Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[elts1956]

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.

Again, this is EO doctrine not the Catholic Churches. And to get into history a bit, this is what caused the great schism. Now we Western Catholics think the Eastern Orthodox? Catholics are in schism from Rome and the Eastern Orthodox think we are. Also the Pope in Rome declaring supremacy in matters of faith and doctrine was another cause for the split.

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.

Anything else??

Uh huh, what do you think of Evangelium Vitae by Pope John II in which he extends the meaning of the term “Church”?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

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.

That isn’t true. If a procedure is elective, such as abortion always is, a doctor can refuse to perform it. In the case of a lawyer, unless he is court ordered, he can refuse to handle a case, particularly if the case is civil.

 

[Hesychios]

…this is EO doctrine not the Catholic Churches.

The Catholic Faith subsists in Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

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:

Where you referring to this?

Clement:

For nearly twenty years, in my conversations on the topic I have differentiated between “American” Catholics and Roman Catholics. There are people in America who claim to be Catholic but think doctrine should be determined by majority vote and (as one priest said) “the Pope can run his church and I’ll run mine.” These I called American Catholics, and I looked forward to the schism which would cause them to leave the True Roman Catholic Church and go form their own American Catholic Church.

In more recent years, I have found that my differentiation between American and Roman Catholics was causing confusion, so I have taken to simply referring to the two groups as Roman Catholics and pseudo-catholics.

 

[Corki]

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

OT but it is being changed. The Vatican stated a few years ago that all vernacular translations must match the Latin “pro multis” - for many. The English translation that should be coming out in 2010 will read that way.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

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.

It isn’t a matter of “adding” it is a matter of defining. Take for example the Immaculate Conception, defined as dogma in 1854 (I think). Does that mean that in 1853 the Church did not have the fullness of truth? Of course not, The Church always believed that Mary was the Immaculate Conception, but it had not defined it as dogma. It was the strong belief of the faithful that finally pressed the Magisterium to define the dogma.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

. . . they decided it was not a good idea and the Pope (perhaps reluctantly) agreed.

It should be noted that they decided defining the dogma of Mary Co-Redemptrix was not a good idea, they did not say it was not true. They feared the resulting repercussions and ramifications of defining such a dogma in terms of Protestant/Catholic ecumenism. Someday, the dogma may be defined.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

. . . 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.

Do you have statistical proof for that? Have studies been done? Polls taken?

As a pro-lifer, I am anti-abortion, anti-euthenasia, anti-capitol punishment, anti-torture of POW, anti-war, and anti-nucular weapons. I am so average that I am almost invisible, so I cannot think that I am alone in extent of my pro-life position. Let me simplify my stance, if it gives life I am for it, if it takes life away I am against it, that is what pro-life means.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

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

Bad translation. This has been the bane of leaving Latin for the vulgar tongue, somethings don’t translate well, and anytime you put a translater between the author and the hearer there is room for fiddling.

 

[Hesychios]

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.???

In the first place, the fact that Mary of Nazareth is the mother of God is Christological. Some err who try to say it is a “Marian” doctrine, it is all about Christ and His incarnation.

In other words, were it not for the incarnation of Christ no one would remember Mary today. There should not be a classification such as “Marian” dogmas.

Now, all this business about co-Redeemer is not necessary. Some recent Popes have used the term for Mary but it is not ancient. There are many co-Redeemers of Christ, if we actually look at what that is supposed to mean.

All of the Apostles were more involved in Jesus Christ’s than Mary was. They are all co-Redeemers for they all cooperated in this process actively. Every evangelist and missioner likewise, and every Godparent who does the job right. We all in some way mediate the work of Christ in the world

There is no reason to make this display as a dogma unless there is some other underlying motive. From the outside it looks like an extreme case of sycophancy for a creature of God. This is all new to Apostolic Christianity and it’s spreading through the Roman Catholic church could be a sign of degeneracy.

This should disturb anyone who desires unity in Christ. Orthodox Catholics, arguably the most conservative of Christians, will never accept it.

On another point, the idea that any creature could be considered Mediator or Mediatrix of all graces is sheer heresy. Very dangerous stuff. That is the job of the Holy Spirit of God, and no, Mary is definitely not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Her one husband is Joseph.

 

[tomarin]

They learn that in ninth grade, and I haven’t yet forgotten, so please don’t treat me as if I don’t know basic biology.

With all due respect, if you knew basic biology you would not equate an appendix with a fetus. A fetus is not an organ of the mother’s body but a separate human being in the earliest stages of development, according to basic biology.

I don’t think that most doctors would consider destruction of unique DNA to be harm. Continuing the argument from basic biology, menstruation and male masturbation also destroy unique DNA sequences, but they are not considered (medically) harmful.

No, the sperm and eggs contain dna that is derived from the parent’s genome. Neither one can become a human being by itself. When they combine at the moment of conception a human being with a unique dna pattern is formed.

