Roman Catholic: Dissent (moral, homosexuality, America, doctrine, church)

[Victor]

You're such a trouble-maker Scott.
You are going to get into the same dilema with Athanasius, that you had with me and UD, way back. Remember the whole issue we had with the word "change" and how many catholics take that word (IMO).

I'm sure you to will end up agreeing but don't be surprised if you get a catholic jump every time you say that. I'm cheering you on buddy...

You have forever changed my perception. It's a good thing, don't worry.

Pushing for clarity can't be a bad thing.

Peace be with you,
~Victor

[athanasius]

Scott said
“.... errrr, not quite as clear as you think. Although you are correct that JPII said that this issue was closed and that a all male priesthood should be considered part of the deposit of faith, but remember not every Catholic theologian believes that this was an infallible "ex cathedra" statement..... the church as a whole is the body of Christ: "Hence the universal Church is seen to be 'a people brought into unity from the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit'" (LG 4 citing St. Cyprian, De Dom. orat 23: PL 4, 553) and without complete unity of the Magesterium and people of God, there is no such thing as an infallible statement... in my opinion, of course’

My answer
It is held that the universal and ordinary magisterium has infallibly declared this to be true and this was ratified by the Pope and declared so to be infallible by the head of the congregation for the doctrine of faith and signed off by the Pope See here http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/w-ordination.htm It does not make a difference what any Catholic theologians believe, it only matters what the church offically teaches. Some theologians can be heretics and liberals like "Hans Kung" and "Matthew fox" thst is why these gentlemen were excommunicated. Would that the vatican ecommunicate more false catholic theologians like Scheelibeex.

One problem you may be having with this is your misunderstandings of certain theological terms. All My University’s theology classes are approved by the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy themselves, to insure othordoxy and true teaching. The definition given to us in class for the Ordinary Magisterium is as follows:

Ordinary Magisterium: is the teaching office of the hierarchy under the pope, exercised normally, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. When this is also universal, ,that is, collectively INTENDED for all the faithful, it is also infallible.


Scott also said

“Sheesh... not very charitable.... I remember when I was like you. Hoo boy, do a little more research and maybe you'll begin to realize the Church did not always pronounce its infallibility and has made errors in the last 2,000 years.”

my answer
Ahhh, Charity is something that I have towards many non-catholics as you can view my post on the blessed Virgin Mary and see that. However, since I am studying to be a Catholic theology teacher for the seminary I have little patience for “liberal do it yourself theology catholics” also known as Cafeteria Catholics.

They do nothing but harm to the faithful by questioning and disobeying the Authoritative documents put out by Holy Mother Church. The Church has taught that its statements are Authoritative and binding wether they be infallible or not and are to be followed and obeyed by the faithful.

You need to read HUMANI GENERIS by Pope Pius XII. we just stidued this last semester in class. The Pope in this encyclical instructs the faithful that they are bound to obey and accept all the church teachings whether they be infallibly pronounced or not because Jesus speaks through his church Lk 10:16 as the document quotes. Liberals hate Humani Generis for this reason.

So regardless of whether this is infallibly taught or not women's ordination being invalid IS something that has been Taught by the church and needs to be obeyed. However this teaching as I have shown is a infallible statement Therefore the liberal catholics are simply wrong and deviant. There really is not much difference in them and the protestants. Also in the early church infallibility does appear at least implicitly for example:

“Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no ERRORS can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14).

In the fifth century, Augustine captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10). “

Of coarse this dogma of infallibility , like all doctrines of the catholic church, is something that was believed and hinted to in the early church and naturally developed from the revelation that Jesus gave us in scripture and tradition. This is called the development of Doctrine. John Henry Newman wrote a grerat book on this I would suggest you read it.

The church has never made any errors in reguards to its infallible Authoritative statements. Can you show me one infallible statement of the church that is contradicted by another??? The Holy Spirit protects the church from error when she speaks infallibly. Your saying that the church has made errors on infallible teaching. Again Scott your opinion sounds alot like protestantism to me.

I Used to a protestant, then I became a very liberal catholic for several years. I used to teach women's ordination. I used to teach that the Pope wasn’t infallible and made mistakes on his doctrines. I almost got my Mother to leave the catholic church for good when I argued that confession to a priest contradicted the penitential rite at mass.

