You are apparently unaware of the state of seminaries over the last four decades. One can presume nothing. It is a fair bet that this priest simply does not know the Church’s teaching on the matter, despite the ready availability of this information. Situational ethics, permissive sexuality, liturgical and doctrinal dissent, and a self-centered magisterium were the staples of many seminary curricula in the 1970’s and 80’s. I know from first hand experience in a seminary which still had remnants of this in the mid-90’s. The holy priests who survived their seminary training intact did so on by the grace of God and the strength of their own faith. It is a serious error to assume that a diploma on a wall guarantees a certain level of competency in any field, especially theology.
I am afraid that his recommendation for this author is a huge red flag for me. I would not have much faith in advice given that was based on this author’s writings.
This is the route I usually take, although I have been known to write a letter or two. But after a few years on these forums, I have come to realize that most of our efforts (prayer not included) at revealing dissent are futile.
This is encouraging. I would love to hear more!
Enough said.
I found this priest to be uncompromising, cemented in his dissident views. I almost see it as one having been indocrinated to the extent that they are unable or unwilling to consider that their view is untenable with being faithful to what the Church actually teaches.
No, you’re left with THE MAGISTERIUM.
As I indicated in my OP I have been around the block on this particular issue of faith and morals and I am absolutely in the line with what the Church teaches.
This are my sentiments also.
Circular argument.
Any religion, looked at from the outside, is full of contradictions and absurdities. We catholics look at buddhists and say, “Man those guys believe some weird things.” We look at Hindus and say “Whoa, that’s really off the wall.” Same thing about Taoists, Neo-pagans, and Baptists.
Yes.
Yes.
Please do not hijack this thread with spurious arguments …if magisterium authority really interests you, then I suggest you do a search or begin a seperate thread.Circular argument.
Q. How do you know that the Magisterium is correct?
A. Scriptures states that “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”.
Q. How do you know that scripture is correct?
A. The Magisterium says so.
Any religion, looked at from the outside, is full of contradictions and absurdities. We catholics look at buddhists and say, “Man those guys believe some weird things.” We look at Hindus and say “Whoa, that’s really off the wall.” Same thing about Taoists, Neo-pagans, and Baptists.
We believe in a Trinity. Can’t get much weirder than that.
Yes.
Yes.
Wrong, my plucky Protestant pal.Circular argument.
Q. How do you know that the Magisterium is correct?
A. Scriptures states that “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”.
Q. How do you know that scripture is correct?
A. The Magisterium says so.
Still circular.
and…
Before this thread gets totally hijacked, I would say I agree with puzzleannie. First determine if the issue is doctrine, dogma, etc., and then ask him why his statements don’t jive with what the Church teaches. After all, it’s always good to know how someone balances their opinions with the Church’s teaching. Then, if you’re not satisfied, write a letter to the Bishop.
Deflect responsibility.
Er… no, gave my reasons for posting what I did.
Accuse
Er… no. I don’t see any accusation there. Maybe I don’t know in what sense you mean “accuse”?
Er… yeah, that’s the whole point. I rationalized and justified my post. You did ask that I not hijack the thread, and I gave you my rationalization and justification why I though I didn’t hijack the thread.
Thank you for the mature advice and support. I was clearly in the right and this priest was clearly in opposition to Church teaching. Even to the point that I borrowed his CCC and read 2 pertinent paragraphs and he remained unimpressed and would not concede that the teaching contained in the CCC was binding on the faithful. I am considering a follow up meeting with this priest and then writing the bishop a summary letter if he persist in his dissident stance. This time I would take the good advice of puzzleannie and follow up with a letter or phone call in weeks if I do not get a response.
Enough already.Er… no, gave my reasons for posting what I did.
Er… no. I don’t see any accusation there. Maybe I don’t know in what sense you mean “accuse”?
Er… yeah, that’s the whole point. I rationalized and justified my post. You did ask that I not hijack the thread, and I gave you my rationalization and justification why I though I didn’t hijack the thread.
We know that the original copies are historically accurate because they match with Jewish, Roman, and other pagan histories.Still circular.
Q. How do you know that the original copies were accurate historically?
A. The magisterium.
Q. How do we know that the magisterium isn’t wrong?
A. The original copies say so.
I’m not Protestant. I’m Catholic. Went to Mass yesterday and everything.
