S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Individuals or a parallel hierachical Church calling itself Catholic?
- Status
A
alwayswill
Guest
Groups of faithful Catholics who honestly believe their interpretations of Catholic Church teachings are correct: yet disagree with other faithful Catholics who honestly believe their interpretations of Catholic Church teachings are correct:
The disagreement on the meaning of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia among faithful Catholic is a current example.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Groups can always come up with differences. There is a final deciding body, called an Ecumenical Synod or Council, the Pope in Catholicism can also make a decision in some cases, based on his hearing from various sources. This decision is final. who decides honest differences among you or various Protestants?
A
alwayswill
Guest
???
Right now are going to tell me all Catholic interpret Amoris Laetitia
from two weeks ago the same way?
Or Vatican II from 50 years ago, or Unam sanctam from 700 years ago?
Are you going to tell me that you will get the same answer from every Bishop and Cardinal on Amoris Laetitia, Vatican II and Unam sanctam ?
Protestant model:
The highest authority is Scripture:
Catholics and Protestants agree it is impossible for Scripture to teach conflicting doctrines
Different Protestants have different beliefs on what the Bible teaches.
Sola Scriptura has not produced unity of belief
The Roman Catholic model
The highest authority is the Roman Catholic Church :
Catholics claim it is impossible for their Church to teach conflicting doctrines
Different Catholics have different beliefs on what the RCC teaches.
Sola Ecclesia has not produced unity of belief.
A
alwayswill
Guest
oops mis- post
A
Abu
Guest
False, as usual.
The fact that some who claim to be Catholics are dissenters merely shows the effects of the reality of Original Sin and of free-will which the poster ignores.
The real Catholic is as the Church teaches:
Can. 205 “Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.”
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PT.HTM
Thus those discarding any dogma or doctrine on faith or morals are not in full communion with the Church.
Identified here is precisely the state of dissenters, who pick and choose what THEY want to believe, just like those outside of Christ’s Church. The “interpretations” made by dissenters, whether Feeneyite, Sedecavantists, Traditionalists, modernists, or any others who rely on their own selfist feelings, desires, wants, prejudices – known as cafeteria (pick and choose) Catholics, or as George Weigel puts it – Catholic Lite.
,
This breed shuns the Magisterial infallibility mandated by the Son of God and they rely on their private interpretation as an alternative magisterium just as Protestants do. Unfortunately although having Christ’s teaching through His Church offered to them, some still try to deny Christ, misrepresent and reinterpret even Her Scriptures to their own destruction. (See 2 Pet: 2:1).
A
alwayswill
Guest
for the third time
I’m not talking about dissenters or those who are discarding dogma or doctrines
I’m not talking about those who know what the Church teaches and disagree with it.
I am talking about those who believe they are in complete agreement with the Church and yet disagree with those who believe they are in complete agreement with the Church.
A
Abu
Guest
Which precisely explains your errors for any so-called Catholic who does not assent to all dogma and doctrine is a dissenter.
As long as you fail to understand and employ the precise Catholic definition of terms on faith and morals you shall fail to arrive at truth.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Completely false equivocation. No Catholic teaches Sola ecclesia… and different Catholics (other than dissenting Catholics) don’t really have different beliefs. PERHAPS, some areas of difference in emphasis or Patristic explanation (such as no mention of Purgatory as a scholastic idea in the East vs. The term used by Westerners) but you are stating that differing PASTORAL practices equal different BELIEF - completely not true
R
rcwitness
Guest
Oh, ok… I think I see what you mean. You are asking about “interpretation of interpretation” or personal understanding of Teaching.
I would say, unless there is a specific conflict with practice, fellowship, belief, then a “seemingly” different understanding wouldn’t amount to much. It only becomes apparent when conflict occurs. And in such cases, there is a procedure that should be followed to come to one mind and judgment over such matters. First open and respectful discussion to discern if there is a genuine conflict in belief, then allowing each party present their case, then an authority to determine which party is orthodox and which is heterodox. If the party who was judged as heterodox refuses to reconcile, he is liable to excommunication.
G
guanophore
Guest
To an extent, yes. The difference is that Catholics have One Faith, that was handed down to us from the Apostles. We are limited in our speculations and interpretations by the boundaries of that Divine Revelation. So long as we remain within the sheepfold, there can be different ways of looking at things.
