Which Catholic doctrines are currently being challenged by emerging christianity?

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
While there are definitely Protestant promoters of Emerging Christianity, have you ever come across some of the ideas in Catholic writings?

Do you have examples for what you mean by “some of the ideas”?

First, it is very important to recognize that there are both good and bad aspects to various ideas. Think in terms of advertising. It is a good idea to have a car for transportation to work. It is not a good idea to spend 90% of the paycheck on a super luxury car.

Second, it is also important to recognize that some of the fallout of “current” emerging Christianity has been around for centuries.

Currently, an underlying idea or theme is that it is not necessary for Christians to get tangled in doctrinal/theological discussions. Disagreements will hamper the Christian mission to do good in the world. Obviously, this is a reasonable approach when different Churches combine efforts to help the poor with food pantries and shelter during the winter, for example. Or when citizens work together to protect freedom of religion or the right to life.

The error in this approach is that it is necessary for Catholics to understand and follow Catholic teachings. Working together to alleviate poverty does not mean that Catholics can ignore the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation. Please study post 40 by Michael 19682.

Another idea is the misinterpretation of God’s love for Adam and for all humanity because all humanity was in Adam as “one body of one man.” Original Sin is misunderstood to the point that its seriousness (requiring divine reconciliation) is denied because God is all love. Does “vengeful God” sound familiar?
Talk about a tangled interpretation …which ends up shortchanging those who want to live in a deep spiritual relationship with God aka the State of Sanctifying Grace.

The sad thing is that those who need support in their Catholic lives are bombarded with the idea that any Catholic’s personal opinion is all right-- as long as there is “communion” between people. The sad result is found in the last line of post 39 by Weller2, which refers to “Emergent.” Catholics not only need to care about doctrines, they must care.

 

[steve_b]

First, it is very important to recognize that there are both good and bad aspects to various ideas. Think in terms of advertising. It is a good idea to have a car for transportation to work. It is not a good idea to spend 90% of the paycheck on a super luxury car.

Second, it is also important to recognize that some of the fallout of “current” emerging Christianity has been around for centuries.

Currently, an underlying idea or theme is that it is not necessary for Christians to get tangled in doctrinal/theological discussions. Disagreements will hamper the Christian mission to do good in the world. Obviously, this is a reasonable approach when different Churches combine efforts to help the poor with food pantries and shelter during the winter, for example. Or when citizens work together to protect freedom of religion or the right to life.

The error in this approach is that it is necessary for Catholics to understand and follow Catholic teachings. Working together to alleviate poverty does not mean that Catholics can ignore the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation. Please study post 40 by Michael 19682.

Another idea is the misinterpretation of God’s love for Adam and for all humanity because all humanity was in Adam as “one body of one man.” Original Sin is misunderstood to the point that its seriousness (requiring divine reconciliation) is denied because God is all love. Does “vengeful God” sound familiar?
Talk about a tangled interpretation …which ends up shortchanging those who want to live in a deep spiritual relationship with God aka the State of Sanctifying Grace.

The sad thing is that those who need support in their Catholic lives are bombarded with the idea that any Catholic’s personal opinion is all right-- as long as there is “communion” between people. The sad result is found in the last line of post 39 by Weller2, which refers to “Emergent.” Catholics not only need to care about doctrines, they must care.

Thanks for the examples. As the CCC points out, there are Catholics in the Church in body but their hearts (soul) are not. Charity (love of neighbor etc ) is more than just good works. It’s also embracing ALL that God established in His Church. Those who dissent from Church teachings have put their souls outside the Church. 837

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for the examples. As the CCC points out, there are Catholics in the Church in body but their hearts (soul) are not. Charity (love of neighbor etc ) is more than just good works. It’s also embracing ALL that God established in His Church. Those who dissent from Church teachings have put their souls outside the Church. 837

This is what the CCC says

837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

So meaning one can take part in all the sacraments and act in such a way, but if they are shunning family friends and neighbour they are not fully incorporated.

I might add, that we all are not perfect, we could partake in the sacraments while still holding a grudge or something against another. But then that is why we go to Church, partake in sacraments, try to forgive, try to become hoiler people.

 

[grannymh]

This is what the CCC says

837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

So meaning one can take part in all the sacraments and act in such a way, but if they are shunning family friends and neighbour they are not fully incorporated.

