E
- Status
M
momor
Guest
Itâs not his credibility I was referring to, it was yours.
C
catharina
Guest
Since I agreed with him, and in fact presented the teaching by him,
I can only question your understanding and need for more credibilty from me or Church.
M
momor
Guest
catharina, you are the master of obfuscation.
C
catharina
Guest
Momor, you canât understand if you wonât understand.
That might be the problem. You seem unwilling to understand my words.
I wish I could help with that but I canât. Thatâs life.
(BTW, no insults, please.)
R
Rence
Guest
The Magisterium has been promsied that it will be protected by the Holy Spirit from error. This promise comes from Christ himself. We find it in the Gospels and Paul refers to it again in his letters when he speaks about him and the Apostles passing on what they received from Christ and how the laity must accept it without questioning, because it is absolute truth.
How is the âMagisteriumâ protected by the Holy Spirit from error? The gift of the Holy Spirit to guide was promised. How were the recipients assured they wouldnât err by ignoring their own thoughts, beliefs, values and understanding? The sender (the Holy Spirit) was addressed, but where is the recipient addressed?
See, thatâs the thing. Where did God say this? We are told by men that God saidâŚhow did He tell them?
The Trinity, the Virginity of Mary, the Sacraments, what they say about sin, what they teach about the nature of God, the nature of Christ and the nature of grace, does not treat children that are already born the way the moral hierarchy of sin appears to be protecting the interests of the clery over born children.
Who were the female Fathers of the Church that make up the Magisterium and defined the moral hierarchy of sin?
C
catharina
Guest
Why? how do we know that? Where does it say that? Who exactly said it? How are we sure where it came from?
How is the âMagisteriumâ protected by the Holy Spirit from error? The gift of the Holy Spirit to guide was promised. How were the recipients assured they wouldnât err by ignoring their own thoughts, beliefs, values and understanding? The sender (the Holy Spirit) was addressed, but where is the recipient addressed?
See, thatâs the thing. Where did God say this? We are told by men that God saidâŚhow did He tell them?
The Trinity, the Virginity of Mary, the Sacraments, what they say about sin, what they teach about the nature of God, the nature of Christ and the nature of grace, does not treat children that are already born the way the moral hierarchy of sin appears to be protecting the interests of the clery over born children.
Who were the female Fathers of the Church that make up the Magisterium and defined the moral hierarchy of sin?
Code:
**From Jesus to His apostles at the Last Supper, after Judas had departed:**
~~~~~~~~~~~~
John 14: 14-27
14 If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.
15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always,
17 the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live.
20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.
21 Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him."
22 Judas, not the Iscariot, said to him, "Master, (then) what happened that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world?"
23 Jesus answered and said to him, "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.
24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.
**25 "I have told you this while I am with you.
26 The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.
27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid. **the promise is kept. The Holy Spirit leads and protects the Church.
This is the promise of Jesus Christ to all of us.
J
JReducation
Guest
JReducation;6719734:
We have to be careful here. It is a fundamental tenet of Catholicism that the Magisterium is one of the three sources through which God reveals himself and the voice of the Magisterium cannot err, ever. To deny this or question it is to apostasize from the faith.
Jesus speaks to us about the authority of the Magisterium when he says, âHe who hears you,hears me.â He promises to Peter that the gates of Hell will not prevail against him. Paul reminds us that the faith is for private interpretation, but it must be handed down by the Apsotles, not the faithful, when he speaks about no scripture is of private interpretation.
Vatican I defined, de fide, infallibly, the teaching authority of the papacy and the Magisterium as infallible in all matters dealing with faith and morals.
Abortion and sexual abuse are matters of morals. The Commandments are moral laws. Therefore, the Magisterium cannot turn a deaf ear to the voice of the Holy Spirit, nor can it say someting contrary to the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit will not allow it to happen. He will block their freedom in this one area. The teaching authority of the Church is not free to teach error. It is free to choose to sin, but never to teach sin. It has never happened in 2000 years.
The moral hierarchy was established by God when he gave Moses the 10 Commandments. The fifth commandment is about murder and the sixth is about sins of the flesh. These commandments were not organized randomly. There were in a very specific order from the most grave to the least grave, but all of them grave, nonetheless.
No one is taking away tha gravity of sexual abuse. What is being said is that it is less grave than abortion. This does not serve the clergy in any way, because the clergy did not make this up, God did. This is how he dictated the law to Moses, a law that we are not free to question or change.
