Vatican Secretary of State: Dissident Catholics More Worrying than Atheists

[irenaeus1]

Raymond Brown does not equal dissent…

but some of his writings equal dissent.

Liberal/modern/scholarly scripture analysis does not equal dissent…

only if the analysis is carefully and cleverly worded; otherwise, much of liberal/modern/scholarly scripture analysis is dissenting in its perspective.

Historical Critical/Literary Form Biblical study does not equal dissent…

except when taken too far or used incorrectly.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

Well I’ve read one of his books and I found it brilliant, and completely orthodox.

I was unaware that Brown wrote anything completely orthodox… but I suppose it could’ve happened, even if only by accident.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[OriginalJS]

I am amused at the exchange about Raymond Brown. Some of the Protestant scholars admit that Brown is a great researcher and brilliant scholar but claim that he is intellectually dishonest because he lets Catholic doctrine get in the way of his scholarly research. From what I have read by Brown, Crossan, Funk, and authors who seek to simplify developments in Biblical research over the past century or so, it is my opinion that the scholarly works are simply not meant for lay readership. They assume a lot of education in languages and history that most simply have never been exposed to. For example, if one of those authors claims a Greek word means something in the context of a sentence St. Thomas Aquinas’ works are monumental, but much too scholarly for instructing children in the rudiments of the faith.

 

[Nohome]

It would be better if they homestudied that to go to a Catehcumen that is taught wrongly.

I always thought that Cathechumens and womens taught both RCIA and Sunday School, etc.

I think I now see where we were misunderstanding each other. You were using the word Cathechumen in reference to those who teach the faith. A Cathechumen is someone who is not yet initiated in the faith, a student of the church. Catechists are those who are called to serve through teaching, witness, prayer, service and building community.

A Catechists can be either male or female.

Nohome

 

[patg]

*Historical Critical/Literary Form Biblical study does not equal dissent… *

except when taken too far or used incorrectly.

Ah, but this statement is true about everything anyone could write about… it has nothing specifically to do with my comment. The bible itself is frequently taken too far or used incorrectly.

 

[stellina]

To get back to the original topic… it reminds me of a conversation I had several years ago with a friend when the priest scandals were breaking. He had been raised in a very extreme fundamentalist Protestant home and then gone to a Catholic college, and he made the remark that the anti-Catholic fundamentalists were going to have a field day. I replied that the ones we really had to worry about were the fallen-away or dissident Catholics, and sadly I was proven right. One time when I sure wish I wasn’t right…

 

[rpp]

The problem is that too many dissinters run the RCIA and other faith formation classes.

How many dioceses papers still carry Richard McB ?

How many RCIA and bible classses use Ray Brown material?

True. In my RCIA class, 2003-2005, we were taught that it is okay to use Animal spirity guides and pray to the four winds, just like Native American Indians did.

I do have a question. Who are the people you mentioned? What is it they teach?

 

[rpp]

And what does this have to do with dissent?

Raymond Brown does not equal dissent…

I do not know much about him.

Liberal/modern/scholarly scripture analysis does not equal dissent…

Historical Critical/Literary Form Biblical study does not equal dissent…

You are literally correct, but this is not accurate. These are tools used by dissident, to the exclusion of others. They have altered the tone of how these methods have been employed and used tohem to promote their illicit dissenting views. Thus these methods must be employed with very great care as many modern sources can no longer be relied upon.

And the word “liberal” does not equal dissent…

All the above are perfectly compatible with magesterial teaching whether you (or Jaypeeto3) accept it or not. If it were not for concepts and people such as these, I wouldn’t be associated with the church any longer.

There really is no such thing as a “liberal” Catholic, it is a slang term used to indicate a particular type of dissent, often, but not always, illicit dissent. There are Traditional, Mainstream, Incredulous, Apostates and Heretics. See CCC 2087-2089 for these definitions.

The last two, of course are pretty serious and can lead to schism.

Cafeteria Catholics" genreally fall into the “incredulous” or, if obstinate the “apostate” category, because they reject certain teachings of the Church, usually in the areas of sexual morality. Sometimes it is “voluntary doubt” which is not good.