This is not something I see in Bible Christian ecclesial communions. As long as the Bible can be interpreted reasonably there are no external parameters. So we get communities that say people should not dance, some say that everyone should speak in tongues others say tongues have ceased, some say women must be under men, and some communities ordain women clerics, etc, etc.
The Holy Spirit is not divisive, so when there are divisions, it is not that everyone is hearing the HS as they believe, The HS does not contradict Himself, so there are no new “revelations” that are opposite of what has already been revealed.
This is where the concept of “doctrinal distinctives” falls to the ground.
10Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment." I Cor. 1:10
divisions here is σχίσματα (schismata
3If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4he is conceited and understands nothing; I Tim 6:3
different doctrine = ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ = heterodidaskalei
Sola Scripturists like to say that these passages are not about doctrine, but other kinds of “differences”, and that it is fine to have schismata and heterodoxy as long as everyone agrees on the “essentials”. This list of essentials is also not found in Scripture, and is itself a modern evangelical innovation.
Denominations are defined by which parts, and how much of the Apostolic faith they reject/deny:
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 2 Tim 4:3
This did not start with the Reformation, but certainly went into high gear at that time, and has continued breakneck ever since. Schism/heterodoxy creates more divisions, and that is why we have a bible church on every corner.
The other difference is that Catholics apply the biblical method given to us by Jesus for dealing with disputes. If persons cannot be corrected for getting outside the boundaries of the One Faith, we take it to the Church, to the Pastor, Bishop, or to the Successor of Peter if necessary. This works for us because the Church is what Jesus created, a visible, hierarchical and authorative body. Those who are in positions of authority may be ordered to be silent. They may have their permission to teach and preach revoked, or other disciplines.
Bible Christians just leave when they don’t like it, and open another storefront on the next block.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you may be referring to disciplines. Disciplines change over time and in different cultures. They are based on Doctrines that are unchangeable, but they are attempts to apply those doctrines to different needs in the Church.
Or you may be referring to the Pastoral Approach. This document is the current subject of much discussion, because it pertains heavily to how the modern family is served in the parishes.
These types of disagreements take place within the boundaries of the One Faith, and are one of the ways the Church works out how the HS is guiding us in the present day and age. Such discussions are like those at the first Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. We see opposing opinions, discussion, Apostolic Teaching, reflection on Scripture, and prayer. In the end we have an infallible teaching:
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” Acts 15:28
These teachings are infallible because they are guided and confirmed by the Holy Spirit.
No, but if necessary, the matter will be taken to an Ecumenical Council that will settle the matter, or the successor of Peter will settle it, after which there dissenters will be out of bounds.
These teachings are in different categories, so yes and no. Amoris Laetitia is still a matter for discussion and debate. The documents of Vat II and Unam Sanctum are infallible teachings, so yes, every Bishop and Cardinal should give the same answer. If there are some that do not, then they are out of order.
That being said, Priests and Bishops may apply the teachings differently in Pastoral settings depending upon what is best for the flock.
The CC is not “Roman” or “sola ecclesia”.
It is true that there are a number of Catholics who have different believes on what the Church teaches, but this is largely due to a lack of proper catechesis in the faith.
There is a unity of faith, one doctrine, one Church. The Church does not teach conflicting doctrine. Those who do not accept the One Faith are in conflict with the Church.
The Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.
The Church recognizes One Divine Deposit of Faith that is contained equally in Scripture and Sacred Tradition(the Word of God living in the Church). These strands of Divine Revelation complement each other, and cannot contradict, since their Source is in God.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you are confused about how we understand these terms Always.
All dissenters and those who discard the Teachings of the Church, or are “cafeteria Catholics” believe they are in complete agreement with the Church!
In the early days of the Church, they were called heretics.
A Catholic is bound to give assent to all the Church teachings with divine and Catholic faith. If I am not convinced of a certain teaching, then the proper attitude is to accept that the Church is guided by the HS, and it is my duty to be brought into conformity.
The disciples did not understand all of what Jesus taught, either, but they believed in Him, so they trusted that He would make it plain when the time came. This is called a teachable attitude of humility.
It is also called obedience of faith, when we obey certain things we don’t like, don’t understand, or with which we don’t agree. We entrust our souls to a faithful creator.
J
jlhargus
Guest
I can know when a Priest or Bishop is teaching something false by comparing it with the catechism. There is a great deal of difference between opoinion and actually teaching contradicting doctrine.