Even in a civil court, a murder is treated with greater severity than a crime of sexual abuse. And a crime of sexual abuse is treated with greater severity than a crime of theft. There is a hierarchy of evil. For example, in civil law, there is no crime greater than treason, not even murder.
Well, the first four commandments are about treason, treason against the authority of God and the authority of parents. When we challenge the infallibility of the teaching Magisterium we border on treason against what God has revealed about the Church and what the Church has revealed about itself. This is why we have to be very careful and let the Church guide us in making moral judgments, so that we not fall into apostasy, which is the theological word for treason.
Just one more thing. The Fathers of the Church were teachers, but not all were part of the Magisterium, because not all were ordained. Many were monks, hermits and women. These would not be part of the Magisterium. The Magisterium is only ordained men, because as St. Paul points out, only Apostles can pass down what has been given to them by Christ, no one else can do this.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Iâm popping in, althoug it is off topic, and I just wanted to add something from the Catechism:
Also from the Catechism:
I think the majority of people know that molesting a child is an evil actâŚ(well, at least I hope so)
The Church doesnât teach that molesting children is no big deal. It is a grave, mortal sin. âAlways an intrinsically evil actâ
Also from the Catechism:
I highlighted in red. The Church uses the penalty of excommunication to underscore the gravity of abortion. Why? I think because so many people think that at abortion is acceptable in some scenario. (be it on demand, or because of rape, or for the health of the mother)
I think the majority of people know that molesting a child is an evil actâŚ(well, at least I hope so)
J
JReducation
Guest
The Church recognizes that both acts are heinous crimes. But she also recognizes that abortion is a crime of murder and she imposes a stricter sanction on it. This does not mean that sexual abuse, stealing, adultery, promiscuity, etc are not grave sins. It simply means that when you abort, you have reached the tip of the iceburg on the moral scale. That is the worse sin that you can possibly commit.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
momor
Guest
Thanks. You hit on the distinction I was looking for as to why abortion brings excommunication but killing post-birth does not. It sounds like it is basically to drive home that abortion is murder before God when often it is not a crime under the law of the land.
R
Rence
Guest
Ok, let me understand: Jesus says, âHe who hears you, hears meâ and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against him" and this is interpreted as meaning that Peter and his descendents are all infallible. Right?
How did Vatican I define the teaching authority of the papacy and the Magisterium as infallible? Does this trace back to âHe who hears you, hears meâ? Or is there more to support this claim?
Where is it said that the Magisterium doesnât have any choice but to comply with the will of the Holy Spirit? What Scriptures are they referencing to support this claim?
The ten commandments were given to the Chosen People (Moses) directly. Their understanding of the commandments was insured directly by God as well. Why is their interpretation wrong, and the Catholic interpretation correct? What makes the Catholic interpration more ârightâ when the Jews already had it interpreted and applied to their lives for centuries before the Church was established?
It serves the clergy very well in the instances where the clergy are the ones doing the molesting and raping. One cannot deny the fact that priests are bounced from parish to parish as they molest and rape children along the way. In the past, no one dared even question the authority of a priest, even if he was hurting a child. Now that people realize that priests, bishops and the pope are just humans, they are questioning bad behavior and demanding punishment, and especially being âboldâ enough to demand cessation of such behavior.
Iâm not going to address the civil portion of your response, only because just as the civil law doesnât apply to Catholic law, the same applies: As a Catholic upon whom a certain standard is expected, I feel the same way about the Church in that it is expected to live up to the same standard that it requires of me. So please, if you donât mind, letâs stick to the Catholic law portion. Because if weâre going to discuss civil law, keep in mind that abortion is legal, and even in places where it is not legal, exceptions are made for cases of rape, incest and threat to the womanâs life. In addition, our countryâs leaders are composed of men and women of various backgrounds and creeds, as opposed to the Magisterium which is only composed of ordained men of one religion.
Where does it say that only Apostles can pass down what has been given to them by Christ? And if it was given to the Apostles by Christ, then how would it apply to new situations that develop today? The new situations that develop today are judged upon my men centuries after the Apostles received the message of Christ directly.
R
Rence
Guest
Good point. I was thinking more along the lines of: âwow, look at all that reading available about abortion and just a few sentences to drive home how horrible the Church regards rape and molestationâ.