I know where your coming from I have been there brother. It wasn’t until I studied what the church actually taught and read the fathers, apologist, and the documents of the church that I realized that I was wrong.


Scott also said
“Please direct me to a authentic "list" of these infallible declared dogmas please.”

my answer

Certainly!
The canon of the bible has been infallibly declared at the council of Florence(1438-1445). The assumption of Mary, the Immaculate conception of Mary are also two infallibly defined dogmas. You can find a general list of them in “the fundamentals of Catholic dogma” by Dr Ludwig Ott.


In Mary's love
Athanasius

[Victor]

Athanasius, for what it's worth you will find that Scott and you agree. You'll see...
He is only trying to make you sound less robotic in your answers.

[athanasius]

Victor my friend you said;
Athanasius, for what it's worth you will find that Scott and you agree. You'll see...
He is only trying to make you sound less robotic in your answers. 

My answers;
Thank you for clarifying this for me my friend. I appreciate your input.
I would hope you are right because I have no respect for cafeteria catholics and I would invite them to repent and come back home to the truth or leave and not poison the other catholics with there "Doctrines" of pick and choose.


God bless you Victor in Christ through Mary,
Athanasius

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by athanasius

It is held that the universal and ordinary magisterium has infallibly declared this to be true and this was ratified by the Pope and declared so to be infallible by the head of the congregation for the doctrine of faith and signed off by the Pope

Again.... just because a RCC apologist says it is, does not mean it is true.... some of us Catholics (myself included) don't believe that a Pastoral Letter/encyclical is always 100% binding on the Church.... and the CDF can not pronounce anything to be infallible so it means nothing to bring that up..... and remember, infallibility pertains to faith and morals, I would argue that the gender of the Priest does not fall into this area any more that what direction the Priest faces.

One problem you may be having with this is your misunderstandings of certain theological terms.

Hehe... probably not.

Ahhh, Charity is something that I have towards many non-catholics as you can view my post on the blessed Virgin Mary and see that.

Good to hear it... I'll read that post. God bless.

However, since I am studying to be a Catholic theology teacher for the seminary I have little patience for “liberal do it yourself theology catholics” also known as Cafeteria Catholics.

You can work on maturing that virtue... I'll pray for you.

The Church has taught that its statements are Authoritative and binding wether they be infallible or not and are to be followed and obeyed by the faithful.

There is a distiction here refered to as "religious assent".... we can still question these.... and we should question all parts of our faith if but to only learn more. "An unquestioned faith is not faith. It is superstition."

You need to read HUMANI GENERIS by Pope Pius XII. we just stidued this last semester in class.

Read it.... don't like the document any more than the man..... not a huge fan of pre-Vatican II dogmatic legalists..... but that's for another chat.

So regardless of whether this is infallibly taught or not women's ordination being invalid IS something that has been Taught by the church and needs to be obeyed.

We'll have to disagree.... it is a idiotic ideal that is 1,000 years behind the times... and other than knee-jerk Catholic loyalty, I have yet to hear a reasonable reason why it should not be considered.... have you?

In the fifth century, Augustine captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10). “

Oy vey.... more of this apologetics 101.... read the Augustine quote in context... he did not say this and was actually fighting with the Papacy at the time.

John Henry Newman wrote a grerat book on this I would suggest you read it.

Read it....

The church has never made any errors in reguards to its infallible Authoritative statements. Can you show me one infallible statement of the church that is contradicted by another???

Several.... even heretic Popes... but I'm sure you'll never believe that, so I won't try.

You can find a general list of them in “the fundamentals of Catholic dogma” by Dr Ludwig Ott.

An OFFICIAL list... put out by the Church... that would be an important thing, eh? Please let me know.

All with Peter, to Jesus, through Mary,
Scott

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Victor

You're such a trouble-maker Scott.

Hehe.... Who? Me?