In the context of* CCC* 837 and the teachings on the spiritual soul with its rational intellect which has the ability to choose evil acts over charitable acts –
Persevering in charity refers to refraining from committing sins, mortal or venial, against another person. Members of the Catholic Church can and do commit sins, mortal or venial, against charity.

 

[simpleas]

In the context of* CCC* 837 and the teachings on the spiritual soul with its rational intellect which has the ability to choose evil acts over charitable acts –
Persevering in charity refers to refraining from committing sins, mortal or venial, against another person. Members of the Catholic Church can and do commit sins, mortal or venial, against charity.

Yes I agree, I was pointing out that while we can most definately refain from committing sins, we may still have a sin “attached” to us that we have difficulty refaining from, and it may not be a deliberate sin.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Granny,

IMO, active discipleship in the way I described is much more important than varying views of the atonement. It is more important to bring about reconciliation among nations, to stop abortion, to feed the hungry, to visit the sick and imprisoned, and to care for children than to get bogged down in doctrinal/theological disagreements. Do you see what I mean? There is so much work to do!

Thanks

The two can be in balance. Practise of the faith teachings and active discipleship. Which is what all of us as Catholic’s will know I’m sure

I think that some teachings are lower on some list’s than they were years ago, but not to be disregarded.

Just my :twocents:

 

[steve_b]

This is what the CCC says

837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

So meaning one can take part in all the sacraments and act in such a way, but if they are shunning family friends and neighbour they are not fully incorporated.

I might add, that we all are not perfect, we could partake in the sacraments while still holding a grudge or something against another. But then that is why we go to Church, partake in sacraments, try to forgive, try to become hoiler people.

As I pointed out priviously, It’s not just shunning family friends and neighbor. Charity entails more than that. For example, If we dissent from Church teachings, we sin against charity as well, and that also puts our souls outside the Church. Add to that if we pull others into our dissent, we sin against charity towards them, our neighbor, and now BOTH souls are outside the Church.

 

[OneSheep]

As I pointed out priviously, It’s not just shunning family friends and neighbor. Charity entails more than that. For example, If we dissent from Church teachings, we sin against charity as well, and that also puts our souls outside the Church. Add to that if we pull others into our dissent, we sin against charity towards them, our neighbor, and now BOTH souls are outside the Church.

Hi Steve,

I suppose it depends on what is specifically the “dissent”. Let’s say, for example, that a woman is actively trying to become a priest. You and I could discuss, argue, and so forth until we are blue in the face about the “dissent” of being open-minded about women in the priesthood, but as we are doing so how many shut-in people could we be visiting, how many letters could we be writing to legislators about social justice, how much money could we be earning that we could give to charitable causes?

Yes, in light of all these things, discussions on the CAF are only so much vanity, and I am guilty in that. So, is it uncharitable to remain in discussion about topics that draw our time and energy away from charitable acts?

Do you see what I am saying? I am already feeling a little guilty about sending this short post now, I could have been doing something really meaningful. I have to put this in the category of “entertainment”, and since I don’t watch any TV, I guess I can rationalize this… today…

Have a good one.

 

[grannymh]

A bit of clarification about this thread.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss meaningful Catholic doctrines which are currently being challenged. Discussion of meaningful doctrines does not automatically erase the need for charitable works. The reality is that all of us need to carefully choose our actions. Please refer to St. Paul’s teachings on the Mystical Body of Christ.

A woman I know died recently. It is my humble opinion that if she had the chance to discuss some meaningful Catholic doctrines, she may not have left the Catholic Church. Obviously, I will not judge her soul. I do not underestimate the power of God to touch a soul at the last moment. And I do not underestimate the power of the soul to reach out to God at the last moment.

However, I hope that those who want to follow in her footsteps will meet someone who can explain the value of some pertinent meaningful Catholic doctrines, such as those connected with the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, along with volunteering in a food pantry or being a doctor without borders.

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve,

I suppose it depends on what is specifically the “dissent”.Let’s say, for example, that a woman is actively trying to become a priest. You and I could discuss, argue, and so forth until we are blue in the face about the “dissent” of being open-minded about women in the priesthood, but as we are doing so how many shut-in people could we be visiting, how many letters could we be writing to legislators about social justice, how much money could we be earning that we could give to charitable causes?

Yes, in light of all these things, discussions on the CAF are only so much vanity, and I am guilty in that. So, is it uncharitable to remain in discussion about topics that draw our time and energy away from charitable acts?

