 |
Islam ... and MoHAMmad ... pork BBQ’s unto him ...
There is NOTHING in the CATHOLIC CHURCH’s DOCTRINES that ISN:T TRUE.
|
What May Christians Safely Disbelieve?Lies.
Well, if you dont believe Obama is the Won you are clearly a racist
O MY GOD, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.
Why are you excerpting your own material?
An interesting issue, as this deals with the allowance of disagreement/dissent, and the manner of it, about which issue itself there is interpretive disagreement.
And if there is allowance of conscientious dissent in non-infallible teaching, and relative to the magisterial level under which a teaching fall, then it requires one to know what magisterial level each one falls under. And it also presupposes that one is correctly understanding the item of RC belief, profession , and teaching.
All of which can be interpretive, as can be shown.
One example is the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus decree of Boniface 8 which is held by most as part of infallible teaching, but its meaning is understood different and conflicting ways, or without precision.
In such cases RCs look to lower levels of the magisterium, but which can itself be unclear, and or their level of authority is debated if it seems to vary from what the higher level says.
The RC thus also looks to other sources, from church fathers and saints to local priests and RC apologists, but they may err, and so the diligent weigh what they say against what other things says.
Of course is this not as manifest as it is among Pros who are more committed to doctrinal purity, and in fact it is among those RCs who are most committed to that which sees the sharpest divisions.
Even when Rome proceeds to interpret itself then it can result in more problems than it solves.
As one poster wryly complained,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
All this reality is contrary to the simple picture painted by others, while what is exhorted by Rome is submission to her even if in error.
Hmmmmm....
Sounds just like the accusation leveled at Christians, that we can pick and choose what we believe.
But it’s OK when Catholics do it.
Typical hypocrisy....
The 1976 Moscow Agreed Statement (between Anglicans and Orthodox) imagines,
“Scripture owes its authority to the Church.”.. (In http://www.equip.org/articles/orthodox-tradition-is-the-orthodox-tradition-apostolic/#christian-books-2)
Which is absurd, as the church established its Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture.
Thus the church owes its authority to OT Scriptures upon which foundation it began, and thru which more complimentary conflative writings were added.
However, rejecting this, the church of Rome (and i understand you are Anglican, which has too much of Rome in it, besides liberalism) makes itself the supreme infallible authority, even though even though her claimed infallible teachings are not wholly inspired of God, nor are even the reasons for them protected from error, and thus cannot be said to have God as their author as Scripture does, nor their resultant spiritual power. (Heb. 4:12)
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter...Providentissimus Deus, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, dated November 18th, 1893.
And that God is the author of RC doctrine is based upon the premise that Rome is infallible. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And based upon this novel premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, the basic attitude of Rome has been that RCs are to give implicit assent to all that Rome teaches, even though in one century that can mean physically exterminating all the "heretic" in a country, and in another would be condemned.
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. [emp. mine]
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Satis Cognitum (# 9): June 29, 1896: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
...having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation? Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived....”
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ;
And under which you have wishful thinking that,
CCC 889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."
Which presupposes that unfailingly adherence to the faith of the church either all of Magisterial teaching is infallible and has such perspicuity that the need for any interpretation is excluded.
Or that some degree of variant interpretive understanding of RC faith is allowed, esp. as regards non-infallible teaching, but which never extends to a real denial of the Faith. And allows for disagreement in areas not officially defined.
Which is more reasonable, but which is not what is conveyed in RC arguments against evangelicals who overall hold to a common faith and values (more so than Caths overall) despite disagreements in other areas, and are censured for such, and told the RC papacy and magisterium is the solution to this problem.
Yet under such RCs can have disagreement, including on what Scripture says within the parameters of RC teaching, as well as those who deny the latter, but Rome shows what she believes about essential faith by treating them as members in life and in death.
No-infallible modern teaching on this issue includes,
http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html , there are three kinds of magisterial statement, three levels of authoritative teaching which establish the “the order of the truths to which the believer adheres.”[1] They are (1) truths taught as divinely revealed, (2) definitively proposed statements on matters closely connected with revealed truth, and (3) ordinary teaching on faith and morals. A fourth category, ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is commonly accepted by theologians and can be inferred from the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis.[2]
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM: According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority.
Donum Veritatis also allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching."
In such "even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions," and is to "refrain from giving untimely public expression to them," and "avoid turning to the mass media," but with a humble and teachable spirit it is his duty "to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented," with "an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him." prayerfully trusting "that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail."
The theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, and Joseph Ratzinger (as Archbishop) taught that "over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else,"[2] it cannot be allowed to be determinative of truth, and the Catholic is obliged to form it according to Catholic teaching. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum. cf. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
Some (from a Catholic Answers thread) hold,
The faithful can disagree with particular points within the ordinary non-infallible teaching of the Church, including anything in the Catechism that has not been taught infallibly, except that even non-infallible teachings [which call for religious assent=ordinary assent: religious submission of will and intellect] cannot err to the extent that they would lead the faithful away from salvation. So such a disagreement on particular points or in particular respects cannot be on a matter that is essential to salvation.
And others argue,
Religious assent (religiosum obsequium) has never been compatible with what the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith defines as "dissent," that is, "public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church" (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologian, 32). -
To which a Prot responds,
Boy. No disrespect intended...and I mean that honestly...but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn't trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task.
The solution for which is cultic, just obey and don't question:
Praxis [practice] is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That's what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that's what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to "obey your leaders and submit to them." This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1565864#post1565864
Ron Conte (the first poster above), a lay RC teaches on his site,
Non-infallible Teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium - generally require ordinary assent. Infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium fittingly require sacred assent. Likewise, the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium fittingly require ordinary assent (also called the religious submission of will and intellect). The type of assent must accord with the type of teaching. The faithful are not asked to give sacred assent to teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, because such teachings may contain error and are subject to revision and, occasionally, to revocation.
he exercise of ordinary assent includes the possibility of faithful dissent because ordinary teachings admit the possibility of errors. But these errors are limited in extent, such that no error can occur which would lead the faithful away from the path of salvation. ...since ordinary assent pertains to only ordinary teachings, which may contain errors, ordinary assent by its very nature must include the possibility of faithful dissent from particular ordinary teachings. http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/assent-dissent.htm
"This "pastoral" vs. "dogmatic" council distinction is a bunch of hooey (a technical canonical term meaning whatever). Those two words are descriptive, not definitive. Whatever Vatican II taught authoritatively, Catholics are bound to hold. Period. Of course, finding out just what Vatican II taught authoritatively is not always so clear as it was with, say, Trent, but that's a different problem from the one your friend wants to pose." ...So you are not at liberty to dissent from its teaching in part or in entirety. It's as simple as that. - http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/vatican-ii-is-it-orthodox-binding.html
But which is a contradiction, as if Vatican II did not teach some things authoritatively then the RC has liberty to dissent from its teaching. The problem remains that this requires interpretation on the part of the RC.