Who settles disagreements for non-Catholics?

[JonNC]

There doesnt have to be any division or subdivision …
It looks like Catholics can be pretty much anything that they want to be … and still be perfectly accepted within the Catholic communion.

Ever heard of Exsurge Domine?

Jon

 

[1voice]

Ever heard of Exsurge Domine?

Jon

Ever heard of Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden or Ted Kennedy?
… or the majority of voting Catholics that elected the guy with one of the worst records on abortion?

 

[andrewstx]

Are Lutherans still well shepherded? Because Anglicans have gone every which way.

The Episcopalians have an episcopal polity, but that has not prevented them from splintering into different groups, mostly over conservative/liberal disputes. The revision of the book of Common Prayer, ordination of women, and more recently the promotion of an actively homosexual from the priesthood to the episcopacy.

Having episcopal polity does not in itself prevent schism, many of the “anglican” posters here reject TEC and belong to various schismatic semi Anglican groups without mentioning names.

 

[guanophore]

You ask these questions toward people of other Christian expression … yet you completely ignore the fact that the Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden wing can do whatever they choose… and lead as many as they want … Proven by the fact that they led the way to convince more than half of the voting Catholics to elect a president with one of the absolute worst records on abortion of any elected human being on the planet. Magisterium? Nancy and Joe dont seem to have to answer to a Magisterium … and prove clearly that it is completely ok to ignore and still be accepted within the Catholic communion.

I think you are confused, 1voice. The Magesterium has been appointed by Christ to guard and teach the faith. They cannot force people to accept of live by the Gospel that has been handed down to us from the Apostles. Every human person has the choice to turn their back on Christ. The Bishops have been clear that those persons have done so, and have strongly warned Catholics not to follow their anti-Catholic ideas and role model. They did not “convince more than half the Catholics” of anything. Those Catholics had already fallen away from the faith before either of them got into office.

They have excommunicated themselves,

 

[guanophore]

Christianity can be a democratic society (in a certain sense of the word) if that’s what we decide to make it.

No, it cannot. The Church founded by Christ has Him at the Head, and she is His Bride, and subjected to Him as a monarch. The Truth is not determined by majority vote, but by revelation of God. The reason there are so many divisions in Christendom today is because individuals have rejected the authority put in place by Christ.

And just as it was with kings and emperors who claimed a divine initiative and authority for their position of power, the question of whether they’re right or not becomes something of a moot point once that position is either done away with or its role and influence is dramatically curtailed. I believe that the lion’s share of what influencea Christianity as a whole should come from a place that is more democratic and less a monarchy.

It was the conflation of the Kingdom of God with temporal politics and rulership that got us the Reformation. Christianity can exist within a democratic society, but itself can never be democratic.

I also believe the Magisterial claims to divine authority have no basis in reality, and this is based on the same things that lead me to believe James I and Louis the XIV did not make claims that were based in reality.

Well…Jesus did not commission them personally, did he?

Neither can I really say what the cost would be if I was wrong about Magisterial authority, or about the absolute authority of the Catholic monarch.

The pope, like all the Bishops, are limited by the Doctrines of the Faith. They cannot proclaim that which is other than what was committed to the Church once for all by the Apostles.

If things were changed to something more conciliar, or if it did become more democratic and lay-oriented, I could certainly see all kinds of benefit. I can’t discern any appreciable cost, though, in the event that I’m wrong. I don’t believe I am, but even if I am, I don’t think it matters very much on this one.

YOu can see what will happen by looking at the Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Anglican communions. This democratic method on determining the Truth continues to cause splintering in the Body of Christ. For communions like the Presbyterian, Truth is determined by majority vote at a synod. Now we have active homosexuals ordained, mercy killing, abortion, and who knows what else?

This is not based on a general scorn for what is truth, by the way. It’s bases on the idea that all rulers of all types ultimately are able to exercise power only at the eill of the people. Whether that will is coerced or not is a different story, but the main idea is that your leaders work for you in the same sense that a retail storevworks for its customers. No matter how powerful you think you are, and no matter where you tgink you get tour authority from, you can only do as much with it as other people allow you to and it effectively goes away if they say it goes away.

Well, it is a nice ideal, but because of human weakness, we see that not all rulers exercise authority by the power of God, or the will of the people.

What you say is true about human authority, but the authority that comes from God is different.

 

[guanophore]

**Three years experience as a mod have taught me one way of making sure a circumventer does not return is to delete his posts. But only if the thread is young and he joined the day before. If I left them up, as I have in the past, thats like the red rag to the bull and he’ll circ again.
If ever I delete a particular post you guys want to see again, because you were particularily profound that night, I can retrieve it no problem.

Have a happy Memorial Day!
**

Thanks Eric.

 

[guanophore]

There doesnt have to be any division or subdivision …
It looks like Catholics can be pretty much anything that they want to be … and still be perfectly accepted within the Catholic communion.

No, 1voice, you misunderstand. There are certain actions, like advocating abortion, that by doing them, automatically excommunicate the offender. This is one reason that the Bishops do not have to send out formal letters, or make public announcements.

Calling oneself does not make you Christian. If you do not believe what Christians believe, you are not a Christian.

Calling yourself Catholic does not make one Catholic. If one departs from the Catholic faith, one has lost his Catholicity.

