S
steve_b
Guest
This is really at the heart of your issue. You don’t think Jesus gave the Church and particularly the pope such authority.
Which Catholic doctrines are currently being challenged by emerging christianity?
- Status
S
simpleas
Guest
I take it you couldn’t answer my question, and so thought it better to put words into my mouth…
G
grannymh
Guest
In reality, without specifying individuals, the heart of many issues concerning Catholic teachings is that often some, not all, people look at the visible Catholic Church on earth as being simply a human institution.
As I think about this, perhaps the idea that the Catholic Church is simply a human institution, is what motivates people to drop unpopular teachings. Should I add that this approach is what drives an emerging human christianity?
S
steve_b
Guest
#97 Change? As in reverse previous decisions? That’s really what you’re getting at.
Infallible decisions don’t get reversed.
S
steve_b
Guest
I would further add such people are either sooo poorly catechised, or don’t have supernatural faith to begin with. Until educated properly, or receive supernatural faith, they can’t accept the truth that the Catholic Church is a supernatural institution, created by Jesus, who gave His only Church all His promises for our salvation. The fact it is populated by humans doesn’t make it a human institution. We humans didn’t establish the Church. Jesus did. The Catholic Church is holy because of who founded and established her. Sinful occupants doesn’t change her identity .
811 , 812 , 816 , 830 , 831 , 865 ,
As an aside, one doesn’t want to be in any of these categories. They are disasterous for one’s soul 2089
S
simpleas
Guest
Last time I looked the pope/s were human beings not divine as Christ was. Taking over from the seat of Peter and holding onto the truths taught is not a problem to me. I’m not about to join up and declare things should change because the church doesn’t fit into the world and it’s views.
If infallible teaching doesn’t change I believe it develops. So when PJP2 said he declared that the teaching on women as priests would not happen, is like saying the Holy Spirit would never move the church in a developing way, on the said issue.
Ok, but I have my own thoughts on the subject. I believe God is neither male nor female. Yes Christ was a male, he did not exclude women, the church doesn’t exclude women, although many people believe it still does.
If a person it’s allowed to think contary to something taught, to learn about it by way of questions and hopefully come to the same conclusion without being told they are not with the church, its no wonder we have had many people give up and reject the teachings in favor of the world.
Just my thoughts.
If infallible teaching doesn’t change I believe it develops. So when PJP2 said he declared that the teaching on women as priests would not happen, is like saying the Holy Spirit would never move the church in a developing way, on the said issue.
Ok, but I have my own thoughts on the subject. I believe God is neither male nor female. Yes Christ was a male, he did not exclude women, the church doesn’t exclude women, although many people believe it still does.
If a person it’s allowed to think contary to something taught, to learn about it by way of questions and hopefully come to the same conclusion without being told they are not with the church, its no wonder we have had many people give up and reject the teachings in favor of the world.
Just my thoughts.
S
steve_b
Guest
infallible decisions don’t get reversed.
s:
So iow, Jesus isn’t God?
s:
Women play a huge role in the Church
s:
a person is NOT “allowed” to reject doctrine and dogma. There is no liscense for one to reject doctrine or dogma nor think they can. If one rejects doctrine and dogma, they do so on their own.
s:
Asking questions is different than willingly rejecting what has been defined as true.
Look at these definitions 2089 One doesn’t want their soul in any of these sins. All are acts of the will
*Incredulity: *unwillingness to believe. The operative word there is willinness. Which means one is giving their consent to make the choice not to believe.
J
James82
Guest
Hi Simpleas,Last time I looked the pope/s were human beings not divine as Christ was. Taking over from the seat of Peter and holding onto the truths taught is not a problem to me. I’m not about to join up and declare things should change because the church doesn’t fit into the world and it’s views.
If infallible teaching doesn’t change I believe it develops. So when PJP2 said he declared that the teaching on women as priests would not happen, is like saying the Holy Spirit would never move the church in a developing way, on the said issue.
Ok, but I have my own thoughts on the subject. I believe God is neither male nor female. Yes Christ was a male, he did not exclude women, the church doesn’t exclude women, although many people believe it still does.
If a person it’s allowed to think contary to something taught, to learn about it by way of questions and hopefully come to the same conclusion without being told they are not with the church, its no wonder we have had many people give up and reject the teachings in favor of the world.
Just my thoughts.
I’m not sure if your aware of this, but what you have stated is known as Arianism. This was decided many moons ago by the Church to be an assault on the Trinity. Perhaps you were not aware of that, I’d like to think the best.