There are many others which are often referred to as “liberal” who reject teachings of the Church and instead teach error. “Liberal” is a kind of slang term used to apply to those people in this group who appear to have adopted the Modernist heresy (everyone goes to Heaven, mortal sin does not really exist, no miracles, Church doctrine is open to debate, female priestesses, etc.). It is this last group, these disidents, to whoi the good Cardinal was referring. They so much damage by fooling many.

Remember, dissenting on certain matters is fine. Matters of discipline like priestly celebacy, is fine. Dissenting on matters of doctrine or dogma are not. Males priesthood is a doctrine, thus dissent on this is illict.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

It’s not a question of what I (Jaypeeto3) “like.”
It is a question of certain scholars saying or implying things that contradict de fide teachings of the Magisterium.

Richard McBrien teaches and advocates heresy.
He denies the existence of angels and insists (even after Pope John Paul’s emphatic clarification that this IS de fide) that women can be validly ordained as priests and bishops.
The man is advocating heresy, therefore he is not a Catholic.
That’s true even though the church hasn’t explicitly excommunicated him.

Raymond Brown’s articles on scripture could cause a person not well grounded in the Catholic Faith to lose his or her faith, both in scripture and in the magisterium.

Even worse is the scholarship exemplified by the introductions and study notes of the New American Bible. There are many such notes in that Bible that, if I took them seriously, I would not even believe in God let alone the Church. Personally, I am appalled and offended that the Bishops have not taken action to correct those study notes. More proof that they are wrong is that in several instances, they contradict the unanimous consent of the early Church Fathers. They assert that Saint Luke’s story of the Nativity is filled with errors, for example.
This is sacrilege.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[patg]

It’s not a question of what I (Jaypeeto3) “like.”
It is a question of certain scholars saying or implying things that contradict de fide teachings of the Magisterium.

Which by implication and without proof you are saying Raymond Brown and *all *“liberals” do.

Richard McBrien teaches and advocates heresy.
He denies the existence of angels and insists (even after Pope John Paul’s emphatic clarification that this IS de fide) that women can be validly ordained as priests and bishops.
The man is advocating heresy, therefore he is not a Catholic.
That’s true even though the church hasn’t explicitly excommunicated him.

I haven’t followed him but you give me an appreciation for him if he is in favor of treating women as if they have a theological brain.

Raymond Brown’s articles on scripture could cause a person not well grounded in the Catholic Faith to lose his or her faith, both in scripture and in the magisterium.

So instead of stressing scriptural education and teaching adult catholics to think, you want to protect their little minds and condemn the thinkers?

Even worse is the scholarship exemplified by the introductions and study notes of the New American Bible. There are many such notes in that Bible that, if I took them seriously, I would not even believe in God let alone the Church. Personally, I am appalled and offended that the Bishops have not taken action to correct those study notes. More proof that they are wrong is that in several instances, they contradict the unanimous consent of the early Church Fathers.

I had no idea that those notes were so good - I’ll look into using them in the parish adult ed bible classes I work with.

They assert that Saint Luke’s story of the Nativity is filled with errors, for example.

They do??? How can something which is obviously fiction be considered to have errors? It teaches the absolute truth using clear fiction. It is amazing how purely understood scripture is!

This is sacrilege.

Yes, for people to think they are reading history in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke is ridiculous. Another sign of the poor education you were talking about.

 

[rpp]

There were many errors in the preceeding post, but I will focus on two.

So instead of stressing scriptural education and teaching adult catholics to think, you want to protect their little minds and condemn the thinkers?

This is a rather unkind way to state your position, but I think I understand your point. It also makes a demonstrably false series of generalizations.

Unlike many Protestants, the Catholic Church does not teach that individual interpretation of Scripture is valid. Scripture interpretation must be done in full context, something few of us are fully able to do. That is why Bible studies from good sources is important.

But there is an important concept that is critical in Church teachings. Doctrine and Dogama cannot change. It is not that people are stubborn or bull-headed, but it is simply that that is part of the Deposit of Faith from God. God cannot change therefore His doctrines and Dogmas cannot change. We may gain a better understanding of them as time goes by, but they cannot change in their essence.

It is not a matter of not thinking. Rather it is a matter of not being so arrogant that a person thinks they know better than God or the Church.

