I think your sentiments are shared by many. I continually hear, especially from the “traditionalists” as you refer to them, that most people are not properly catechized. I guess I have to wonder is this just an excuse used for why so few “mainstream” Catholics haven’t become enthralled with the issues of the 'traditionalists?" I guess they don’t seem moved, but then the middle of most organizations isn’t. Are there other possble reasons do you think?**A separation of the Catholic Church here in the United States with Rome I don’t believe will happen because of the unique nature of American Catholicism. There is only a small movement of radicals who are pushing for a separation but the vast majority of Catholics in this country seem satisfied with how the Church is going (except for the sex scandal, but even this did not result in a mass exodus of the faithful). It will accomplish very little if there is a schism in the Church in this country. I also don’t care for the titles ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’. I much more prefer ‘traditionalist’ and ‘nontraditionalist.’ But, then again, you can have a ‘liberal’ who believes in everything the Church teaches, but who is quite politically/socially active in ways we may disagree with.
We as the laity have to be vigilant to pass the complete Faith down to the next generation. Unfortunately, the last two generations have been lost because of poor catechetics.**
I agree that the human being is subject to corruption as well, given that rather than “liking sin” as you claim, the human ego makes every decision based on what it thinks best for itself at that moment in time. Obviously some very bad results occur: people murder, rape, etc, based on some sense of self interest at the time. I’m wondering if a more transparent decision making process and a more democratic methodogy don’t help here.This quote from you reminds me of your (name removed by moderator)ut in the ‘Private Judgement’ thread. I think I heard your point being that when one entrusts ultimate authority to an institution, that trust in large corrupts said institution and makes it manipulate people for its own gain. On a human level, I believe you are totally correct. The problem is that the same forces work within the human soul on an individual level. The power of human rationalization is truly amazing throughout history. When you place ultimate authority in individual consciences, that power corrupts the conscience as badly as it does any institution. This is one of those pesky side effects of Original Sin. Ever since that fateful day, we humans have had this problem: we LIKE to sin. It seems good to us. Some are more easily see-through than others. Some are harder than others. To some, it seemed like the right thing to do to execute what they saw as the meddling nobody who made ridiculous claims of being the son of God, even. If that was what their conscience told them to do, was it right?
In day to day life and in grey areas, we must rely upon our consciences to discern right from wrong. But when conscience comes into conflict with revelation, revelation trumps. And for that to happen, there needs to be an arbiter, a reliable judge, an authoritative teacher with the Divinely given charism to cut through the infinite human capacity for rationalization. Thankfully God is merciful and loving. He is not the God of the deists. He does not abandon us to our fate or leave us without recourse. He did not hand out a book before the Ascension and say “So long, and thanks for the fish!” Scripture is pretty clear that the early church taught with authority and settled matters of dispute. They did so with rational discussion, but in the end matters came to a clsoe when the authority was excercised. And so it continues today.
Jeremiah 17:9I agree that the human being is subject to corruption as well, given that rather than “liking sin” as you claim, the human ego makes every decision based on what it thinks best for itself at that moment in time. Obviously some very bad results occur: people murder, rape, etc, based on some sense of self interest at the time. I’m wondering if a more transparent decision making process and a more democratic methodogy don’t help here.
Well, okay, so you place no importance on a doctor doing a legal act. But it does not follow that they wouldn’t perform it if they were opposed to it. Doctors don’t always have the luxury to make that choice. Neither do lawyers. You are called upon to represent everyone no matter how you might personally feel.The point is not the legality of either profession Hit Man or Doctor. The point is neither would perform a specific act if they were opposed to it. Both do it for money, legal or not. As to your attorney suggestion, that doesn’t wash either. Attorneys do not represent murderers or drug dealers, they represent individuals ACCUSED of these acts. Under our legal system however guilty these miscreants may be, until they are found guilty by a jury of their peers they are innocent.
True, but the hypocratic oath that doctors take pledges them to “do no harm.” How any doctor can perform an abortion and pretend that it does no harm is beyond me.Again your logic is not there. Being a Hit man is an illegal “profession” and murder is illegal. Being a doctor is not illegal. And performing an abortion, regardless of what you may wish it to be is not murder under current law.
