P
pataburd
Guest
What precisely do you mean by “larger truth”?
- Status
P
pataburd
Guest
continued:
What precisely do you mean by “larger truth”? A “truth” that somehow reconciles two contradictory propositions? A “truth” that somehow accommodates the corresponding heresy in one and the same pronouncement? Where is the rationality in that stance?
The observation that you make–and which is painfully manifest to all of us: that there is “division” and “inaction” among priests and bishops on this matter, just testifies to the confused and nearly derelict condition of “AMChurch” in this lamentable epoch. The division is usually traceable to dissent and/or heresy within the ecclesiastical ranks; the inaction traceable to cowardice or shame about the Gospel of Christ.
Rome has had to intervene and clarify matters because “AMChurch” clergy, by-and-large, are failing in their fundamental duties. It’s an awful embarrassment to the laity, who have had to step up to the plate because the vast majority of priests and bishops have simply walked off the field–“with two out, the bases loaded and the game tied”!
To borrow the Tea Party Patriots’ slogan: “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention”.
And to quote, in closing:
“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”
~ St. John Chrysostom (347-407), Doctor of the Church.
V
Veridical16
Guest
I try to draw from what I’ve LEARNED FROM THE CHURCH & Scripture …nobody owns truth, not even a priest. Jesus gives faith, and we watch & pray; we stand up to be counted hopefully. My own personal interpretation IS NOT there, I never claimed anything as if I was the first to learn what I can see and hope to come across what IS right.
Well since I’m not a priest & just a 26 year old layman, you accuse me something I’m not sure I’m guilty of in this case…
And you didn’t even really address the objections to your proposal that the Church will renege on the Sanctity of Marriage as some larger truth, so what more can I say?
I dismissed his words, in that its not applicable to what you were supposing. I don’t know that priest, he might have applied it rightly to something. Also those comments were not MY own personal interpretations. It’s only from what I’ve learned from other faithful Catholics (The Saints, Faithful Teachings from Franciscan Priests, etc. Apologists, Catholic Media) & my ongoing learning of Tradition, Catechism, and most importantly praying to God & the Blessed Mother for illumination. If I am mistaken, it’s only because I follow Chesterton’s adage, *“anything good worth doing, is worth doing badly! *” I’m not a very good apologist or anything , I saw your suggestions that did not seem quite right, so I spoke up.
The greatest thing about this perspective, it allows little room for EGO.
For instance in my vaporous life should I by God, run the race well – if I’ve shared anything Right & Good in engaging with others trying to defend the Church, it would have nothing to do with me but all from what I’ve gotten/learned from God & from the Faith & Witness of Others much more faithful than I, and God’s will working within them. Anything not Good? That’s all me baby!
All Goodness comes from God; There is no time for ego with that fact in mind.
THAT is not how the Holy Spirit works, you’re suggesting because a member of the clergy says something, that means what he says is INFALLIBLE???
Well, by their fruits you shall know them. Those who hear Jesus’ voice, do his will…
Anyway, whatever you are suggesting regarding Cuomo & hope for Counterfeit Marriage & now how the Holy Spirit guides the Church, just is NOT so…
You know how many priests had to be corrected by the mystical body?
It’s been going on since Athanasius had to rebuke fellow clergy! Pelagius, erred, the pope can sin!
The pope can err or have blind spots and make mistakes by example, administratively etc. i.e. Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran. Peter in Acts, getting called out by Paul.
Even Saints can say something not right in their judgments when the Holy Spirit might not be inspiring them; haven’t we all said something that was mistaken as faithful Catholics, that we’ve regretted later? It happens. We can err, because of our first parents! Our flesh is weak, this is why we must remember the Eucharist; adore the Blessed Lord and draw from the graces there.
