M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Too vague to address coherently.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
U
Usagi
Guest
To us lay Catholics, there is little difference between infallibly defined teachings and others. The two Marian dogmas that have famously been defined were widely held for centuries before that; they didn’t just come out of nowhere.
Matters of purely Church law, such as fasting rules or the precise structure and translation of the liturgy, could be changed freely, though respect for traditional practice keeps that from being done willy-nilly. Catholics can disagree on the wisdom of Mass in Latin vs. the vernacular or communion on rhe tongue vs. communion in the hand, but should not condemn anyone else for following any approved practice.
In terms of theological and moral teachings, Catholics should not disobey or publicly dissent even if a teaching has not been defined formally. The “ordinary and universal magisterium” (what the Church has always and everywhere taught) is also infallible, and is generally held to cover such matters as contraception and women’s ordination.
As far as Amoris Laetitia, before that was written we had a number of people on this very board decrying the Church as heartless for not making some accommodation for those sincerely living in second marriages and wishing to receive Communion, so I appreciate that the bishops were at least wiling to take another look at the issue. As far as I can tell, nothing in the infamous footnote changes (or seeks to change) Church teaching; rather, discretion has been extended to individual pastors working with affected couples to determine whether state of mortal sin actually exists in each case. We see similar logic applied to masturbation in the Catechism, and of course we know that any potentially mortal sin must meet subjective as well as objective criteria. That is a change from previous statements on the issue, to be sure, but it is not a change to doctrine itself.
I am not sure what you mean about the Church changing its stance on homosexuality. As far as I can see, she has not condoned and will not condone homosexual activity (though she will absolve it under the same conditions as any other sin); any change has been in how people who face that particular temptation are treated, and that is in my mind a good thing. There are chaste gay Catholics, living exactly as the Church commands even though they could go anywhere else in society and be told that’s not necessary, who have been lambasted, rather than commended, in the Catholic press and blogosphere, apparently just because their struggles are different than the writers’.
Matters of purely Church law, such as fasting rules or the precise structure and translation of the liturgy, could be changed freely, though respect for traditional practice keeps that from being done willy-nilly. Catholics can disagree on the wisdom of Mass in Latin vs. the vernacular or communion on rhe tongue vs. communion in the hand, but should not condemn anyone else for following any approved practice.
In terms of theological and moral teachings, Catholics should not disobey or publicly dissent even if a teaching has not been defined formally. The “ordinary and universal magisterium” (what the Church has always and everywhere taught) is also infallible, and is generally held to cover such matters as contraception and women’s ordination.
As far as Amoris Laetitia, before that was written we had a number of people on this very board decrying the Church as heartless for not making some accommodation for those sincerely living in second marriages and wishing to receive Communion, so I appreciate that the bishops were at least wiling to take another look at the issue. As far as I can tell, nothing in the infamous footnote changes (or seeks to change) Church teaching; rather, discretion has been extended to individual pastors working with affected couples to determine whether state of mortal sin actually exists in each case. We see similar logic applied to masturbation in the Catechism, and of course we know that any potentially mortal sin must meet subjective as well as objective criteria. That is a change from previous statements on the issue, to be sure, but it is not a change to doctrine itself.
I am not sure what you mean about the Church changing its stance on homosexuality. As far as I can see, she has not condoned and will not condone homosexual activity (though she will absolve it under the same conditions as any other sin); any change has been in how people who face that particular temptation are treated, and that is in my mind a good thing. There are chaste gay Catholics, living exactly as the Church commands even though they could go anywhere else in society and be told that’s not necessary, who have been lambasted, rather than commended, in the Catholic press and blogosphere, apparently just because their struggles are different than the writers’.
E
Elf01
Guest
While I agree with you here (allowing a couple in actual mortal sin to receive would IMO be a change in doctrine), it does leave room for interpretation. I also think that at most one member of the couple would not be in mortal sin.As far as Amoris Laetitia, before that was written we had a number of people on this very board decrying the Church as heartless for not making some accommodation for those sincerely living in second marriages and wishing to receive Communion, so I appreciate that the bishops were at least wiling to take another look at the issue. As far as I can tell, nothing in the infamous footnote changes (or seeks to change) Church teaching; rather, discretion has been extended to individual pastors working with affected couples to determine whether state of mortal sin actually exists in each case. We see similar logic applied to masturbation in the Catechism, and of course we know that any potentially mortal sin must meet subjective as well as objective criteria. That is a change from previous statements on the issue, to be sure, but it is not a change to doctrine itself.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
We should not disobey.In terms of theological and moral teachings, Catholics should not disobey or publicly dissent
However, there is a fairly long tradition of public (to some degree) dissent from this or that position in the Church. The Church has responded in various ways depending on the issue, who was dissenting, and how they were dissenting. Obviously, Martin Luther nailing 95 Theses on a door and then starting a schism is a different matter from Cardinals implying that they might disagree with the Pope on something, which is yet a different matter from some academic theologian writing a book, which is still different from someone posting comments critical of the Church’s position on CAF forum.
People are going to dissent from time to time. The Church in this day and age is not like a dictator who makes you zip your lip. It’s all a matter of degree and also, whether you go beyond a verbal discussion to actually disobeying or convincing others to disobey.
Last edited:
L
Lovinglight
Guest
Thank u usagi! This reply helped me very much so basically on these controversial issues the laity are supposed to let the Prelate figure it out while we respectfully dont cause scandal by public dissent or trash talking. Thnk u again.
G
Genesis315
Guest
I just wanted to point out the basic rule when determining how we are to treat a papal document. We are to receive his teaching “according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” Lumen Gentium 25
This is actually one thing Pope Francis does very well–he usually has a paragraph right near the beginning where he lays this out. Not once has he said he intended to provide a definitive judgment as to any point of doctrine. Often he simply is offering invitations, suggesting guidelines, or proposing points for dialogue. See for example Evangelii Gaudium 16-18 , Laudato Si 15 , and Amoris Laetitia 6.
This is actually one thing Pope Francis does very well–he usually has a paragraph right near the beginning where he lays this out. Not once has he said he intended to provide a definitive judgment as to any point of doctrine. Often he simply is offering invitations, suggesting guidelines, or proposing points for dialogue. See for example Evangelii Gaudium 16-18 , Laudato Si 15 , and Amoris Laetitia 6.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
There are many papal documents. Do we need to receive ALL of them with full receptiveness to their infallibility?
G
Genesis315
Guest
The information age has made things a lot more available to all, but in the past most laity never read a papal document. Those were sent to bishops who then applied them in their dioceses–anything the laity might need to know or apply was handed on by their priests. In our own respective states of life we all need to do our due diligence–what that is will of course vary from person to person.
Listening to the Pope is not the only way we are educated in our faith. We rely on the ordinary Magisterium ordinarily–the constant teaching of the true faith by Popes and bishops in their words, letters, catechisms; the belief and handing on of the faith by the clergy and faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc.
Listening to the Pope is not the only way we are educated in our faith. We rely on the ordinary Magisterium ordinarily–the constant teaching of the true faith by Popes and bishops in their words, letters, catechisms; the belief and handing on of the faith by the clergy and faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc.
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
I really enjoyed and found quite encouraging and instructive the encyclicals of JP II. Still need to read more of them.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.