US Bishops Set to Tell Catholics Opposed to Teaching on Abortion or Homosexuality not

[vern_humphrey]

Even that can be tricky. Say that you came across a situation where a murderer was killing children on a playground. I don’t think that you’d hesitate for a second to use your piece to kill him. But, say that you were walking past an abortion facility where killing of the unborn was being done - same crime by your lights - murder is murder. I’m also equally sure that you wouldn’t run in there and waste the abortionist to protet the innocent.

That’s tactics, Richard, not moral law. I believe I can have a greater impact by remaining within the law while opposing abortion.

I find it easier to stick to the statutory definition of murder, but that’s just me.

Don’t replace your bible with a lawbook.

 

[cheese_sdc]

First of all, you write on papyrus with a pen. A stylus was for writing on wax tablets.

Secondly, do you deny that Jesus taught?

If not, what was the point of all those sermons and parables – just entertainment?

Not enterainment, very valid stories concerning right and wrong. But nowhere did Jesus tell someone - hey, you can’t be here listening to me - you don’t believe correctly.

I have a hard time with the bishops declaring that only people in theological lockstep with official teaching can receive communion. Why doesn’t anyone else see the wrongness in this? Who decides who can receive? Is there an orthodoxy test? Do we allow only people who go to confession go to communion (and do those people get their wrists stamped [like at a bar] to prove they went to confession)?

How does the Church grow if she allows only those that agree with her to participate? How does she continue to reform?

This is Not Good. Jesus didn’t say “Come to me all who are orthodox, and I will give you rest.”

He didn’t say, “Good work, guys, those children would not have been able to understand the parables anyway. I’m glad you sent them away.”

He didn’t say to the sick, “You know, I could heal you, but your concept of the Holy Spirit is just not quite right - why don’t you study up and come back in two months. I’ll cure that leprosy right up then. But only if your theology is correct.”

I apologize for sounding grumpy, but this trend in the Church deeply concerns me.

 

[fix]

cheese_sdc:

5But nowhere did Jesus tell someone - hey, you can’t be here listening to me - you don’t believe correctly.

Don’t you think every word of the bible needs to be reconciled with all passages and with Tradition? The Church is not simply a few bible verses isolated from each other out of context.

I have a hard time with the bishops declaring that only people in theological lockstep with official teaching can receive communion.

Christ is speaking to us through His Church. If we are not in “lockstep” with HIM, then where are we?

How does the Church grow if she allows only those that agree with her to participate? How does she continue to reform?

Church teachings on matters such as these do not need reform as you imply here. WE need reform. If we fail to assent as we ought to then She needs to remind us we are in grave peril.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not enterainment, very valid stories concerning right and wrong. But nowhere did Jesus tell someone - hey, you can’t be here listening to me - you don’t believe correctly.

In point of fact, he did just that – do you recall him driving the moneychangers out ot the temple, his diatribes against the scribes and Pharasees?

I have a hard time with the bishops declaring that only people in theological lockstep with official teaching can receive communion.

It is their power to loose and bind – Christ gave it to them.

Why doesn’t anyone else see the wrongness in this?

Because it isn’t wrong!! The Church has the power to loose and bind, to forgive and retain sins. The sins in question are both grevious and tenaciously held.

Who decides who can receive?

The bishops, who were given the power to loose and bind, of course.

Is there an orthodoxy test? Do we allow only people who go to confession go to communion (and do those people get their wrists stamped [like at a bar] to prove they went to confession)?

You’re coming close to blasphmy here – if you are a Catholic, you know we must go to confession. You know that one with a mortal sin on his soul cannot receive communion.

How does the Church grow if she allows only those that agree with her to participate? How does she continue to reform?

I apologize for sounding grumpy, but this trend in the Church deeply concerns me.

What concerns the rest of us deeply is those who claim to be Catholics and reject the teaching of the Church.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Don’t you think every word of the bible needs to be reconciled with all passages and with Tradition? The Church is not simply a few bible verses isolated from each other out of context.

Christ is speaking to us through His Church. If we are not in “lockstep” with HIM, then where are we?

Church teachings on matters such as these do not need reform as you imply here. WE need reform. If we fail to assent as we ought to then She needs to remind us we are in grave peril.

I do not accept that the official, hierarchical Church can determine the state of my soul (as indicated by the phrase “grave peril”). The state of my soul can only be determined by one person - God. The Church is not God. And should not set itself up as such.

I do not accept that I am automatically wrong and the Church is automatically right. The idea that the Church is alway right is not born out in experience or in history.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do not accept that the official, hierarchical Church can determine the state of my soul (as indicated by the phrase “grave peril”). The state of my soul can only be determined by one person - God. The Church is not God. And should not set itself up as such.

I do not accept that I am automatically wrong and the Church is automatically right. The idea that the Church is alway right is not born out in experience or in history.

If you do not accept the authority of the Church, why do you call yourself Catholic?

 

[fix]

I do not accept that the official, hierarchical Church can determine the state of my soul (as indicated by the phrase “grave peril”). The state of my soul can only be determined by one person - God. The Church is not God. And should not set itself up as such.

The Church is not determining how culpable you are before God. She is teaching you what is right and what is wrong conduct. If you engage in wrong conduct you are in objective sin. She instructs us to refrain from communion until we seek confession and absolution. If She did not teach this She would not be fulfilling Her commission.

I do not accept that I am automatically wrong and the Church is automatically right. The idea that the Church is alway right is not born out in experience or in history.