Unless the priests are like the Lord Jesus, or the Blessed Mother, they can still say something privately while they are the Church Militant that might be learned from later in their judgments. It has to do with Original Sin, and what we’ve lost after the fall…
For instance. There are so many priests, bishops out there who are educated, either by defiance, or ignorance can say the wrong things. CA live talked abou today aboutt a New Age priest that had to have his words countered/reprimanded by the Church…
Please learn more about the Holy Spirit preserving the Church’s teaching, it’s not something we can fully grasp, but we do place our trust in Jesus’ words from Scripture. That the Gates of Hell will not prevail. A second one that is not brought up enough is we also KNOW that ALL generations will honor the Blessed Mother …Therefore the Church will remain til’ the end, he will not leave us orphans…Meditating on these is one starting point in understanding the supernatural preservation that God protects us with, like a Mother Hen…
Fulton Sheen on Authority and Infallibility.
bishopsheen.excerptsofinri.com/
fultonsheen.com/Fulton-Sheen-MP3s/Authority-and-Infallibility.cfm?PID=126
If you haven’t heard this taping of Servant of God, Fulton Sheen…
Please listen to the whole MP3, fellow Catholics
I’ve listened to this more than once, and I still am not quite understanding on infallibility, I don’t want to know too much anyway, God protects us in this way, possibly…that the World can’t even begin to grasp it is amusing to me; so they laugh at the notion that the Catholic Church has this gift from God. I think that’s intentional on God’s part.
V
Veridical16
Guest
Pat, I don’t think their take on “larger truth” is quite right in how the Church guides us. Tsk-tsk’s posts, seems to come off justified by SELF. They allude to a larger truth, as if they personally know of something the Church doesn’t yet. See his post. #137
He gives vague allusions throughout that he is holding out hope that the Church will change its teachings on homosexuality & marriage, mixed in with weird justifications and tenuous references to how the Church operates, contradicting previous posts 174 to me:
and 177 to Ender:
Talk about a perfect counter-balance of posts! It’s self-refudiating!
:clapping:
SO WHICH IS IT? Seems to me one of the posts was not sincere. He was just trying to get cute, clever or whatever in 174, trying to throw back a flawed understanding of our Clergy & the Holy spirit, to defend his previous statements.
All because my posts were rejecting what he was suggesting, he says I have an ego. For rejecting his application of the priests words. It was basically a logical fallacy, in that he wants to appeal to the authority of the priest, because they didn’t want to listen to the objections above or didn’t even have anything to say about what was spoken against his previous posts about the Church EVOLVING its Truths into something LARGER.
Throughout, tsk posts say the Church will evolve soon, justifies Cuomo has done nothing wrong relative to his own conscience, and WHEN the Church declares something, it’s going to be more pleasing to the world or something, or get US going along with the world.
If we look at Church History, this is not the case when the Church has to RESTATE A truth when the world starts to reject IT.
He also accuses *me *of personal interpretation, when I am defending Church’s teaching on Marriage & its protection from Error, and he thinks he’s following well-thought Theologians by suggesting once they find a gay gene, the Church is going to say Gay Marriage exists???
But he is a rational person, and implies that the Church isn’t quite caught up to what he expects from it. It remains to be grasped. The Clergy including Pope Benedict himself, don’t quite grasp or understand our Lord yet on certain matters. . . .it’s a dangerous vagueness. Which leads to a false conclusion drawing from this: Evidence of division , means both aren’t quite right. That is simply WRONG.
Division doesn’t imply that. It MAY imply, as you have pointed out, that one side is in error & opposition to the Truth due to pride or whatever, and the other is faithful, or more faithful. The “Larger Truth” allusion, is almost as if we have to WAIT for the Church to be right on anything; it is approaching the idea that God is distant and removed, and hasn’t revealed anything to us…
There will be weeds/tares in the garden until the harvest. This we know.
Bravo Dude, Go American Patriots
Funny you mention St. John Chrysostom,
He says, something exactly like that Slogan above
*St. John Chrysostom wrote, **“He who is not angry where he has cause to be, sins.” ***
Tea Party Went with a good slogan!
T
tskrobacz
Guest
Science is continuing to expand our understanding of creation and is leading us beyond our current understanding to the depths of quantum entanglement, string theory, etc. As new facts are understood we become ever more aware of a God that is not beyond our knowing but is instead infinitely knowable. The nature of creation is she continues to destroy and create anew and God’s glory continues to be revealed. Clearly this is the pattern and it is also revealed to us in a succinct way in the person of Jesus.
P
pataburd
Guest
The nature of creation? Perhaps–at an appreciable stretch (you will need to give me some concrete examples of creation “destroying and creating anew”). The nature of revealed Truth? No.