Basic knowledge of biology shows that unlike an appendix a fetus has its own dna that is unique and different from the mother’s. I’m pretty sure they learn that in medical school.I imagine they don’t feel it’s any more harmful than an appendectomy or a mastectomy.
This is absolutely true! This is so vital a fact that the mother’s body (in all mammals) has to adapt with a special barrier to protect the unborn child from the mother’s own immune system! The immune system will recognize the fetus as an alien infestation and proceed to attack it. Every obstetrician knows this.Basic knowledge of biology shows that unlike an appendix a fetus has its own dna that is unique and different from the mother’s.
One would think so.I’m pretty sure they learn that in medical school.
Fascinating post, Hysychios! Great info. I have to admit I never knew this! Praise God for more obvious proof that abortion is murder, pure and simple, and the greatest crime of our time. Thanks for the insight!This is absolutely true! This is so vital a fact that the mother’s body (in all mammals) has to adapt with a special barrier to protect the unborn child from the mother’s own immune system! The immune system will recognize the fetus as an alien infestation and proceed to attack it. Every obstetrician knows this.
If the barrier in the placenta is compromised in some way there will be a miscarriage, mom’s body will kill the baby in every case.
One would think so.
I have asked for the same proof from SM and have gotten no response. The only Idea I can come up with is that this was said by a dissident journalist or even a dissident member of the clergy. I cannnot fathom anyone having Pontifical sanction saying anything like this.Who in the Vatican? Where was that claim published? The Vatican is both a city state, and a bureaucracy filled with lots of people with lots of opinions. Until we know who made the claim and under what circumstances and in what context the claim was made, the mere fact that the claim was made carries no import.
No, you didn’t give any “official” arguments. All you did was post the doctrines of the EO and a few protestant Churches and an argument of something that is not even doctrine.You have attacked me as unlearned,but you have not addressed the poinst that I have brought up. This is what is known as an ad hominem argument. Let me explain to you what an ad hominem argument is. Instead of addressing the issues at hand, you attack the character of your opponent, by calling him unlearned or something else. Generally, an ad hominem argument is employed when you are unable to come up with a satisfactory response to the arguments raised by your opponents. I have given you several areas of official disagreement in the teachings of the Catholic Church and I can add several others:
Here are some teachings which vary:The Catholic Church is one in doctrine and faith, all the core essentials are the same…
Hi peary,**I much more prefer ‘traditionalist’ and ‘nontraditionalist.’ **
Where does it say in the CCC that the conscience is the be all and end all of all decisions? Funny, I thought the CCC said the Pope and the magestarium was the final arbitare of this issue.So I take it that you don’t believe in primacy of conscience at all and that the CCC is incorrect in stating that it controls in the end? And you don’t agree with the Popes who have stated the same thing? I do of course recognize that some people do relate to sin a good deal more than others in their theology.
It isn’t an open question, whether or not Mary died. Christian tradition tells us that she did die (before the Assumption). There wouldn’t be any reason to dogmatically define that.And, besides dissent, there are still open questions in Catholic theology that allow for a plurality of beliefs, n’est-ce pas? For example, the question of whether or not Mary died before the Assumption, or disagreement concerning Mary as Co-Redemptrix and other dogmas that have been proposed but not defined.
The Catholic Church says Christ’s blood was shed for the world and we have been given free will to respond to that gift.
- Some Churches say the Blood was shed for all, others say the Blood was shed for many.
Again, this is EO doctrine not the Catholic Churches.Some Churches say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Others say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
No, the Church says that there is no salvation outside the Church. Salvation only can come through Christ. However there is a thing called invisible ignorance, and even in that case it is still through Christ.Some say there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, others say that the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews and that the Jews can be saved.
True, but the hypocratic oath that doctors take pledges them to “do no harm.” How any doctor can perform an abortion and pretend that it does no harm is beyond me.
A comment and a question:Basic knowledge of biology shows that unlike an appendix a fetus has its own dna that is unique and different from the mother’s. I’m pretty sure they learn that in medical school.