They do??? How can something which is obviously fiction be considered to have errors? It teaches the absolute truth using clear fiction. It is amazing how purely understood scripture is!

Yes, for people to think they are reading history in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke is ridiculous. Another sign of the poor education you were talking about.

Again, you choose, particularly in the second paragraph, to state your position with less charity that those to whom you are responding.

The Holy scriptures are inerrant. This statement is not consistant with that doctrine.

The Gospel of Luke is not fiction. That is not my opinion, that is the magisterial teaching. Period. It is a matter of doctrine. To disagree with this puts you at odds with the core teachings, doctrine and dogma of the Church. To call it fiction is, at best, an indication of very poor catechisis.

Yes, for people to think they are reading fiction in the infancy narratives if Matthew and Luke is unfortunate. It is another sign that dissident who teach error puts the souls of many in great peril.

In fact, I would say that your posts prove the very point which Cardinal Bertone was trying to make.

Instead of arguing, I would encourage you, and all here, to humbly re-evaluate what you believe feel about God and the Church. We should all do this frequently as part of ongoing conversion.

As you do this, remember there is one very important principal. If a person’s conscience, feelings or intellect lead them to disagree with Church teachings, the problem is probably not with the Church. There have been times I have disgreed with the Church. When that has happened, I realized that it is **I **who must conform to the Church and to God, not the other way around.

Christinaity is hard because is requires true humility of the spirit, not empty words and actions.

 

[irenaeus1]

Which by implication and without proof you are saying Raymond Brown and *all *“liberals” do.

I haven’t followed him but you give me an appreciation for him if he is in favor of treating women as if they have a theological brain.

So instead of stressing scriptural education and teaching adult catholics to think, you want to protect their little minds and condemn the thinkers?
I had no idea that those notes were so good - I’ll look into using them in the parish adult ed bible classes I work with.

They do??? How can something which is obviously fiction be considered to have errors? It teaches the absolute truth using clear fiction. It is amazing how purely understood scripture is!

Yes, for people to think they are reading history in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke is ridiculous. Another sign of the poor education you were talking about.

It seems that all one has to do is mention that a commentary or certain scholar writes things contrary to the official teachings of the Church, then for you that automatically qualifies it as good material for use in religious education. A clear sign of the poor education you were talking about.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

P.S. I’ll pray for the poor souls who receive this sort of dribble from you as teachings of the Church

 

[irenaeus1]

I haven’t followed him but you give me an appreciation for him if he is in favor of treating women as if they have a theological brain.

We have to ordain women in order to demonstrate that they have a theological brain??? Asinine.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[patg]

We have to ordain women in order to demonstrate that they have a theological brain??? Asinine.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

We have not a single woman in a position of magesterial power, authority, or even (name removed by moderator)ut? Totally Asinine.

 

[patg]

It seems that all one has to do is mention that a commentary or certain scholar writes things contrary to the official teachings of the Church

Fortunately, Raymond Brown and the like do not do such things.

then for you that automatically qualifies it as good material for use in religious education.

Yes, I always try to present the best from the brightest.

I’ll pray for the poor souls who receive this sort of dribble from you as teachings of the Church

Fortunately for them, they are teachings of the church. Have you had any adult religious education recently? I could fit you in.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We have not a single woman in a position of magesterial power, authority, or even (name removed by moderator)ut? Totally Asinine.

Fine. Show me exactly where Jesus said that any woman–or any man, come to that–must be in a position of ‘magesterial power, authority or (name removed by moderator)ut’ in order to implement the will of God.

Further, I wholeheartedly dispute your assertion that there is not a single woman in a position of ‘(name removed by moderator)ut’ or authority in the church. I guess unless they call themselves “Father” (or bishop, or cardinal) you don’t consider that women ‘do anything’ for the church. You don’t consider that they have ‘power’.

I guess you think that because priests are the only ones to confect the eucharist, that gives them ‘power’ and that because women can’t, they are being deprived of power. But is confecting the eucharist something that priests do for power, or to serve their community? Do you realize that they have awesome responsibility or, like so many today, do you harp only on ‘rights’ without even considering the responsibilities that go along with them?

