandments are the only fundamental teachings. I am sure there are also good arguments for other things. More on the idea of “fundamental” below.
Here is how I see the idea of core or fundamental teachings - using usury as an example. The Church used to teach that lending money at interest was always wrong - period. The Church now teaches that lending money at reasonable rates is perfectly acceptable. The Church now explains that the fundamental teaching on usury was not that lending money at interest is wrong, but that those who have wealth should not exploit and take advantage of those that do not. So lending is OK, as long as the terms are not unreasonable. But, any 10th century priest would assure you that interest is always immoral - that interest is theft - and that teaching would never change. But the Church understands the core of that teaching differently today than it did at that time. We understand the fundamentals differently today than we did 1,000 years ago.
Proponents of the recent changes in Catholic teachings, such as the changes to salvation for non-Christians, and the changes to Church practices, such as the changes Pope Francis has made in the way the divorced are to be handled, would assert that the fundamental teaching remains. The opponents will say the opposite.
Given the Church’s history of evolving teachings, and the way the current doctrinal developments have happened, I do not think it would be correct to say that the recent developments challenge or change fundamental teachings so as to challenge the teaching authority of the Church. It seems to me that the authors of the “declaration” see it otherwise. I just wish they be more upfront about it.
Last edited:
M
Malcolm
Guest
So umm… black was always fundamentally white therefore any discrepancy is merely apparent not intrinsic. I think demons argue this way but “who am I to judge” ?
p.s.
I also intuit a significant amount of good will on your part for which I thank you because these are difficult issues which I am seriously and unhappily struggling with.
Last edited:
I
irenaeus1
Guest
If a clarification of Church teaching illustrating or reminding believers of the core, foundational, or fundamental basis for any particular doctrine causes a ruckus, then that in itself demonstrates why the clarification was necessary in the first place. It seems that too often if people focus only on the nuances of the ‘development’ of doctrine without keeping the whole of the teaching in mind, individuals can stray from the fullness of truth to the point where the foundational and fundamental basis of a teaching sounds foreign to them.
Usury is an interesting topic since some theologians have argued that certain social issues, for example, economic models and theories, are not necessarily issues of faith and morals (although they certainly can have moral ramifications). Another perspective is that the definition of usury has shifted due to changes in fungible nature of money in the past as a commodity, like a barter system, versus sophisticated monetary institutions and money being treated separately from fungible assets, etc. But when talking about fundamental teaching or doctrine, it may be better to use some tenet of faith like the following: “Jesus is the only savior of mankind.” That is a fundamental truth such that even if this teaching is developed to understand that perhaps people who do not have an explicit faith in Jesus may be saved, but if they are, it is still through the grace of God wrought through the sacrificial death and glorious resurrection of Jesus, even if it has not been revealed to us how that might happen. That is different from someone only focusing on the nuance of the development itself, and therefore, concludes that one can be saved through Buddha as well.
Usury is an interesting topic since some theologians have argued that certain social issues, for example, economic models and theories, are not necessarily issues of faith and morals (although they certainly can have moral ramifications). Another perspective is that the definition of usury has shifted due to changes in fungible nature of money in the past as a commodity, like a barter system, versus sophisticated monetary institutions and money being treated separately from fungible assets, etc. But when talking about fundamental teaching or doctrine, it may be better to use some tenet of faith like the following: “Jesus is the only savior of mankind.” That is a fundamental truth such that even if this teaching is developed to understand that perhaps people who do not have an explicit faith in Jesus may be saved, but if they are, it is still through the grace of God wrought through the sacrificial death and glorious resurrection of Jesus, even if it has not been revealed to us how that might happen. That is different from someone only focusing on the nuance of the development itself, and therefore, concludes that one can be saved through Buddha as well.
Last edited:
I
irenaeus1
Guest
The possibility that a person may be saved if they do not explicitly profess faith in Jesus due to invincible ignorance, yet cooperate with the grace of God to follow His will according to the dictates of his conscience (so they follow the natural law written on their hearts) is completely different than stating that no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone. So no contradiction between what Cardinal Burke stated and the teaching of the Church. In fact, this is precisely what the Church teaches. For example:
Council of Trent: Session 6, Canon 1 : If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
I know quite well what it means because I particularly followed Pope St John Paul II’s life and his relationship with the Jews. This is not something that has sprung out of the blue with Pope Francis. The Church in it’s work and bearing in mind 2000 years of Christian history, can recognise a familial kinship in faith with the Jews that is godly and necessary. JPII had a lifelong friendship with faithful Jew Jerzy Kluger and he was an essential theological resource in JPII’s papal ministry.
