M
MrS
Guest
Thanks for your opinion… one that I share. Said well, and with charity.
- Status
T
TNT
Guest
RSiscoe said:
** I wish I’d said all that, so I’ll just add a giga ditto.**
** Maybe we should start a THREAD on obedience.** I bet it would stay on point.
Mama Bear could bring her Pastor Aeternus blanket, and trads could bring their favorite Ecclesiastic proclamations. We could have an encyclical picnic or food fight, all in good “taste” of course.
Just remember, libs have an impregnable barrier …they’re able to make the illogical completely logical with no effect to conscience.
I’ll start by paraphrasing your wonderful statement of truth:
Obedience is a moral virtue, the whole purpose of which is to serve, never jeopardize or diminish, the Superior Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.
Whereas the moral virtues can be practiced unto error and even apostasy, the Theological Virtues are never subject to misuse being that they are intimately joined directly to the relation of Man and the the Divine Creator.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
RSiscoe,
Catholic ecclesiology consists in this:
Respect and obey your lawful pastor, do what he tells you and respectfully learn from his teachings, as he has been ordained by God and is your lawful superior in matters religious.
If you think he is binding you or teaching something which seems contrary to higher authority, you may have valid doubt with regard to your pastor’s orthodoxy. In such instances, “necessity” brings dispensation ONLY if there’s no time to seek counsel from higher authority. According to St. Thomas, you must seek council from higher authority to resolve the doubt, UNLESS there’s "sudden risk needing instant remedy" . If there is no sudden risk needing instant remedy, you "MUST either act according to the letter of the law, or consult those in power." The formal and authoritative judgements, decrees, and ordinary teachings of the Roman Pontiff are morally certain, and remove any valid doubt.
Seems to me, lacking sudden risk which requires instant remedy, you have only two choices: obedience or consult higher authority.
When there’s reason to doubt the orthodoxy of the pastor’s precepts and/or teachings, we are obliged to consult higher authority. Yet, we ought to presume the pastor is acting in good faith and always behave charitably. The protocol I recommend in consulting higher authority in such cases is the following: cuf.org/protocol.htm
If we want to avoid the error of Feeneyism in thinking it is our competence to authentically interpret the dogmas and doctrines of the Church, then we must defer to the teachings of the the present, living magisterium, whose are vested with this authority by God. It’s a matter of the “obedience of faith” to do so.
If what you believe is merely an “opinion” of the pope is found in a papal encyclical addressed to the universal church, or another form of formal and authoritative magisterial communication or catechism, whether written or oral, then it demands your consent. It is no longer free “opinion,” but the authentic teaching of the ordinary magisterium to the universal Church, which requires, according to universal canon law, the religious submission of intellect and will. And since universal canon law can never bind the faithful to that which is harmful or dangerous, per Pius VI, then even if I disagree with the contents of a papal encyclical, it is more likely, given traditional Catholic doctrine, that I am wrong or I* misunderstand* what the papal encyclical is asserting.
Catholic ecclesiology consists in this:
Respect and obey your lawful pastor, do what he tells you and respectfully learn from his teachings, as he has been ordained by God and is your lawful superior in matters religious.
If you think he is binding you or teaching something which seems contrary to higher authority, you may have valid doubt with regard to your pastor’s orthodoxy. In such instances, “necessity” brings dispensation ONLY if there’s no time to seek counsel from higher authority. According to St. Thomas, you must seek council from higher authority to resolve the doubt, UNLESS there’s "sudden risk needing instant remedy" . If there is no sudden risk needing instant remedy, you "MUST either act according to the letter of the law, or consult those in power." The formal and authoritative judgements, decrees, and ordinary teachings of the Roman Pontiff are morally certain, and remove any valid doubt.
Seems to me, lacking sudden risk which requires instant remedy, you have only two choices: obedience or consult higher authority.
When there’s reason to doubt the orthodoxy of the pastor’s precepts and/or teachings, we are obliged to consult higher authority. Yet, we ought to presume the pastor is acting in good faith and always behave charitably. The protocol I recommend in consulting higher authority in such cases is the following: cuf.org/protocol.htm
If we want to avoid the error of Feeneyism in thinking it is our competence to authentically interpret the dogmas and doctrines of the Church, then we must defer to the teachings of the the present, living magisterium, whose are vested with this authority by God. It’s a matter of the “obedience of faith” to do so.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
RSiscoe,
It seems to me that many Catholics, either traditionalist or progressive, tend to categorize dogmatic theology into only two categories: Dogma and free opinion. Yet this has never been Catholic teaching.
According to Ludig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *there are absolutely certain teachings (de fide or infallible), and there are morally certain teachings (less than de fide but not considered among the field of free opinion, and as such requires our religious assent), and then there are those which are considered *sententia communis *(common teaching) or sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata, sententia pia, opimo tolerata, which all belong to the field of free opinion, that is, they do not demand our assent.
Which “free opinion” of the pope do you reject and why do you think it is considered “free opinion”?
It seems to me that many Catholics, either traditionalist or progressive, tend to categorize dogmatic theology into only two categories: Dogma and free opinion. Yet this has never been Catholic teaching.