What the Church has dogmatically defined and declared is not up for negotiation, nor will the dogmatic truth about homosexual acts being “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically evil” somehow change into something morally licit. Scientific truth will concur with theological/moral truth because those truths derive from the same Unchanging Truth.
T
tskrobacz
Guest
History is full of examples…
Extinction of the Dinosaurs…
Exploding Planets…
Black Holes…
The Birth of Stars…
The Death of Stars…
The Death and Resurrection of Jesus…
Subatomic particles the enter and exist existence…
Creation was not a single event that is now just running its course…it is clearly ongoing and we are part of it. Science has confirmed that the universe itself is accelerating in its ongoing expansion and indeed the search is on in earnest to confirm the existence of other universes (multiverse).
J
JimG
Guest
Not all bishops may be in total agreement on how to handle cases in which Catholics involved in grave public scandal continue to approach for communion. That is, after all a prudential matter related to the specific case at hand.
But if one really expects that the Church will at some future time change her view of the disordered nature of homosexual acts, one will be waiting for an infinity. It will not happen. To think it could is a symptom of the increasingly disordered nature of our own society.
But if one really expects that the Church will at some future time change her view of the disordered nature of homosexual acts, one will be waiting for an infinity. It will not happen. To think it could is a symptom of the increasingly disordered nature of our own society.
T
tskrobacz
Guest
Agreed it is a matter specific to Gov Cuomo…however while maintaining her view on the subject the Church must also continue to find ways to teach compassion and bring healing, not division, to the many wounds this topic opens among her faithful - many of whom have friends and relatives that are openly gay. We all live in that “disordered society” in this present time - oppositional energy rarely does anything but increase opposition (as demonstrated by the responses above)
P
pataburd
Guest
T_,
It looks like you are relegating the work of the divine, or supernatural, to that which is purely natural. The Resurrection was a supernatural event, but you have it cataloged as something on-par with the purely temporal and material.
The Resurrection did happen in the physical–that’s a dogma of my Faith, but it was not wholly confined there, as you seem to be suggesting. You seem to be subjecting God to material evolution.
Cordially,
PAB
T
tskrobacz
Guest
The point is the same God that fused matter and spirit as revealed by Christ in Jesus continually illustrates the pattern of death in resurrection in the natural world. We must all die to our self (deny ourself as Jesus said), our ego, and align our lives to the will of God. God so loved his creation that he gave us many examples of the pattern of dying and rebirth so we can accept and trust the path we must follow, which is Jesus.
D
DominickTango
Guest
I agree we should not discriminate against a homosexual. It is a sin against their dignity despite the sin they manifest. I would not also discriminate against anyone who puts themselves in spiritual danger; a couple living together, an adulterer, or a person of a non-christian faith.
I will be mindful that we are all created in God’s image.
This doesn’t extend to relaxing the rules of the Church and extending sacramental marriage to a homosexual couple. The error is that some think that by failing to make accommodation, we are acting out of discrimination.
E
Ender
Guest
This is a bit vague. The question is whether communion should be withheld from Gov. Cuomo because of his (several) actions contrary to the teachings of the Church on grave matters. This is not about how homosexuals should be treated.
Tskrobacz would not withhold communion solely because of Cuomo’s signing a bill making homosexual marriages legal - despite the Church’s position on the matter - because he (Tsk) appears to disagree with the Church on this subject, but it is not Tskrobacz’s opinion that is at issue but rather the actions of Gov. Cuomo. Let’s not get sidetracked on a topic that’s not relevant to the point raised by the OP.
Ender
T
tskrobacz
Guest
For me the issue is not whether or not communion is withheld and I’m quite certain the legal marriage would not be considered valid in the eyes of the church anyway. The bigger issue for me is making the matter public and the manner in which it is made public when it is clearly a personal matter with Gov Cuomo. The oppositional energy surrounding that approach will more than likely increase momentum for legalizing Gay marriage in other states especially when it is noted to come from the highest ranks of the Vatican.
D
DominickTango
Guest
Noted, seeing that I am incompetent in this matter, I can’t comment.