C
catharina
Guest
Infallability
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#papal infallibility defined
Therefore,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#papal infallibility defined
Code:
**Decrees of the First Vatican Council**
July 1870Therefore,
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma thatwhen the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
I quoted the Catechism, just a few lines. How more serious than âAlways an intrinsically evil act.âGood point. I was thinking more along the lines of: âwow, look at all that reading available about abortion and just a few sentences to drive home how horrible the Church regards rape and molestationâ.
Meaning if one molests a child, there is never any justification, and it is a mortal sin.
God forbid any of my children were assaulted, I would want the perpatrators in jail, for a long time.
If the DA said to me, âMary Gail would prefer excommunication or jail timeâ I would want jail time.
Rence, even if the Church had excommunicated and defrocked all the abusive priests, without jail time they would still be a risk to the community.
J
JReducation
Guest
This statement and the fact that this was the faith of the Church from the beginning to this day.
Vatican I defined it as a dogma that was revealed by God and which makes the teachings of the Church irrefutable and which also means that the pope and the bishops in union with the pope can teach infallibly without the consent of the governed. They are the only legitimate successors of the Apostles and the Apostles did not teach with the consent of the faithful, but by the power given to them by Jesus Christ, which they handed down to the next generation.
This is a postulate or a given. If the Apostels speak for Christ and if they are protected from the gates of hell prevailing against them, then they cannot teach error. Thomas Aquinas concluded that the only way that this is possible is for the Holy Spirit to speak through them, rather than they speaking for themselves. He applies to moral teachings the same principle that we apply to the consecration and absolution.
If you notice, in the words of consecration the priest says, âThis is MY bodyâ not âThis is Christâs body.â He speaks in the first person, because at that moment it is not the priest who speaks, but Christ who speaks. In confession, the priest says, âI absolve you.â not âChrist absolves you.â Again, it is Christ doing the speaking, not the priest. The same principle applies to the teaching of faith and morals as applies to the consecration and absolution. It is Christ doing the speaking, not the individual. Christ cannot err. Whenever the pope or the bishops in union with the pope declare a moral truth or a doctrine, it is Christ doing the talking. Thatâs why we hear him, when we hear them. If we deny this, then we have to deny the words of consecration and the words of absolution. We recognize those words as infallibly true. We Catholics have no doubt that the priest is speaking truth when he says âI absolve youâ or âThis is my body.â Where does the priest get this authority from? He gets it from a bishop who has imposed hands on him. The bishop is a successor to the Apostles and another bishop imposed hands on him and it goes back to the first generation of Apostles.
The Jews did not undestand the Commandments. It was impossible for them to fully understand their meaning, because the fullness of truth subsists only in the Catholic Church. No one else has the fulness of truth. Therefore, no one else, but the Catholic Church can fully understand truth. The Commandments were given to the Chosen People, but were correctly interpreted and explained to their fullest when the Catholic Church is born. Until then, the Jews had shadows of the truth.
The fact that this problem was handled very poorly does not change the Truth revealed by God. The truth is that if you commit abortion, you place yourself outside of the Catholic Church. No sin is ever great enough to conquer truth revealed by Christ. That would make Christ a victim of the sin. Christ can no longer be a victim of sin. Therefore, whatever the sins of these men were, the truth revealed by Christ, remains the truth.
J
JReducation
Guest
We actually can look at it. There are practices in civil law that are consistent with moral truth. The hierarchy of evils is one of them. The approval of abortion is not one of them. That is inconsistent with revealed truth. Therefore, the law has no legitimacy. The fact that the country is run by a plurality does is meaningless to God. What is meaningful to God is moral truth. If there are people in government who disagree with revealed truth, they are wrong. Itâs that simple. There can never be two rights. That would be moral relativism, which is a condemned heresyl for any Catholic to accept. I noticed that your profile says that youâre Catholic. So I assume that you agree that those legislators and other govenment people who believe that abortion even in one single circumstance are morally wrong and they are in conflict with Truth; therefore, there belief has no legitimacy and need not be obeyed by anyone. This is why martyrs gave their lives, because they did not follow those whose beliefs had no moral legitimacy, even though they had legal authority. We venerate these men and women as heroes.
In 1 Cor 11:23-25 Paul tells the community that he is handing down to them what he has received from Christ. The early Christians believed and passed along the belief that they could only receive what came from the Apostles or bishops. In Rom 14:3-8 Paul again reminds us the roles of the different parts of the body. The role of the bishops and the pope is to teach and to govern. That is not the role of the rest. The reason that the early Christians allowed these passages from Paul to be included in the scriptures, along with others concerning the authority of the Apostles, is because these passages reflected what they believed, what had been revealed to them. Remember, they put together the scriptures to reflect the faith of the Church. They did not build the Church upon the scriptures. They built the Church upon the teachings of the Apostles.