According to Ludig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *there are absolutely certain teachings (de fide or infallible), and there are morally certain teachings (less than de fide but not considered among the field of free opinion, and as such requires our religious assent), and then there are those which are considered *sententia communis *(common teaching) or sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata, sententia pia, opimo tolerata, which all belong to the field of free opinion, that is, they do not demand our assent.
Which “free opinion” of the pope do you reject and why do you think it is considered “free opinion”?
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Many of documents are worded so ambiguously that, although they are often misleading and appear to be heretical, I am usually able to reconcile them with the Catholic Faith, as a result of the ambiguity. So, I cannot really think if many documents that I reject due to false teaching. However, there are a few that are difficult to reconcile. I will only quote two.
Which of these do you believe?
Evangelium Vitae: “I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion.… You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord” (99).
The Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell” (Denz.693).
Which should I believe: The Council of Florence, which was infallible and is consistent with what the Church has always taught, or John Paul II who teaches that an un-baptized baby is “with the lord”? Which do you believe?
Are we justified by faith alone?
Joint Declaration with the Lutheran Church: “41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration do not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent.”
“26. According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide). In faith they place their trust wholly in their Creator and Redeemer and thus live in communion with him.”
According to the “Joint Declaration” the heresy of justification by “faith alone” (see above) does not fall under the anathema of Trent. Do you believe that?
But that is not all, in the “Annex to the Official Common Statement,” the Vatican and the Lutherans together declare their common doctrine of justification by faith alone:
“Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works” (Annex, # 2, C).
Do you believe we are saved by faith alone - sola fide? If not, why not; if so, how do you reconcile that with this:
“If anyone shall say that by faith alone the sinner is justified… let him be anathema.” (Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Can. 9)
Now, which are we to believe? That we are justified by faith alone, or that justification by faith alone is a heresy? The Church teaches infallibly that justification by faith alone is a heresy, and that anyone who says we are justified by faith alone “is anathema”. John Paul II signed the above declaration thus agreeing that we are justified by faith alone. Do you agree with John Paul II? If not, why not?
One more question: Peter Kreft does agree with John Paul II, and teaches that we are justified by faith alone. Do you disagree with him? If so, how can you, when he agrees with an official Church document signed by the Pope?
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Dave,
The following are taken from the Syllabus of errors. Do you agree with them?
#77. [it is heresy to believe that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
#78. [it is heresy to believe that] it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
#55. [It is heresy to believe that] The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
Do you believe that the above statements?
The following are taken from the Syllabus of errors. Do you agree with them?
#77. [it is heresy to believe that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
#78. [it is heresy to believe that] it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
#55. [It is heresy to believe that] The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
Do you believe that the above statements?
T
TNT
Guest
These are 2 DIFFERENT RELIGIONS! That is soooo obvious.
**One is the Objective Catholic Church of all ages, and the other is the Subjective Sentimental Church …I looked it up.
**How about a new Thread:
Pretzel Theology & Apparent Contradictions in Dogma
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
RSiscoe,
We should probably discuss this one at a time. I’ll start a separate thread on your first question. The thread is called Can infants be sanctified in the womb?
We should probably discuss this one at a time. I’ll start a separate thread on your first question. The thread is called Can infants be sanctified in the womb?
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Dave,
Don’t forget about my other point - the declaration on justification - wherein the Pope signed something that agrees with the Lutharans that we are justified by faith alone.
Remember what you told me:
Dave:
So, do you believe we are justified by faith alone -“sola fide”? The Pope signed if, therefore it is part of the ordinary magisterium; according to you, this document “demands your consent…of intellect and will”.
Don’t forget about my other point - the declaration on justification - wherein the Pope signed something that agrees with the Lutharans that we are justified by faith alone.
Remember what you told me:
.
So, do you believe we are justified by faith alone -“sola fide”? The Pope signed if, therefore it is part of the ordinary magisterium; according to you, this document “demands your consent…of intellect and will”.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
B
bear06
Guest
The Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell” (Denz.693).
I’ve been doing some interesting reading on this subject that you all might want to read too.
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
It would seem to say that “the Council of Florence says so” is an over simplification of the matter.
I’ve been doing some interesting reading on this subject that you all might want to read too.
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
It would seem to say that “the Council of Florence says so” is an over simplification of the matter.
T
TNT
Guest
Leave it to you to complicate our mediavel lives…I simply like simple…simple…simple…
B
bear06
Guest
I just read the 1913 version of the Catholic Encyclopedia on baptism and they even have a bunch of ifs in there.
All I’m saying is that I don’t think any of us can declare definitively what happens to aborted, miscarried, etc. babies when Pope Innocent the IX, who came after the council of Florence, was still saying he’d study the subject.
T
TNT
Guest
Not to worry. I’m deciding on that right now. After I ecumenate some hard heads at the “Salvation is to the Aborted” thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=34444
JPII’s declaration that they are all “with the Lord” is being hashed out.
The Orthodox Jews worked this out some time ago…
They declared “no-soul” until born—successfully. It was just a coincidence (yes, yet another one), that the declaration favored the pro-abortion lobby.
Anyway, keep reading. Any additional confusion is appreciated.
ps. How did it go on the SF PLIFE march?
B
bear06
Guest
Great! Posted the outcome over on RSicoe’s new thread.
- Status