Let me turn this to why we are all incompetent. It is a hard call between denying a man the spiritual medicine he needs to get better, or the punishment of denial of sacraments to make him well. The pastor of the man, not just in the Cuomo case but in general has been given the charge by God to make that call. The Bishop ultimately can also make that call.
The goal is to make a manifest sinner repent and recant. If the punishment in meaningless to the manifest sinner then the effect desired is out of reach. If local Ordinary and Pastor judges that the better course is to let the man take Communion unworthily, in the hope that Jesus can work a miracle, then we are in the position of making a Bishop our personal marionette.
The Churches position is that Homosexual marriages are impossible. Tskrobacz’ position is irrelevant because the Church has taught this dogma definitively.
The Churches precedent and hence her position, is not to deny Communion to anyone if there is any hope it may do them good.
I would also claim Cuomo’s position is irrelevant, the OP was a “senor advisor to the Vatican” says he should be denied Communion.
Are there any other cases where the Church has denied an individual by name is not to be admitted to the sacraments, without an additional decree of excommunication? I know of none.
My point is the Church could excommunicate Cuomo, but there is no precedent for this form of lite-excommunication. Would an excommunication save anyone’s soul? I don’t think Cuomo is the concern, but would this have an effect? I again please incompetence in second guessing a Bishop.
Not to be long winded, but in the 1940s and 1950s Archbishop Rummel and Cardinal Ritter threatened segregationalist school administrators with excommunication for opposing integration of parochial schools. In that case the treatment they chose worked, and we would all agree now that this was the best for children of all races. It was years before forced segregation, at gunpoint in some cases, of public schools.
The Bishops needed no guns, but they just needed a simple decree, threatened at a critical juncture, and they used it effectively.
Note again, we are still incompetent to make the call to wield the decree of excommunication. I think we do more harm when we call for that too quickly.
E
Ender
Guest
Making what matter public? The discussion of whether to permit communion? Given that the action (signing the homosexual “marriage” law) was public - and indeed the act has to be manifest in order for the canon to apply - that aspect was unavoidable. The issue that this is a “personal matter” with the governor is not relevant. I’m sure that abortions are personal matters too, but that doesn’t change the way the Church views them.
First, I seriously doubt that the oppositional energy can increase beyond what it already is, nor do I think that merely wringing ones hands is a likely to be a successful strategy, but second and more important, the Church has taken a position and her belief in that position is being tested. If she does nothing she implies either that she doesn’t really believe what she says or that the issue is not all that serious. Either interpretation is severely damaging to the Church.
Ender
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR NOTICE
Please charitably discuss the issues not each other
Negative and rude comments toward clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.
Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.
If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.
You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.
If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.
Proof what you write before you post.
You may not make disparaging remarks about:
Please charitably discuss the issues not each other
Negative and rude comments toward clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.
Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.
If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.
You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.
If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.
Proof what you write before you post.
You may not make disparaging remarks about:
- Vatican II
- Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
- Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
- Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
- Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
- Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
- Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.
T
tskrobacz
Guest
Thank you for the reminders, moderator!
P
pataburd
Guest
T_,
O.K.
But how does this relate to the Church–Jesus’ Body on earth–reversing her dogmatic teaching of an immutable Truth (i.e. that homosexual acts are “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically evil”)?
Cordially,
PAB
P
pataburd
Guest
Dear T_,
Andrew Cuomo is a prominent public figure whose very **public **stance on same-sex “marriage”–in open, public opposition to the Church’s teaching–has now spurred a national, public rallying cry among homosexual activists.
To argue that Cuomo’s action is “clearly a personal matter” denies the plain facts of the case.
If the “oppositional energy”, as you describe it, is used by those specifically ordained to teach and guide (i.e. the U.S. bishops) to promote a clear, reasoned and public defense of Catholic teaching, then the momentum garnered for legalizing same-sex “marriage” would at least be checked, and the movement’s claims reasonably examined. Doing nothing is just that: nothing; and it correspondingly accomplishes just that: nothing.
Whether such pro-activity on the part of the U.S. bishops succeeds politically is secondary. That they publicly preach the truth, a duty to which all bishops are bound by Our Lord through their ordination, is primary. And THAT, I assert, WILL change the momentum where it matters: in the hearts and minds of men, not just on the chairs and benches of the U.S. Government.
Cordially,
PAB
- Status