Do you see what I am saying? I am already feeling a little guilty about sending this short post now, I could have been doing something really meaningful. I have to put this in the category of “entertainment”, and since I don’t watch any TV, I guess I can rationalize this… today…

Have a good one.

You present this as an either/or . It’s NOT.

We have a responsibility as Catholics to ALSO inform our fellow Catholics and even rebuke them for embracing error, and their arguing other people into error with them .

For example

JPII made an infallible decree Re: women priests. That means it will not change.

from*** OrdinatioSacerdotalis JPII***

1. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
   Wherefore,* in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.*
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo…otalis_en.html

Ergo, the case is closed.

If a Catholic continues to stir the pot on this closed issue, then they sin greviously against charity. And if one further persuades another Catholic to follow them into error with them, they have that person’s soul to deal with as well.

It’s like today’s Gospel reading in mass. Luke 17:2

when JPII was saying "in some places " in the Church, he’s referring to progressive types who disregard authority.

 

[simpleas]

As I pointed out priviously, It’s not just shunning family friends and neighbor. Charity entails more than that. For example, If we dissent from Church teachings, we sin against charity as well, and that also puts our souls outside the Church. Add to that if we pull others into our dissent, we sin against charity towards them, our neighbor, and now BOTH souls are outside the Church.

So what does it mean to sin against charity within the church? I mean if a person has a different point of view, not in the way of going against a particular doctrine flat out disagreeing, but isn’t 100% sure of something, they can’t be “outside the church” can they?

 

[steve_b]

So what does it mean to sin against charity within the church?

Here’s one way that happens

The Church declares infallibly, that the ordained priesthood is reserved for men only. End of discussion…right? However, If one continues to argue against that, and for women priests, then they sin against charity by dissenting from Church teaching and they are also in heresy. As the CCC teaches

heresy 2089
*Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

As Paul teaches Re: heresy

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

That’s why
837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart’

If one meets those qualifications, they are fully incorporated in the Church.

How many do NOT meet those qualifications?
s:

I mean if a person has a different point of view, not in the way of going against a particular doctrine flat out disagreeing, but isn’t 100% sure of something, they can’t be “outside the church” can they?

I would think it depends on how far one goes with their definition of “different point of view”. Doctrines are teachings of the Church. They are articles of faith

 

[simpleas]

Here’s one way that happens

The Church declares infallibly, that the ordained priesthood is reserved for men only. End of discussion…right? However, If one continues to argue against that, and for women priests, then they sin against charity by dissenting from Church teaching and they are also in heresy. As the CCC teaches

heresy 2089
*Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

As Paul teaches Re: heresy

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸ****ν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

That’s why
837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart’

If one meets those qualifications, they are fully incorporated in the Church.

How many do NOT meet those qualifications?

I would think it depends on how far one goes with their definition of “different point of view”. Doctrines are teachings of the Church. They are articles of faith

Cool thanks for your answer.

Doctrines are teachings of the church and Dogmas are divinely revealed truths I have learnt.
I never knew that it was divinely revealed that men only could be priests.

So some doctrines would not be divinely revealed as such, but are developed through the years, by the popes.

Paul on heresy :

I wouldn’t say a person is perverted, but we are all sinners. If most people in our church were fully in communion with the church then we would be almost divine! He also sounds like he is speaking of someone of another faith, who will not listen to the word at all.

Faith, yes but there also has to be an understanding on what a person is believing in.

 

[steve_b]

Paul on heresy :

He also sounds like he is speaking of someone of another faith, who will not listen to the word at all.

Yes, that too.

 

[OneSheep]

Cool thanks for your answer.

Doctrines are teachings of the church and Dogmas are divinely revealed truths I have learnt.
I never knew that it was divinely revealed that men only could be priests.

So some doctrines would not be divinely revealed as such, but are developed through the years, by the popes.

Paul on heresy :

I wouldn’t say a person is perverted, but we are all sinners. If most people in our church were fully in communion with the church then we would be almost divine! He also sounds like he is speaking of someone of another faith, who will not listen to the word at all.

Faith, yes but there also has to be an understanding on what a person is believing in.

Hi Simpleas:

From Wikipedia:

"In 1998, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued another opinion, a Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem[6] to state that the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not taught as being divinely revealed, although it might someday be so taught in the future:

" A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinatio_Sacerdotalis

So, the answer to the infallibility of the statement is “not yet”. Some people say “yes, it is infallible” regardless of what the Congregation says, though.