As regards your other post about those in communion discussing different viewpoints; I would say yes and no. If we are to consider ourselves ‘Catholic’ in any meaningful sense we must adhere via submission (which is love) to those doctrines taught by the Magisterium which when pronounced are under direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit. These things cannot be discussed as regards to change, to do so is to implicitly invite attack from Lucifer.
But I would say (personally) there is nothing wrong in debate bringing about truth.
S
simpleas
Guest
I am not familiar with Arianism.
S
steve_b
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
S
simpleas
Guest
Ok thanks for the link.
Regarding Arianism, I didn’t say anything like this “Christ was a creature made by God”
I said God was neither male nor female, as we are. Christ is the son of God. But is also God.
The CCC also states God as neither male or female.
239 By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.
Regarding Arianism, I didn’t say anything like this “Christ was a creature made by God”
I said God was neither male nor female, as we are. Christ is the son of God. But is also God.
The CCC also states God as neither male or female.
239 By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.
G
grannymh
Guest
wesleyanarminian.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/33855-christatheart.jpg?w=228
Christ at Heart’s Door
Painting by Warner Sallman
Part of my travels included attending yesterday’s funeral service for a friend, a former Catholic. This service was a “mass”, celebrated by a woman, which mimicked nearly every element in the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. On a table, there was a circular loaf of bread and some wine which were blessed. There were readings, a psalm, and a homily.
The program for this service included “Liturgy of the Eucharist” and “Breaking of the Bread.” The program stated “Everyone is invited and welcome to receive communion.” That was accomplished by passing the broken bread in bowls among the assembly so that each person could offer a piece of bread, saying “The bread of life” or something similar, to the person sitting next to her or him.
I could feel Christ on His cross wanting to come to this funeral in His Real Presence in the Real Eucharist.
My friend had been passionate about the place of women in the Catholic Church. It would be easy to conclude that the Catholic teaching being challenged was the male priesthood. Yet, a female priesthood is only the tip of the iceberg. What was actually being challenged by this former Catholic group was the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man under the appearance of Bread and Wine.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
I chose the above painting to demonstrate that God wanted to be at the funeral service of someone He loved. God wanted to be with each one of us as we mourned the death of a friend. This new emerging spirituality of breaking bread together in communion with each other did not have the power to deny God’s existence in that community hall. Slipping away from the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would not prevent God coming individually to each person.
The only thing that could prevent God’s personal individual presence of Sanctifying Grace within us who are living is that we humans, with our marvelous gift of free choice, could securely close the door to our heart having first removed the handle on the outside.
Christ at Heart’s Door
Painting by Warner Sallman
Part of my travels included attending yesterday’s funeral service for a friend, a former Catholic. This service was a “mass”, celebrated by a woman, which mimicked nearly every element in the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. On a table, there was a circular loaf of bread and some wine which were blessed. There were readings, a psalm, and a homily.
The program for this service included “Liturgy of the Eucharist” and “Breaking of the Bread.” The program stated “Everyone is invited and welcome to receive communion.” That was accomplished by passing the broken bread in bowls among the assembly so that each person could offer a piece of bread, saying “The bread of life” or something similar, to the person sitting next to her or him.
I could feel Christ on His cross wanting to come to this funeral in His Real Presence in the Real Eucharist.
My friend had been passionate about the place of women in the Catholic Church. It would be easy to conclude that the Catholic teaching being challenged was the male priesthood. Yet, a female priesthood is only the tip of the iceberg. What was actually being challenged by this former Catholic group was the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man under the appearance of Bread and Wine.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
I chose the above painting to demonstrate that God wanted to be at the funeral service of someone He loved. God wanted to be with each one of us as we mourned the death of a friend. This new emerging spirituality of breaking bread together in communion with each other did not have the power to deny God’s existence in that community hall. Slipping away from the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would not prevent God coming individually to each person.
