Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[ClementRome]

You said a few pages back that “there is no American Catholic Culture, just Catholic Culture.” I think you interpreted SpiritMeadow’s statement about culture as also applying to Church teachings, and I wanted to clear that up. I do agree that culture has nothing to do with Church doctrine; that’s what I’ve been trying (ineffectively) to communicate for most of my participation in this thread .

.

I don’t see anywhere in my other posts where I talk about “American culture” and “Catholic culture”. Is there anywhere you can find this?

What I had said is that there is no “American Church”, just the “Catholic Church”. Spiritmeadow was somehow giving this odd assumption that the Catholic parishes in America somehow ran through a different body and doctrine than Romes simply because of the fact that many American Catholics don’t agree and follow Church teaching. I thought it was quite a presumptuous statement to think that just because a good amount of American laymen don’t follow certain teachings because they are unwilling to give up certain sins and now want them justified is not an excuse to change doctrine. Thus I said:

There are the true Catholics who follow what the Church says, and then there are the dissenters and heretics. There won’t be an “American Church” if it breaks with Rome. It will just be another protestant denomination outside of communion with the Church.

Where you referring to this?

 

[ClementRome]

…

 

[Eleve]

My bad; that quote actually came from elts1956’s post here. At some point you came into the discussion, and I didn’t notice that I was talking to somebody different. But, anyway, that post is why I was discussing the difference between a Church and a culture.

I think one example of the far-right sentiment among American Catholics that SpiritMeadow is talking about, which the Vatican would probably distance itself from, is hostility towards Muslims as evidenced on this very forum. It goes entirely against the Christian values of truth and charity, and undermines the Vatican’s ecumenical efforts, so it makes sense that they would not be on board with the Islamophobia that exists among some of the laity.

Praise God for more obvious proof that abortion is murder

If this is proof that abortion is murder, then rejected organ donations are also killed human beings.

 

[bobzills]

The Catholic Church says Christ’s blood was shed for the world and we have been given free will to respond to that gift.

Blood was shed for many - No, that is Calvinist doctrine, not the Churches.?

then why in the Tridentine Mass and in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostym in the Byzantine Catholic Churches do they say that the Blood was shed for many? And why in the Official catechism of the Council of Trent is it written that it was with good reason that the words for the Consecration of the Wine, it is said that the Blood was shed for many.
this points out the variance in CAtholic teaching. You say that the Blood was shed for all, but in the Catechism of the Council of Trent it says that it was with good reason that the words of the Consecration of the Wine say that the Blood was shed for many.

 

[Peter_J]

then why in the Tridentine Mass and in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostym in the Byzantine Catholic Churches do they say that the Blood was shed for many?

Not only that, but also the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite says in Latin pro multis (and in French pour le multitude). The English translation says “for all” but many believe this should be changed.

 

[Eleve]

I think you (general “you”) have to accept the reality that there are not Magisterial teachings to answer every question that could ever be asked ever, and that there is plenty of canonically legitimate disagreement among both the laity and the clergy on the various issues that are not defined doctrinally.

 

[elts1956]

Actually, I think you are referring to a comment that was made by either Pius XII or Paul VI about Satan’s smoke in the sanctuary.

Yes, you are right. Paul VI.

 

[elts1956]

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn’t make the statement that “the Church has stated there are no new Doctrines or Dogmas that will be added” unless I could reference a source.

You are right. I am trying to find the Church’s thoughts/teachings on that. One question to think about, the Church has the fullness of truth, so how can we add anything? All sorts of little kinks.

 

[peary]

This thread is NOT about Obama. For the record Obama is not pro-abortion. Nobody is. Pro choice is the term, and you use the former as a means to incite anger, I think.

You somehow claim that because Obama appoints pro-choice people he is anti-Catholic. I guess you forgot that the bible belt evangelical fundamentalists have been anti choice/abortion for at least as long as you have.

As I said, back on topic please.

No such thing as “pro-choice”. It’s a ridiculous label that attempts to put social responsibility on another.

 

[Eleve]

I don’t think that dogmas are “added” so much as reasoned from the ancient Deposit of Faith, with help from the charism of infallibility. If you can’t have new dogmas and new teachings, what about those that were added in the past? Is the Assumption an innovation? The Immaculate Conception? The closing of the Biblical canon at Trent? The Nicene Creed? Any theological formulation that ever came into existence would have been new at the time, and uncertain before being defined, but that has never stopped the Church from learning, defining, and teaching the logical consequences of already-established Truth.

 

[Eleve]

No such thing as “pro-choice”. It’s a ridiculous label that attempts to put social responsibility on another.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about “pro-choice” as a label, but isn’t “pro-life” also a rhetorical self-identification that also has an indirect meaning?

 

[elts1956]

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn’t make the statement that “the Church has stated there are no new Doctrines or Dogmas that will be added” unless I could reference a source.

You take one sentence out of a past post, not connected to anything, and then build a comment around it? Are you into conspiracy theory or something?

I think polling is a far better means my friend to see what you allude to. Not a single thread, with a dozen or so posters.

But whatever floats your boat as they say. Theorize away.

You know Spirit, after this past Pres. election, I find myself “suspecting” everyone. My naivety took a big hit on Nov. 5, 2008.

 

[elts1956]

I don’t think that dogmas are “added” so much as reasoned from the ancient Deposit of Faith, with help from the charism of infallibility. If you can’t have new dogmas and new teachings, what about those that were added in the past? Is the Assumption an innovation? The Immaculate Conception? The closing of the Biblical canon at Trent? The Nicene Creed? Any theological formulation that ever came into existence would have been new at the time, and uncertain before being defined, but that has never stopped the Church from learning, defining, and teaching the logical consequences of already-established Truth.