The question is, again, is it worth our time and our communion to be divisive over the issue? A priest once told us, for example, that he did not think there would ever be women priests, but that perhaps women would eventually be taking on the same priestly roles. So, do you see, even if they eventually decide that JP II’s document was infallible, there would still be the possibility of women someday doing everything that priests do.

The Spirit moves people and moves the Church. If God wants the Church to eventually have women take on the same roles as men, absolutely nothing that anyone says will stop it. This is a good reason to be open-minded. There is no infallible statement against open-mindedness. Indeed, to have such a dogma or doctrine would be to close off the Spirit Himself.

Have you ever seen Fiddler on the Roof? Think of Reptevia looking into the sky and crying “tradition!” in his frustration over the winds of change. Change is scary for people, but as I was always taught, fear is the opposite of faith.

I stand by my statement: divisiveness over doctrine or dogma or what have you goes against the spirit of the Eucharist itself. If someone thinks that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis should be infallible, then that is okay, let us break bread with the person. If someone thinks that women should be priests or take on priestly roles, then who am I to exclude them from who I call brother or sister? Christ calls for inclusiveness, right Simpleas?

Go forth, and make the world a better place!

 

[cyriljw]

Many moons ago, while reading my first adult book on the life of Jesus, I recognized that the chapter on the loaves and fishes was an attack on the Divinity of Jesus. Coincidentally, yesterday a friend referred to subversive Catholicism and sweet talk. In addition, I came across a concept referred to as “emerging christianity.”

Three questions. Is the emerging idea similar to that of the former Catholic, the prominent author Matthew Fox , who updated a few basic doctrines to comport with our contemporary cultures? Is the emerging idea similar to the original Jesus Seminar that sought “the truth”? Or is emerging christianity simply a composite of contrary thoughts about necessary Catholic doctrines?

The answers are important for Catholic apologetics because the fallout of this emerging christianity term has the real potential of affecting people’s views of the real Catholic Church. One descriptive term which I did not mention above is “big tent” because this may be a local description for a new and improved christianity and not necessarily well known. Changing the Catholic Church into a big tent means that bona fide Catholic members can have conflicting interpretations and opinions about selected Catholic teachings. It appears to the uninformed, that any and all emerging opinions have equal value with the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

In my humble opinion, when trying to deal with some misconceptions about Catholicism, it may be helpful if apologetics recognized the doctrine(s) being challenged. One news article I remember was about the lack of true knowledge regarding our conscience. The substitutions for accurate conscience teachings could be a challenge to the doctrines on human nature per se or a challenge to Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC 356; *CCC *1730; and possibly CCC 1260.

Personally, I do not know a lot about what I am talking about. However, in my humble opinion, the way to deal with weird ideas is not always respectful confrontation. Sometimes, the positive concepts of the attacked Catholic doctrine are so appealing that they become efficacious.

Information source: Matthew 7: 15

Any ‘emerging Christianity’ has to gel with what was taught/ practiced in original Church. ‘church’, across the board, is ‘spiritual light-years’ away from what it was. Who gave us the right to change things? Jude 3-4. We have a personal responsibility to Jesus, to believe/ practice what Holy Spirit says to our understanding. 2Corinth. 13:5. We can trust Holy Spirit to lead us to correct belief. John 14:26. cyriljw

 

[grannymh]

Hi Simpleas:

From Wikipedia:

"In 1998, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued another opinion, a Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem[6] to state that the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not taught as being divinely revealed, although it might someday be so taught in the future:

" A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinatio_Sacerdotalis

So, the answer to the infallibility of the statement is “not yet”. Some people say “yes, it is infallible” regardless of what the Congregation says, though.

The question is, again, is it worth our time and our communion to be divisive over the issue? A priest once told us, for example, that he did not think there would ever be women priests, but that perhaps women would eventually be taking on the same priestly roles. So, do you see, even if they eventually decide that JP II’s document was infallible, there would still be the possibility of women someday doing everything that priests do.

The Spirit moves people and moves the Church. If God wants the Church to eventually have women take on the same roles as men, absolutely nothing that anyone says will stop it. This is a good reason to be open-minded. There is no infallible statement against open-mindedness. Indeed, to have such a dogma or doctrine would be to close off the Spirit Himself.

Have you ever seen Fiddler on the Roof? Think of Reptevia looking into the sky and crying “tradition!” in his frustration over the winds of change. Change is scary for people, but as I was always taught, fear is the opposite of faith.