Did God tell us to “do in remembrance of Me” so that we could just that, or to stratify gender inequity? Did He tell His disciples to preach the gospel so that they would be powerful, or did not all but one die as a martyr? Did He tell Peter, “Wear my crown and exercise power” or “feed my sheep?” Did He wash the feet of his disciples and say, “Now, all you priests-to-me are in charge of everybody else” or did He say, “You must be the servant of all and the least of all.”

Even for those poor misguided souls who are convinced that women should be priests, one would think the most cursory reading of the Scripture would show that if they are indeed so sure of their calling, rather than the screams, pouts, threats and name callings, they should be acting, speaking, and living the “servant of all and the least of all” and that means total obedience to the church that you purport to love so gol darned much that you want women priests (whether the Church wants them or not )

So instead of making disingeuous remarks and snide backbitings about ‘power’, how about taking 5 years (it isn’t that much to ask, is it?) to simply obey the church, be “the servant of all and the least of all”, without complaint. See if, after humbly and genuinely submitting for a reasonable period of time to what the church teaches, you might actually find yourself not just understanding but agreeing.

Isn’t this the least that you “warriors for women priests” could do?

 

[patg]

Unlike many Protestants, the Catholic Church does not teach that individual interpretation of Scripture is valid. Scripture interpretation must be done in full context, something few of us are fully able to do. That is why Bible studies from good sources is important.

I agree. That is why I always emphasize that I am representing the teachings of some of the church’s most recognized scritpure scholars.

But there is an important concept that is critical in Church teachings. Doctrine and Dogama cannot change. It is not that people are stubborn or bull-headed, but it is simply that that is part of the Deposit of Faith from God. God cannot change therefore His doctrines and Dogmas cannot change. We may gain a better understanding of them as time goes by, but they cannot change in their essence.

I agree. But what we are discussing does not have the slightest relevance to doctrine or dogma.

It is not a matter of not thinking. Rather it is a matter of not being so arrogant that a person thinks they know better than God or the Church.

I am following the church, its recognized scholars, and its formal documents on biblical interpretation, such as Dei Verbum.

Again, you choose, particularly in the second paragraph, to state your position with less charity that those to whom you are responding.

I probably did and I apologize.

The Holy scriptures are inerrant. This statement is not consistant with that doctrine.

That is not correct. Saying that many parts of the gospels teach truths using non-historical symbolic literary forms is perfectly consistent with that and all other doctrines.

The Gospel of Luke is not fiction. That is not my opinion, that is the magisterial teaching. Period.

No, it is not - Period!

It is a matter of doctrine.

No, it is not - Period!

To disagree with this puts you at odds with the core teachings, doctrine and dogma of the Church.

No, it does not. There is no relationship between disagreeing with your statements and doctrine or dogma.

To call it fiction is, at best, an indication of very poor catechisis.

To not call some parts fiction is, at best, an indication of very poor catechisis. The historicity of the infancy narratives is in no way a part of dogma or doctrine.

Yes, for people to think they are reading fiction in the infancy narratives if Matthew and Luke is unfortunate. It is another sign that dissident who teach error puts the souls of many in great peril.

It is a sign of deeper understanding and significant study.

In fact, I would say that your posts prove the very point which Cardinal Bertone was trying to make.

Yes, and some of his points are very poorly made (they aren’t doctrine or dogma either).

Instead of arguing, I would encourage you, and all here, to humbly re-evaluate what you believe feel about God and the Church. We should all do this frequently as part of ongoing conversion.

I believe that the authors of the gospels were skilled writers who used a number of literary form to teach the truths they wanted to pass on. This can only help one get closer to God and the church. I encourage you to do some reading - let me know if you need a few suggestions.

As you do this, remember there is one very important principal. If a person’s conscience, feelings or intellect lead them to disagree with Church teachings, the problem is probably not with the Church. There have been times I have disgreed with the Church. When that has happened, I realized that it is **I **who must conform to the Church and to God, not the other way around.

I agree. Fortunately, there is nothing in anything I have said to which this applies.

Christinaity is hard because is requires true humility of the spirit, not empty words and actions.

Having the humility to learn from those who are true authorities is what I would stress.

 

[patg]

So instead of making disingeuous remarks and snide backbitings about ‘power’, how about taking 5 years (it isn’t that much to ask, is it?) to simply obey the church, be “the servant of all and the least of all”, without complaint. See if, after humbly and genuinely submitting for a reasonable period of time to what the church teaches, you might actually find yourself not just understanding but agreeing.