That apostolic authority is still in place. This is what we call Apostolic Succession, which Catholics cannot deny without being excommunicated automatically. Both Catholics and Orthodox have preserved Apostolic Succession. They have never accepted any other authority except that which has been handed down by the Apostles.
As Catholics, we cannot refuse to accept the Apostolic Authority or we will find ourselves outside of the Catholic Church and separated from the fullness of Truth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
Rence
Guest
Br. JR, Thank you for taking the time to answer all of my questions. I appreciate you.
C
Christopher68
Guest
Perhaps Iâm not understanding what you have stated, or perhaps I have understood it and find disagreement with it. On one hand you admit that we live in a pluralistic society. This is obvious and irrefutable. You also state that when legislators have beliefs that are not in line with various Catholic teachings, that their beliefs are âillegitimateâ and âneed not be obeyedâ. When you use the word âillegimateâ Iâm assuming you mean in relation to âCatholic truthâ and not in relation to legality in a societal sense. Because if their opposing belief is legal, then it is in fact legitimate in terms of legal definitions. When you used the words âneed not be obeyedâ are you referring to something that is legal, but that as Catholics we should not do? Or are you suggesting something different? If you are suggesting something different, would you care to elaborate? I am not intending to be disrespectful when I say this, but I am interpreting your comments as suggesting something akin to a Catholic version of sharia law. And weâve seen how dangerous religious theocracies are.We actually can look at it. There are practices in civil law that are consistent with moral truth. The hierarchy of evils is one of them. The approval of abortion is not one of them. That is inconsistent with revealed truth. Therefore, the law has no legitimacy. The fact that the country is run by a plurality does is meaningless to God. What is meaningful to God is moral truth. If there are people in government who disagree with revealed truth, they are wrong. Itâs that simple. There can never be two rights. That would be moral relativism, which is a condemned heresyl for any Catholic to accept. I noticed that your profile says that youâre Catholic. So I assume that you agree that those legislators and other govenment people who believe that abortion even in one single circumstance are morally wrong and they are in conflict with Truth; therefore, there belief has no legitimacy and need not be obeyed by anyone. This is why martyrs gave their lives, because they did not follow those whose beliefs had no moral legitimacy, even though they had legal authority. We venerate these men and women as heroes.
In 1 Cor 11:23-25 Paul tells the community that he is handing down to them what he has received from Christ. The early Christians believed and passed along the belief that they could only receive what came from the Apostles or bishops. In Rom 14:3-8 Paul again reminds us the roles of the different parts of the body. The role of the bishops and the pope is to teach and to govern. That is not the role of the rest. The reason that the early Christians allowed these passages from Paul to be included in the scriptures, along with others concerning the authority of the Apostles, is because these passages reflected what they believed, what had been revealed to them. Remember, they put together the scriptures to reflect the faith of the Church. They did not build the Church upon the scriptures. They built the Church upon the teachings of the Apostles.
That apostolic authority is still in place. This is what we call Apostolic Succession, which Catholics cannot deny without being excommunicated automatically. Both Catholics and Orthodox have preserved Apostolic Succession. They have never accepted any other authority except that which has been handed down by the Apostles.
As Catholics, we cannot refuse to accept the Apostolic Authority or we will find ourselves outside of the Catholic Church and separated from the fullness of Truth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I would also like to share some of the words of noted economist Art Carden, as I believe they are quite appropriate to this discussion:
Pluralism is insurance against tyranny, which is why we should demand it of our government. Calling on government to purify othersâ hearts and minds opens Pandoraâs box, pushes us farther down a very slippery slope. If I give a government the power to force you to accept my values, I also give them the power to force me to accept your values at some point in the future. Another way of saying this is that any government with the power to take an atheistâs money and give it to my church is also a government with the power to take my money and give it to Planned Parenthood. When we use force to restrict othersâ liberty, we endanger our own. Governments coerce others with a two-edged sword: giving the state the power to do things you like necessarily requires giving the state the power to do things you donât like, and giving the state the power to restrict behavior of which you donât approve gives them the power to restrict behavior of which you do approve. The right way to change hearts and minds is not coercion. It is persuasion.
R
Rence
Guest
I wish some people would understand this. Thankfully, those around me IRL doâŚ
- Status