The only thing that could prevent God’s personal individual presence of Sanctifying Grace within us who are living is that we humans, with our marvelous gift of free choice, could securely close the door to our heart having first removed the handle on the outside.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I think the challenge is in seeing what can’t be separated, the Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture and then setting forward to understand it and how its the path of salvation of which there is no separation, this was passed down such as with the Apostle Paul or with the their first successors and so forth which is indicative of a living supernatural reality manifested in the carnal world through Jesus Christ and His living breathing Church. I don’t see separation in reality but one of the other which permeates outward from within.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Farchive%2Fhist_councils%2Fii_vatican_council%2Fdocuments%2Fvat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html&ei=urVoVIGQIoW1yQTOz4GYCg&usg=AFQjCNGlvprOJkXbd3Q5zS2JZWkf3Wf76g
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, no, actually. I don’t see what you mean.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
It appears that what you are saying is that material works of mercy trump the need to understand the truth of what has been revealed by God in the Church. It also appears that you would have advised Paul not to be disputatious with the Greeks in Athens, or anywhere, really, since he kept getting himself arrested and finally killed – and what good did that do? Correct? Had you been running the Church back then, you would have restricted Paul to “bringing reconciliation,” stopping abortions, feeding the hungry, caring for children and visiting the sick and imprisoned instead of getting himself thrown into prison because he disputed with the ideologues of the day and spread the pure Gospel message to their disapproval. The fact that he caused these “disputes” you see as a black mark on his endeavor, I take it? Read his letters for more evidence of his “getting bogged down in doctrinal/theological disagreements.”
The problem, it seems, is that you are missing a couple of very clear and compelling statements by Jesus that might turn your perspective around, if you let them.
The first is, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” In other words, the Truth is life giving, far more so than mere bread. In fact, by consecrating bread and turning it into the Body of Christ, the priest is doing a double work of mercy - feeding the hungry with the Eternal Truth that comes from God and freeing them/us from the prison of our sinfulness. Both of these counting as having eternal, rather than mere temporal, benefits.
The second statement of Jesus is, “The flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life.” That implies that any charitable works of mercy that profit only the flesh, ultimately, are valueless. Works of mercy that target the flesh for the sake of the spirit are helpful, but merely to “help the flesh” ultimately, according to Jesus, is valueless.
The problem with your “God delights in ideas” concept of Christianity is akin to you claiming that real food (Truth) has no substantial form, but whatever junk food (ideas) anyone wishes to imbibe or ingest is as good any other and God is quite happy as long as you are eating something, anything, of whatever caloric value it may have. Well, no. Disputations about which foods (Truth) are beneficial and which are not, are key to living wholly and being well-fed in an eternal sense.
Speaking of keys, another problem of yours is with your interpretation of what holding the keys of the Kingdom means in terms of Magisterial authority. The keys signify access that the Church has to the storehouse of Truth. Remember that “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every WORD that comes from the mouth of God.” Man requires Truth to live. The keys are access to the Truth - meaning the Church can dispense at its discretion whatever is needed from the storehouse of Truth that which will meet the immediate needs of the people. That does not mean the Church can substantially alter the truth housed in the storehouse. That would entail that satisfying, refreshing and fulfilling Truth does not really exist but is merely whatever the Church decides. Unfortunately, that is the “junk food” notion of Truth: whatever human beings have a craving for is the “truth.”
Fortunately, the Church is not a fast food chain out to draw the largest share of the market. It has the Truth and it is up to us to sell all the shares we have in fly-by-night businesses that traffic in counterfeit “truths,” - no matter how superficially appealing they are - and put our life savings into purchasing the Truth, where it alone is to be found and distributed. That requires a discerning eye, a single-minded will and a generous heart, since it means investing all of what we are and have in the one Truth.
Your claim seems to be that the Church is nothing but secular humanism “writ large,” that it has nothing but secular values of generosity and humanism to offer and that eternal truths regarding a “higher calling” are not that important, really. We just need to make this world a better place, and that is all. What you are missing is that this world will never be a better place until we are all fully and completely converted to the Truth. Giving people more goods will not make them good. Without truly good people, the goods of the world will simply create more dissension and strife. Look around you.
S
simpleas
Guest
Sorry to hear of your friend, may God rest her soul.
Since you have used the above picture of Jesus knocking on the door I thought I’d share a similar image that I came across a few years ago, I bought a small print in a frame from a little christian shop in my local town. It still hangs in my room. I was attracted to the peaceful, patient figure of Jesus, with the moon shining bright in the darkness of the woods.
It has much meaning.
You can view it here :: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_the_World_(painting
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi Mr. Plato
Actually, though, what I meant by “bogged down” is when people do not forgive and not stay open-minded enough to consider Catholics with different opinions as fellow Catholics in Communion. Does that help clarify? I agree with you on all you wrote emphasizing that we seek the truth.
Peace and Peaches, Plato!
Yes, if in the parable of the good Samaritan, if it so happens that two Catholics walking by an injured man in the ditch were so caught up in their argument that they did not notice the injured man a few feet away, then there is a problem.
Actually, though, what I meant by “bogged down” is when people do not forgive and not stay open-minded enough to consider Catholics with different opinions as fellow Catholics in Communion. Does that help clarify? I agree with you on all you wrote emphasizing that we seek the truth.