 

[Zooey]

No, 1voice, you misunderstand. There are certain actions, like advocating abortion, that by doing them, automatically excommunicate the offender. This is one reason that the Bishops do not have to send out formal letters, or make public announcements.

Calling oneself does not make you Christian. If you do not believe what Christians believe, you are not a Christian.

Calling yourself Catholic does not make one Catholic. If one departs from the Catholic faith, one has lost his Catholicity.

The classic comparison I grew up hearing was “You can call yourself a car.You can even sleep in the garage, but that won’t make you into a Ford”.

 

[Sixpence]

No, 1voice, you misunderstand. There are certain actions, like advocating abortion, that by doing them, automatically excommunicate the offender. This is one reason that the Bishops do not have to send out formal letters, or make public announcements.

Calling oneself does not make you Christian. If you do not believe what Christians believe, you are not a Christian.

Calling yourself Catholic does not make one Catholic. If one departs from the Catholic faith, one has lost his Catholicity.

I’m just going to run one thing by you real quick. Excommunicate means- what, a lack of communication? Meaning one who was formerly a member of the Catholic Church is no longer eligible to receive valid sacraments, yes?

So tell me three things, please. One, as you understand eligibility, are Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi eligible to receive the sacraments? Two- do they continue to receive the sacraments at whenever they feel like it? And three- who is it that gets to decide whether or not they’re eligible?

Also, automatic excommunication does involve a letter being sent out. Look at what happened with Archbishop Lefebvre and his SSPX posse. There was a letter, and that was what caused them to stop getting Catholic sacraments from approved Catholic sources. That’s the point of excommunication, is it not? Cut you off from the normative sources of grace until you’re ready to reconcile and get back in it. That’s my understanding, at least, and to me an excommunication seems rather pointless (to the point of being non-existent) if and when there is literally zero interruption in the communication of the sacraments. What excommunication? There is no ex. It’s a now-communixation, or a just-like-for-you communication, or standard communication, or it-never-stopped-being-communicated.

Btdub- you can find the SSPX letter of excommunication online pretty easily. I just haven’t done it yet.
Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” should help with that, though.

 

[TheAtheist]

My impression is that this is very much more a Christian problem rather than a Non-Christian problem because ‘correctness of belief’ is core to the Christian worldview (necessary for ‘salvation’ in some way) where for Jews, for example (I suspect Muslims are similar in some respects), the focus is more ‘correctness of action’ - we tend to get cross with one another about how more or less strict we are in what we do.

That pretty much summarizes the situation for those religions that fall out of the Abrahamic Faiths model as well. What one does is prioritized above what one believes.

 

[meltzerboy]

That pretty much summarizes the situation for those religions that fall out of the Abrahamic Faiths model as well. What one does is prioritized above what one believes.

There are reasons why behavior trumps belief (faith) in Judaism. One is that we may love someone but if we do not act on their behalf, it does the person in immediate need little good. (This is not to deny the effectiveness of prayer, which is a spiritual activity, also requiring effort and practice, that often has long-term effects.) Another reason why Judaism values behavior is that when we act, even against our own will and convictions, this very action has a tendency to change our internal beliefs and fortify our faith. Thirdly, in life we cannot and should not always rely on our own feelings, instincts, judgments, reason, even individual conscience, which all may be misleading us. (Not that Judaism denies reason: far from it.) We do better to make the effort to act even when we don’t feel like doing something at the moment. This seems to go against human nature, but sometimes we have to fight certain aspects of our nature for our own benefit.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Another reason why Judaism values behavior is that when one acts, even against one’s own will and convictions, this very action often has a tendency to change one’s internal beliefs and fortify one’s faith. Thirdly, in life we cannot and should not always rely on our own feelings, instincts, judgments, reason, even individual conscience, which all may be misleading us.

In reading books on Judaism I came across these ideas, and they have been of great help.

Before doing that reading, at times I would go through major faith crises about this or that doctrine, and I’d be left shaken. Now, though I hold onto the doctrines of the Nicene Creed, I’m less concerned about protecting my doctrinal beliefs from periods of doubt. If those periods of doubt still come, I don’t feel paralyzed and afraid as I used to feel. I just look for the next thing to do which I know is good, I do it, and then walk on in that manner until things become clearer in regards to doctrine.

 

[Dollinger]

So, I don’t get it. Without the Magisterium, how do you know what to believe?

St Vincent of Lerins answered:

In the 5th century, St. Vincent of Lerins saw that the people were faced with various errors and heresies of Donatus, Arius, Photinus, Pelagius and others, and gave them this good advice on how they could know with security the true Catholic Faith. Even if it is taught by distinguished men or Prelates,* the bad doctrine should not be accepted by Catholics, who should cling to Tradition and what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all [quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est]. **Actually, he stated: "I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a type of fixed and, as it were, general, guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy.

"And the answer that I receive is always to this effect: That if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a robust faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, first, that is, by the authority of God’s Law, then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

"Here, it may be, someone will ask: ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church?’ The answer is that because of the profundity itself of Scripture, all men do not place the same interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.

"What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.

"But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? **Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. **

"What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.

“But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.” *
(The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434,
ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts)
traditioninaction.org/religious/n026rp_Lerins_PreserveFaith.htm