 

[Hesychios]

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.???

In the first place, the fact that Mary of Nazareth is the mother of God is Christological. Some err who try to say it is a “Marian” doctrine, it is all about Christ and His incarnation.

In other words, were it not for the incarnation of Christ no one would remember Mary today. There should not be a classification such as “Marian” dogmas.

Now, all this business about co-Redeemer is not necessary. Some recent Popes have used the term for Mary but it is not ancient. There are many co-Redeemers of Christ, if we actually look at what that is supposed to mean.

All of the Apostles were more involved in Jesus Christ’s ministry than Mary was. They are all co-Redeemers for they all cooperated in this process actively. Every evangelist and missioner likewise, and every Godparent who does the job right. We all in some way mediate the work of Christ in the world

There is no reason to make this display as a dogma unless there is some other underlying motive. From the outside it looks like an extreme case of sycophancy for a creature of God. This is all new to Apostolic Christianity and it’s spreading through the Roman Catholic church could be a sign of degeneracy.

This should disturb anyone who desires unity in Christ. Orthodox Catholics, arguably the most conservative of Christians, will never accept it.

On another point, the idea that any creature could be considered Mediator or Mediatrix of all graces is sheer heresy. Very dangerous stuff. That is the job of the Holy Spirit of God, and no, Mary is definitely not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Her one husband is Joseph.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Well said. Are you sure you aren’t Catholic?

 

[Peter_J]

It should be noted that they decided defining the dogma of Mary Co-Redemptrix was not a good idea, they did not say it was not true. They feared the resulting repercussions and ramifications of defining such a dogma in terms of Protestant/Catholic ecumenism. Someday, the dogma may be defined.

Well said. I occasionally like to remind people that Cardinal Newman said that it was a bad idea for Vatican I to dogmatically define “Papal Infallibility”, but he nevertheless believed it to be true.

 

[bobzills]

On another point, the idea that any creature could be considered Mediator or Mediatrix of all graces is sheer heresy. .

I don’t think that this is considered heresy in Roman Catholicism, since the Mother of God is considered to be the Mediatrix of all graces by many Catholics.

 

[Peter_J]

OT but it is being changed. The Vatican stated a few years ago that all vernacular translations must match the Latin “pro multis” - for many. The English translation that should be coming out in 2010 will read that way.

Well said. I’ve heard that before, but I’d forgotten it when I posted earlier on the matter.

How can it be changed?

Well “changed” or “changed back”, depending how you look at it.

There is quite a difference between “all” and “many”. Many means “some” are not included.

My understanding is that the proponents of “for all” point to the fact that Christ spoke Hebrew, and Hebrew uses the same word for “all” and “many”. (Personally I don’t think that argument holds water; I’m just trying to explain how the change from “many” to “all” took place.)

 

[Marsha_Adams]

On another point, the idea that any creature could be considered Mediator or Mediatrix of all graces is sheer heresy. Very dangerous stuff. That is the job of the Holy Spirit of God, and no, Mary is definitely not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Her one husband is Joseph.

clipped from Wikipedia: Mary, Mediatrix of all Graces is a Marian feast day introduced by Pope Benedict XV in 1921 for the whole Roman Catholic Church.

Popes traditionally use encyclicals and feast day to promote Christian teaching. The Feast Day of Mary, Mediatrix of all Graces is viewed as a clear sign, that Pope Benedict intended to promote the Marian role of mediatrix. This concept has two meanings. Mary gave birth to the redeemer, who is the fountain of all grace. Therefore she participated in the mediating of grace. A second opinion states that Mary, assumed into heaven participates in the mediating of divine graces. of her son.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith “unadulterated by any doubt”, and of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."169

507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: “the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse.”

**John Paul II wrote **in his closing comments to his encyclical letter, Dominica Cenae, “I beg on my knees that, through the intercession of Mary, holy spouse of the Holy Spirit and Mother of the Church, we may all receive the light of the Holy Spirit.”

 

[bobzills]

OT but it is being changed. The Vatican stated a few years ago that all vernacular translations must match the Latin “pro multis” - for many. The English translation that should be coming out in 2010 will read that way.

So the teaching is being changed and the Church has not been one in this teaching. Actually, there are some Catholics who say that the Blood was shed for many is a Calvinist doctrine and they do not accept it:

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.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

I can’t speak for any doctor, but I’m not sure they would claim that it does no harm. Yet presumably the AMA and other medical ethicists are in agreement that doctors who perform abortions are not violating their Hippocratic Oath. You might want to consult a doctor and see what they say.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Spiritmeadow,

Since you appear to be fluent in primacy of conscience teaching would you steer me in the right ballpark in terms of a CCC cite? I’d glady embark on some good bedtime reading on the matter tonight.

Thanks!

Sure, they would be Moral Conscience…sections 1776-1802.