In the last 50 years especially there’ve been an explosion of theological literature that has referenced ‘the Jewish roots’ of the Catholic faith, with the Jewish theological tradition as the key resource. Many Christian experts today believe that the loss of Jewish tradition from Christianity is the reason for the Western Schism. Protestants denied things like the mystical efficacy of the Sacraments as having pagan roots, having lost any sense of it Jewish roots, in the ‘enlightened’ world.
The Church has been on a mission to establish a proper relationship with the Jews to eliminate attitudes like ‘the Jews killed Jesus’ or that the Old Covenant was revoked in favour of the New Covenant. She has an already well established theological communion with the Jews but now it is time to make it official as we look towards the second coming of Christ.
T
TMC
Guest
I understand. I would also point out that I am attempting to describe the Church’s process, not defend it. Perhaps the difference is that I believe the Church is entitled to this process.So umm… black was always fundamentally white therefore any discrepancy is merely apparent not intrinsic. I think demons argue this way but “who am I to judge” ?
p.s.
I also intuit a significant amount of good will on your part for which I thank you because these are difficult issues which I am seriously and unhappily struggling with.
T
TMC
Guest
Well, I agree that is a problem. To the extent that the authors of the declaration believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium, they should also be troubled by their own position opposing those teachings. It should also be noted that infallibility is very narrow, and the Church has never set out which of its teaching are infallible and which are not, so it is difficult to say when (if ever) infallibility is impacted by the development of doctrine.
Emeraldlady
New member
But if you are thinking that Christianity today is no different to Christianity in the time of Paul and Stephen you’d be misguided. They weren’t teaching a renunciation of their Jewish faith to a new religion. They were teaching an acceptance that Christ was the awaited Messiah. It’s not realistic that Paul and Stephen would regard the Jewish faithful in the way they became regarded as Christianity took on a separate identity. Martin Luther was vocal in his hatred of the Jews as a whole. Jesus only ever denounced the Pharisees for their attitude and behaviour.
Emeraldlady
New member
Why are they different? There are still many today who don’t accept the reformulation referring to invincible ignorance and citing the Council of Trent as proof.Emeraldlady:
The possibility that a person may be saved if they do not explicitly profess faith in Jesus due to invincible ignorance, yet cooperate with the grace of God to follow His will according to the dictates of his conscience (so they follow the natural law written on their hearts) is completely different than stating that no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone. So no contradiction between what Cardinal Burke stated and the teaching of the Church. In fact, this is precisely what the Church teaches. For example:
Council of Trent: Session 6, Canon 1 : If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.
Emeraldlady
New member
Back in 2005 Cardinal Dulles (who’s one of the good old ‘conservatives’) wrote in first things.
THE COVENANT WITH ISRAEL
It’s worth a read.
THE COVENANT WITH ISRAEL
It’s worth a read.
1
13pollitos
Guest
America does not have the death penalty and hasn’t for quite some time. Federal crimes are crimes against America and there is no death penalty for federal crimes. Some states, not even all states, do still use the death penalty. With a few exceptions, the states that still have the death penalty tend to be the poorer states where a good percentage of the population has a lifestyle similar to non western countries. The US is extremely large. Not everyone lives in well established areas. There are people that live where there is no water unless you have a well or cistern because, no sewer, and the closest store is well over an hour away.
My parents were shocked when we immigrated here because it was nothing like they had believed the US to be. I don’t remember much (I was 5), but I do remember overhearing some of their conversations about things not being much different than Bolivia in parts of the state we settled in (Alabama). Some towns in Texas are closer to established businesses and services in Mexico than anything in The US. Parts of the Appalachian mountains and the Rocky Mountains are so remote you can go several weeks without seeing another human. There’s no phones or electricity in many spots across the country.
The states that still have the death penalty often go years at a time between actually using it. More inmates die of natural causes on death row than the executions they are sentenced to. America is not like any other western nation. It is much larger than most, more diverse, and still extremely rugged in many areas.
- Status