..... but you know me: I want theologians who think for themselves, not RCC "shock troops" who regurgitate tired apologetics and can't think for themselves. I mean, come on.... tell someone to read Humani Generis .... you and I both know full well that Vat II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (#25) restates and carries forward Pius' teaching about "religious allegiance of the will and intellect" even to noninfallible teachings of the pope, but to not know about the obvious omission of the doctrine that forbids further public discussion on matters "settled" by the pope, even though this doctrine appeared in the preliminary draft of Nov 10, 1962 .... oh well.

I guess he's not up to that in class yet.

Beware dear friends of pride..... we follow the teachings of the Church out of love and trust in the Holy Spirit, not because our dogmatic masters on high in the Vatican said so.

God is LOVE,
Scott

[Uncertaindrummer]

Scott, you terrify me. I once thought you were an orthodox Catholic. Apparently, that is not the case.

I always knew you were liberal, but crass liberality to this extreme of self righteous arrogance is unbelievable. No matter what your motives in posting this nonsense—sometimes egregiously wrong nonsense—are, the end result is bad even if you are correct, which you are often not.

The Church is full of prideful and selfish individuals who remind everyone all the time what they think of Church teaching and policy. We don’t need anyone making us aware of that, which is what your goal seems to be. We do need to practice humble obedience to the Church founded by Jesus Christ, and that humble obedience is not only extremely lacking in society, but it is extremely lacking in your posts. If you want to help others, help them by instilling the virtue of humility. “Dissent” is not a virtue.

The idea that infallible doctrines have contradicted each other is fallacious. I defy you to come up with anything. I have dealt with all the best shots Protestants have taken—who have much more reason to hope for infallible contradiction than you do—and the Church always remains unscathed.

The idea that Popes have been heretical is misleading and false. First, a Pope’s personal feelings and beliefs mean nothing in the grand scale of things. Second, no Pope has ever taught heresy. Third, no Pope has ever been a heretic. If you refer to Honorious, who many like to pretend was a heretic, you are simply wrong. He was declared negligent in his duties of fighting Monothelitism, but he was not condemned as being a heretic, because he was not.

A favorite argument of lax moralists everywhere is the argument from conscience, which, amazingly, you here espouse. This argument only works provided that the person forms their conscience correctly. A willful deformation of conscience against Church teaching is sinful. And if one knows the morality of a situation based on Church teaching but attempts to hide behind their “conscience” they are also living in sin. I would think you would be aware of this.

Also, you are correct in that an unreasoning faith is a useless one. Working through difficulties in one’s faith is a necessary and integral part of being Catholic. But doubting that Faith would be an error of the saddest kind. You seem to be praising this error. Whether or not you intend to, only you and God know. But be aware that this is what others see.

Also, the notion that the Church’s teaching on priestly gender has no foundation is pathetic. You pretend to be learned when you have never even heard a good argument for maintaining the sanctity of the priesthood? I am deeply troubled by this. I make no conceited claims of knowledge regarding this subject and yet it seems I have a more well rounded view than you, who want there to be women priests because... well, I don’t know why you want them, beyond maybe the fact that wanting a liberal idea simply because it is liberal is a facet of “liberal” theology. Perhaps you should come out of your box and read some of the strong reasons there are for continuing the priesthood the way it was always meant to be. (Speaking of which, the reason from where all other reasons are spawned is simply that: God made it this way). Also, this incredibly absurd idea that "the gender of the priest has nothing to do with morality, therefore the Church has no jurisdiction" is laughable. Really, laughable. I knew you had gone off the deep end when I read that. That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard.

I will pray for you, Scott. I hope you get off your high horse and gain a little perspective. Until then I will continue to defend the Church against those who would impugn its honor, ability and authority.

[Victor]

What an unsettling turn this has taken.

Maybe I’m a simpleton but this topic is about how a catholic is to exercise his/her conscience in conjunction to unofficial proclamations. Whether official or not, things always seem to flow from the bottom to top.

The Church has always been slow in defining and clarifying matters (dogma). So if a catholic is forming his/her conscious and asks a question in good faith about a doctrinal issue, then that catholic should not be shunned and exiled because of it.

Now I’m not sure if this is what Scott means but that’s certainly my understanding of it. Although I will say that as far as the Church has developed (2006) it becomes more difficult to dissent. We all know where to go for answers and if we dissent without searching and praying, then I would be wary of that dissention.