The difference would be Bishops or Priests aren’t permitted to teach contradicting doctrine as we see thousands of Protestants do.
OSAS/can lose salvation, OSAS if sin never saved/OSAS if murder still saved. Must speak in tongues/Don’t need to speak in tongues. Trinity/no Trinity, Holy Spirit God/Holy Spirit not God. Christ bodily resurrected/not bodily resurrected. Consubstantiation Christ present with the bread and wine (Luther)/Christ present if you believe he is (Calvin)/Lord’s Supper symbolic only (Zwingli). Bible alone, community interpretation/bible alone, individual interpretation, bible alone/bible and Tradition, all oral Tradition now in scripture/all tradition not in scripture. Sunday worship/Saturday worship.
Baptism washes away sin/baptism does not wash away sin. Believer’s baptism only/infant baptism. Baptize in the name of Jesus/baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Baptism necessary/Baptism not necessary. Saved the instant believe/saved when baptized. Secret rapture/no secret rapture, dispensationalist/no dispensationalist. Christ still heals today/no healing today. Women pastors/no women pastors. smoking and drinking a sin/smoking and drinking not a sin, playing cards sinful/playing cards not sinful. Irresistible grace/resistible grace, no free will/free will. Snake handling/ no snake handling. Ok to ordain active gays/not ok to ordain active gays. Same sex marriage/no same sex marriage. Miracles&healing/no miracles&healing, handle snakes&drink posion/don’t handle snakes&drink posion, etc., etc…
A
alwayswill
Guest
Do you think I cannot find Cardinals who disagree with Cardinal Kasper’s interpretations of Church teachings?
Do you think I cannot find Bishops who disagree Archbishop Dolan’s interpretations of Church teachings?
Do you think I cannot ask you a few questions and find Catholic authorities who disagree with your answers?
for ex:
with what you know about Church infallibility: is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be considered an infallible teaching?
Are faithful Catholics who disagree with your interpretations of infallibility dissenters?
Does your interpretation of Amoris Laetitia allow for remarried Catholics to receive communion?
Are faithful Catholics who disagree with your interpretations dissenters?
another ex:
cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/shock-admission-cardinal-casper-vii-deliberately-unclear.2759/
Cardinal Walter Kasper made the absolutely stunning admission that ambiguities were deliberately inserted into Vatican II documents – an admission that would pretty well vindicate all the alarms sounded by the likes of Michael Davies about “liturgical time bombs,” and the like. Specifically, Kasper is reported as admitting the following
“In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.”
does selective reception based on Vatican II make some one a dissenter?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Umm… so what? Individual bishops disagreeing with each other is not “Church teaching”. Bishops can disagree whether they want to use incense at Mass or not, or whether HolyDays are obligatory in their diocese. These are not separate Church creating disagreements.
If your question is substantial enough, the Church will give a definitive final answer in time. How do you find out this answer in your church?
None of us laymen are capable of interpreting who can or can’t receive Communion. Only the diocesan/eparchial Bishop can decide in his diocese/eparchy. This is a disciplinary question.
Depends on their reasoning.
You went to a schismatic forum to prove that Catholicism is in disagreement? Clearly, this proves that those that disagree enough will separate themselves from the Church, because they disagree with Her.
That site is a separatist site, they clearly identify as such. Here is the Main Forum Header:
“Until Rome Converts This is Our Position” – they are self-identified as out of Communion with the Catholic Church.
A
alwayswill
Guest
sorry for that site:
That was on the top of the search page:
The statement is available at multiple sites including many conservative pro-Catholic sites.
The website hosting a quote from Kasper isn’t the point
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Again, how is disagreeing bishops the same as denomination creating schism with no end?
At the end of the day, should the Church hold Council and/or the Pope state finally - this is the answer. That’s it.
Neither Cardinal Dolan nor Cardinal Kasper have set up a parallel self-proclaimedCatholic jurisdiction anywhere.
At the end of the day, should the Church hold Council and/or the Pope state finally - this is the answer. That’s it.
Neither Cardinal Dolan nor Cardinal Kasper have set up a parallel self-proclaimedCatholic jurisdiction anywhere.
A
alwayswill
Guest
I did not say that they have set up a parallel self-proclaimed Catholic jurisdiction anywhere.
I am saying that faithful obedient Catholics ,at all levels of leadership and authority, disagree on the interpretations of their Church’s teachings.
Are you denying that?
- Status