I stand by my statement: divisiveness over doctrine or dogma or what have you goes against the spirit of the Eucharist itself. If someone thinks that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis should be infallible, then that is okay, let us break bread with the person. If someone thinks that women should be priests or take on priestly roles, then who am I to exclude them from who I call brother or sister? Christ calls for inclusiveness, right Simpleas?

Go forth, and make the world a better place!

If I am reading this post correctly – and please do correct me if I am in error – because I am one of those people who reverence Catholic teachings.

In the spirit of this thread, I am sincerely curious about this particular statement in post 55.
“I stand by my statement: divisiveness over doctrine or dogma or what have you goes against the spirit of the Eucharist itself.”

No doubt. In itself, this is a true statement.

Nonetheless, I will be going to a funeral service conducted by an ecumenical group which originally had Catholic roots, but now has severed its relationship to the Catholic Church. From what I have learned, it sounds like this group’s Sunday Worship Service is in the spirit of the Eucharist, but does not have the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

From the outside, it looks like the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is being denied, but the spirit of the Eucharist ceremony, such as the homily, remains. On the other hand, it also seems that the divisiveness may have been due to some past disagreements with the diocese. I cannot imagine what these would be. Obviously, it is not appropriate to ask these kind of questions at a funeral.

 

[steve_b]

Hi Simpleas:

From Wikipedia:

"In 1998, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued another opinion, a Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem[6] to state that the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not taught as being divinely revealed, although it might someday be so taught in the future:

" A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinatio_Sacerdotalis

So, the answer to the infallibility of the statement is “not yet”. Some people say “yes, it is infallible” regardless of what the Congregation says, though.

on the contrary

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (John Paul II, 1994)
Responsum ad Dubium (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1996)
Letter Concerning the CDF Reply (Joseph Ratzinger, 1996)
Inter Insignores (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1976)
OS:

The question is, again, is it worth our time and our communion to be divisive over the issue? A priest once told us, for example, that he did not think there would ever be women priests, but that perhaps women would eventually be taking on the same priestly roles. So, do you see, even if they eventually decide that JP II’s document was infallible, there would still be the possibility of women someday doing everything that priests do.

The Spirit moves people and moves the Church. If God wants the Church to eventually have women take on the same roles as men, absolutely nothing that anyone says will stop it. This is a good reason to be open-minded. There is no infallible statement against open-mindedness. Indeed, to have such a dogma or doctrine would be to close off the Spirit Himself.

Have you ever seen Fiddler on the Roof? Think of Reptevia looking into the sky and crying “tradition!” in his frustration over the winds of change. Change is scary for people, but as I was always taught, fear is the opposite of faith.

I stand by my statement: divisiveness over doctrine or dogma or what have you goes against the spirit of the Eucharist itself.

Disciplines can change. They can go away. Priestly ordination is NOT a discipline.

Doctrines and dogmas otoh, are articles of fairh. They don’t appear one day and disappear another day. They are here and are to be believed if one expects to call themself Catholic.

My suggestion, stop using wiki as your source of information.

 

[Ignatius]

A bit of clarification about this thread.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss meaningful Catholic doctrines which are currently being challenged. .

It seems, from this thread, that Emergent Church or Emergent Christianity is not well defined enough to know what Doctrines would be disputed. The definition is so loose that, conceivably, All Catholic Doctrines chould be disputed.

 

[OneSheep]

on the contrary

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (John Paul II, 1994)
Responsum ad Dubium (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1996)
Letter Concerning the CDF Reply (Joseph Ratzinger, 1996)
Inter Insignores (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1976)

My suggestion, stop using wiki as your source of information.

Hi Steve,
These docs you link precede the one in quoted Wikepedia from the Congregation of Faith. If you can find something after 1998, please feel free.

In the mean time, if you think that JP II spoke infallibly on the matter, then that is fine with me! It’s okay, its understandable, and I do not hold it against you, not in the least! There are many, many, more important things to do than to argue about it. Thus my brevity here. If the Congregation reverses their statement, could you say the same for me? Can you follow an inclusive example, or are you more inclined to a more exclusive one? Do you get my drift?

Eucharist= Communion=Thanksgiving

Our communion is one of gratitude is it not?

God Bless

BTW: I still don’t really know what “emerging Christianity” is. Wikipedia is pretty vague about it.