Actually, we know She is never wrong in these matters and history helps prove that to us. If we reject Her authority, then we make ourselves the authority over Her and over Christ. Where does that leave us?

 

[cheese_sdc]

If you do not accept the authority of the Church, why do you call yourself Catholic?

I consider myself in good company.

Such as Joan of Arc, Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Sienna, etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I consider myself in good company.

Such as Joan of Arc, Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Sienna, etc.

Are you claiming they were pro-abortion and supported gay marriage?

 

[fix]

Are you claiming they were pro-abortion and supported gay marriage?

And rejected the authority of the Church to bind consciences??

 

[cheese_sdc]

The Church is not determining how culpable you are before God. She is teaching you what is right and what is wrong conduct. If you engage in wrong conduct you are in objective sin. She instructs us to refrain from communion until we seek confession and absolution. If She did not teach this She would not be fulfilling Her commission.

But I am not engaging in wrong conduct. I have a difference of opinion on a theological matter. If that is sinful, then we are all in big trouble.

Heck, I even practice NFP, even though I don’t agree with Humanae Vitae in some particulars. I’m not homosexual, but I disagree with the Church’s politcal position on the matter. See, I haven’t done anything.

Actually, we know She is never wrong in these matters and history helps prove that to us. If we reject Her authority, then we make ourselves the authority over Her and over Christ. Where does that leave us?

Really? Ask Joan of Arc, St. Paul, Graham Greene, Galileo, St. Thomas Aquinas. Maybe they could discuss the Avignon Papacy and the orgies held in the Vatican. Perhaps we can invite the pediphelia priests and the bishops who enabled them to the discussion. And we can sell indulgences to the spectators.

Just because something comes from a bishop doesn’t make it right. We have an intellect and are allowed to use it.

 

[fix]

But I am not engaging in wrong conduct. I have a difference of opinion on a theological matter. If that is sinful, then we are all in big trouble.

Heck, I even practice NFP, even though I don’t agree with Humanae Vitae in some particulars. I’m not homosexual, but I disagree with the Church’s politcal position on the matter. See, I haven’t done anything.

It would depend on the issue. The OP is referring to teachings that bind our consciences, not prudential matters that are left to our own discernment.

Really? Ask Joan of Arc, St. Paul, Graham Greene, Galileo, St. Thomas Aquinas. Maybe they could discuss the Avignon Papacy and the orgies held in the Vatican. Perhaps we can invite the pediphelia priests and the bishops who enabled them to the discussion. And we can sell indulgences to the spectators.

Just because something comes from a bishop doesn’t make it right. We have an intellect and are allowed to use it.

All old hat. When did the Church error in matters of faith and morals. Even once.

 

[cheese_sdc]

All old hat. When did the Church error in matters of faith and morals. Even once.

You’re right. This potential document by the bishops is not “ex cathedra” or part of a Eucemnical Council either. Just as those other incidents weren’t. So it is not binding.

So you’re right. I can ignore this in good conscience. Thanks!

 

[fix]

You’re right. This potential document by the bishops is not “ex cathedra” or part of a Eucemnical Council either. Just as those other incidents weren’t. So it is not binding.

So you’re right. I can ignore this in good conscience. Thanks!

Nope, what makes you think only ex cathedra statements and ecumenical councils bind us?

 

[cheese_sdc]

Nope, what makes you think only ex cathedra statements and ecumenical councils bind us?

Huh? The only things that we are required to believe is General Revelation, Tradition, Ex Cathedra statements, and Ecumenical Councils.

A document from the USCCB doesn’t fit any of those.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You’re right. This potential document by the bishops is not “ex cathedra” or part of a Eucemnical Council either. Just as those other incidents weren’t. So it is not binding.

So you’re right. I can ignore this in good conscience. Thanks!

No, you cannot ignore rthe teachings of your bishop – and since this will be the teaching of all the American bishops, you most certainly cannot ignore it.

If you take communion against their teaching, you commit a mortal sin.

 

[fix]

Huh? The only things that we are required to believe is General Revelation, Tradition, Ex Cathedra statements, and Ecumenical Councils.

A document from the USCCB doesn’t fit any of those.

If the document simply reiterates constant teaching why would said teaching not bind? If the document says murder is a sin does that mean murder is not binding?

If it repeats what is constant teaching why would it not bind?

We are not talking about a position paper on some trivial matter here.

 

[cheese_sdc]

If the document simply reiterates constant teaching why would said teaching not bind? If the document says murder is a sin does that mean murder is not binding?

If it repeats what is constant teaching why would it not bind?

We are not talking about a position paper on some trivial matter here.

No, we are talking about something much more serious. We are talking about restricting communion to people not for grave sin, but to good Catholics who have an honest disagreement with Church teaching.

That is serious.

 

[Richardols]

A document from the USCCB doesn’t fit any of those.

This is correct. A document from a local bishops’ conference does not rise to the level of a pronouncement from a General Council. It is not binding, anymore than a USCCB document condemning US participation in the war in Iraq would be binding.

 

[cheese_sdc]

No, you cannot ignore rthe teachings of your bishop – and since this will be the teaching of all the American bishops, you most certainly cannot ignore it.

If you take communion against their teaching, you commit a mortal sin.

I’ll remember that during the next discussion about a bishop’s instructions about standing during communion. Or the next time someone one these boards rails against Cardinal Mahoney.

I also remember discussions regarding certain musical instruments that are allowed by the USCCB but a majority of people on this board want banned. Does this mean they can’t receive communion either?