I did that for fifty years and now I am even more sure of my position. It doesn’t matter what we say here and I don’t want the thread hijacked. This topic has been argued in thousands of posts and there is no need to repeat it all and no one is going to suddenly see the light because of something said here. I’ll just leave it to prayer…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You really did that? I’m not saying that you didn’t obey (I’m sure you did), but did you really for 5 full solid years (after holding or having the thought that there “should” be women priests), completely, humbly, and genuinely ‘submit?’ Not just go through the motions of submission while being even more ‘convinced’ (as you say) that your position is right?

Because to my comprehension, in order to genuinely submit one doesn’t just ‘put the brain on autopilot’ or worse yet, make the ‘motions’ of submission while still thinking, acting and saying the contrary. In order to genuinely submit, one starts with the assumption that the church is absolutely 100% right in its teachings, and that if you or I differ, then it is our ‘incomprehension’ that is providing that difference. And that means we find out exactly what the Church does teach, and not our interpration of what we “think” it teaches.

IOW, if the church teaches authortatively that there can be no question of women priests (and despite the "but it has never been infallibly stated a la “The Immaculate Conception” etc. naysayers, the fact is that infallible teachings are not be definition to be done precisely that way and no other), and 2000 years of teaching PLUS the late Pope John Paul II’s written words have pretty much definitively told us “the Church has no power to ordain women”, and you or I ‘feel’ (and it is feeling, is it not?) that there should be, then since it is not the church teaching at fault, but my understanding, then I must both humbly and genuinely examine why I feel that "my interpretation’ in this matter ‘trumps’ the Church’s interpretation.

For you, patg, your ‘parachute’ is twofold. You can claim that:

1. The Church doesn’t “really” teach that there can be no women priests–after all, Father So-and-So has said that he is for it! So there can’t have been a real consensus, a real ‘decision’, a 100% ‘for all times’ definition.
2. Because the Church doesn’t “really” teach it to your satisfaction, you can ‘hold the position’ for women priests.

And this parachute can be, and is, used by many to support anything that they feel the church “should” do.
Gay marriage? The Church doesn’t “really” teach against it–so you don’t have to either.
Abortion? The Church doesn’t “really” teach against it–or it doesn’t “really” say another to non-Catholics/non-Christians so you don’t have to either.
Just war?
Socialism?
Juice and crackers? Etc. Etc. Ect.
Virtually anything that you want the church to do to ‘conform itself’ to society and society’s judgments and rules you can claim that, "The Church doesn’t “really” teach anything against it.

Heck, even the Immaculate Conception, while proclaimed infallibly, can ‘fall’ if one casts doubt on Vatican I and “infallibility” itself.

We can always claim that Jesus (that meek and mild man) would never have stood by and allowed women to be such ‘second class’ people (while claiming in the same breath that He Himself made sure to give them total equality except that by doing so He would have “alienated His followers”; or even better, that He actually did do so but His actions were suppressed by the patriarchical chauvanists from day 1).

I challenge you, PatG–do you yourself really understand what the Church teaches about the ordination of women, and accept it–or do you know only what you want it to teach, and reject its words until they “conform” to your liking?

 

[patg]

You really did that? I’m not saying that you didn’t obey (I’m sure you did),

Oh yes, I am totally obedient - I haven’t ordained a single woman priest in all that time!

On a slightly more serious note, however, I have debated this topic here through hundreds of posts and understand it quite well. I also remain unconvinced, mainly because most arguments eventually resolve to just accepting it as a matter of submission to authority which is a very unsatisfying way of applying reasoning and logic. And actually, it isn’t that big of a deal to me anyway because my relationship with God is not dependent on the gender of the minister.

The part that is a big deal is the exclusion of half the church’s membership from participation in what is essentially the defining body of the church - the magesterium. Saying that Jesus was a man and only a man can represent him to us is one thing but saying that no woman can contribute directly to what is the defining organizatin in the church is absurd. I don’t care to spend endless hours tediously debating this one more time so I’ll just quietly pray for God’s help in resolving it - either in me or in the church.