So far, the one thing I have found out about the dogma of the Assumption is that this was held as a truth from the beginning of the Church (not sure that is the time frame), the dogma was given to set the belief in concrete. I am still looking for other references.

I think there are some withing the Church hierarchy who would like to add three more dogmas regarding the Church’s relationship to Mother Mary, Co Redemtrix and two others which I have forgotten, so maybe I heard wrong.

 

[Hesychios]

I think there are some withing the Church hierarchy who would like to add three more dogmas regarding the Church’s relationship to Mother Mary, Co Redemtrix and two others which I have forgotten, so maybe I heard wrong.

It is more of a grass roots movement, some of the laity and some priests.

Totally unnecessary.

Interestingly enough, back in the 1990’s when Pope John Paul II (arguably one of the most Marian of a long string of Marian Popes) convened the Pontifical International Marian Academy in (of all places) Poland they decided it was not a good idea and the Pope (perhaps reluctantly) agreed.

The way some people are politicking for new dogmas is quite distasteful. They need to back off and put some of this wasted energy into catechizing the flock with the doctrines they already have. The laity are in bad enough shape without giving the people one, two, or three more reasons to become jaded skeptics.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about “pro-choice” as a label, but isn’t “pro-life” also a rhetorical self-identification that also has an indirect meaning?

Well, of course. Both labels are an attempt to gain the rhetorical high ground. I would hope that most people would see past their obvious ploy.

If you push most self-described pro-life adherents towards a consistent ethic of life, you will get a frenzied response of “ZOMG… the Catholic Church only requires that we be against abortion.” Which is to say, most pro-life advocates are really anti-abortion (and against the possibly related topic of embryonic stem cell research), and are not really not pro-life.

 

[elts1956]

I don’t think that dogmas are “added” so much as reasoned from the ancient Deposit of Faith, with help from the charism of infallibility. If you can’t have new dogmas and new teachings, what about those that were added in the past? Is the Assumption an innovation? The Immaculate Conception? The closing of the Biblical canon at Trent? The Nicene Creed? Any theological formulation that ever came into existence would have been new at the time, and uncertain before being defined, but that has never stopped the Church from learning, defining, and teaching the logical consequences of already-established Truth.

Hello Eleve, (already established truth) this sounds logical to me. I would really like to know where the dogmas originate, ie. in the beginning, the apostles believed/taught (please don’t ask me the source for that, I just know there has been discussion regarding this and this is what was/is believed) that the Eucharist was/is actually the body and blood of Christ. But it didn’t become Dogma within the Church until…? All Dogmas had to begin somewhere, but that doesn’t mean they were all immediately defined, correct? Thanks.

 

[elts1956]

Well, of course. Both labels are an attempt to gain the rhetorical high ground. I would hope that most people would see past their obvious ploy.

If you push most self-described pro-life adherents towards a consistent ethic of life, you will get a frenzied response of “ZOMG… the Catholic Church only requires that we be against abortion.” Which is to say, most pro-life advocates are really anti-abortion (and against the possibly related topic of embryonic stem cell research), and are not really not pro-life.

This is not true, on my part anyway. Sigh. Abortion is an Intrinsic Evil as are the other Life issues associated with it and on the voting plate this past November, ie euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, homosexual marriage. There are OTHER Intrinsic evils which were not on the ticket. For this past election ABORTION was the #1 Intrinsic Evil including the other life issues mentioned above. The other issues on the ballot wereNOT Intrinsic Evils and as such we can define their level of evil using our Prudential Judgement. Every person, not only Catholic will define these for themselves as to their importance.

Check the charities, causes, groups the Catholic Church and its members give to and support. Check out the clergy and laity who bodily put themselves in harm’s way to protect or support people. I think you had better check this out before you make anymore general statements such as “we Catholics only have to believe Abortion is evil and we aren’t really pro life”. I am truly insulted. :crying::crying:

 

[elts1956]

Well, of course. Both labels are an attempt to gain the rhetorical high ground. I would hope that most people would see past their obvious ploy.

If you push most self-described pro-life adherents towards a consistent ethic of life, you will get a frenzied response of “ZOMG… the Catholic Church only requires that we be against abortion.” Which is to say, most pro-life advocates are really anti-abortion (and against the possibly related topic of embryonic stem cell research), and are not really not pro-life.

It is more of a grass roots movement, some of the laity and some priests.

Totally unnecessary.

Interestingly enough, back in the 1990’s when Pope John Paul II (arguably one of the most Marian of a long string of Marian Popes) convened the Pontifical International Marian Academy in (of all places) Poland they decided it was not a good idea and the Pope (perhaps reluctantly) agreed.

The way some people are politicking for new dogmas is quite distasteful. They need to back off and put some of this wasted energy into catechizing the flock with the doctrines they already have. The laity are in bad enough shape without giving the people one, two, or three more reasons to become jaded skeptics.

I just read of this push for the extention of the Marian Doctrines to also mean Co Redemtrix etc. And I am confused on that one too. I thought Mother Mary was already acknowledge Co Redemtrix.???

 

[elts1956]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about “pro-choice” as a label, but isn’t “pro-life” also a rhetorical self-identification that also has an indirect meaning?

The term Pro Life does not regard the existence of choice. This is what it is, FOR Life.
Pro Choice is what it says, a choice between good and evil, life and death. To me pro choice is an easy out to be able to place responsibility for human life on the shoulders of the mother. Society doesn’t give a d…n about whether this is just, (absolutely just) or not.

 

[elts1956]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about “pro-choice” as a label, but isn’t “pro-life” also a rhetorical self-identification that also has an indirect meaning?

Not only that, but also the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite says in Latin pro multis (and in French pour le multitude). The English translation says “for all” but many believe this should be changed.

How can it be changed? There is quite a difference between “all” and “many”. Many means “some” are not included.