Are you referring to Pope Francis’ quote?
Peace and Peaches, Plato!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Not really because the focus or perspective is misconceived. Let me explain.Hi Mr. Plato
Yes, if in the parable of the good Samaritan, if it so happens that two Catholics walking by an injured man in the ditch were so caught up in their argument that they did not notice the injured man a few feet away, then there is a problem.
Actually, though, what I meant by “bogged down” is when people do not forgive and not stay open-minded enough to consider Catholics with different opinions as fellow Catholics in Communion. Does that help clarify?
Suppose the Samaritan arrived at the scene one hour before the beating actually took place. Upon arriving, unnoticed, to that place, he hears two thugs concocting a plan to beat and rob the next traveler who comes by.
It seems to me that the Samaritan has options besides, “Well, I’ll wait right here, then, until they have done their dirty deed and assist the victim when these scoundrels have done their business.”
Do not the Samaritan’s options include trying to talk the robbers out of committing the heinous act and, failing that, physically trying to stop them using whatever force necessary to do so?
I don’t think the parable was intended to replace sound moral instruction and establishing law and order.
In fact, it could be argued that preventative strategies are far better than the putting of bandages on the victim since those could, very well, spare the victim suffering the abuse in the first place, rather than dealing with it after the fact.
Take the question of abortion, for example. The Samaritan’s response is unhelpful since bandaging the victim does not overcome the state of dismemberment of the unborn child. There is, in fact, no medical intervention that can repair the injure done, so good Samaritan or no, the victim is beyond help. In this case, the point of focus needs to be intervention.
Trying to talk the co-conspirators out of doing the deadly deed seems to be the only option since using repelling force on the mother is unworkable and restraining the abortionist requires getting into the clinic - an unlawful act.
It would seem that a good Samaritan, in this case, MUST function preventatively.
Overall, in fact, that would seem the best course of action since it would stop or lessen travelers getting beaten and robbed in the first place.
If the Gospel is the Saving Truth directly from God, it would seem that getting the message right and ensuring that it is fully received would be at the top of the list of things to do. In particular, correcting those who have a tendency to distort the message and make it ineffectual would seem, at least in part, crucial to that mission.
If Jesus is the Divine Physician who has properly diagnosed and provides the remedy for our malady, then the “preventative” needs to be taken in full measure, not tampered with, watered down or mixed with any foreign substance. And clearly, if he is a physician of any standing, he would be more concerned with preventing or completely curing the disease itself rather than treating the symptoms or bandaging the fallout.
So, my points are these:
- Catholics, or others, who want to revise the message are intent on watering down or mixing strange additives into the prescription. The dose needs to be taken in full measure to be effective. Therefore, these Catholics should be corrected.
- Prevention of evil is a far better strategy, overall, than dealing with the effects or fallout. Of course, bandaging wounds may be necessary, at times, but our focus ought to be preventative not reactive. Getting that strategy and the “Good News” clear takes priority, in fact. Those who water it down may, knowingly or unknowingly, be creating the circumstances for great evil because of their misplaced dissension regarding the true prescription.
I am glad we agreeI agree with you on all you wrote emphasizing that we seek the truth.
Are you referring to Pope Francis’ quote?
Peace and Peaches, Plato!
I am not sure which quote you are referring to, so no I wasn’t specifically addressing anything from Pope Francis.
S
steve_b
Guest
Just a few additional comments,
Thanks for the clarification.
For those reading this forum and might not be familiar with this term, it’s the Incarnation
s:
Yet God the son became man except without sin Hebrews 4:15
s:
Yes, son of God and God the son.
s:
Yet God the son, took on human nature in Hypostatic Union with His divine nature. It didn’t change His essence as God. He is 1 person with 2 natures
I only mention these terms for those readers of the forum who might be unfamiliar with them and the theology behind them
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi Granny,
If people do remove the handle, they do so without knowing what they are doing. Jesus has a way of getting in anyway, remember? Omnipotence can defeat all ignorance.
Jesus was there, Granny; there is not a grain of doubt in my mind about that. He was there in all the people present individually as His temples, and He was there collectively as two or more people gathered in His name.
Would denying His presence in that funeral, though, be a removal of the handle? If so, then the handle is removed in ignorance. All of us have plenty of awareness to gain. Christ finds a way.
Thanks for calling my attention to this in the other thread. Jesus broke bread with us, Granny, I never use those terms in the context of our Communion in a flippant or dismissive way, only in a revering way.
God Bless.
- Status