Cardinal Says U.S. Treated Saddam 'Like a Cow'

Yahoo! News / Reuters ^ | 12-16-2003 | Philip Pullella

[SoothingDave]

... or the Catholic Church is wrong about some things ...

But that was already established to not be the case in his first question. If you believe A is true, then anyone who believes not A must be not true.

If.

Since the "if" was already granted, the conclusion is tautological.

SD

[SoothingDave]

These 2 answers together mean that, in effect, RC's believe they have a monopoly on spiritual truth.

A monoploy on the fullness of Truth, yes.

That doesn't mean that everything that other denominations teach is error. Only that there is error mixed in with the truth in other denominations.

If you want truth you can find it elsewhere. But if you want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then you must cross the Tiber.

SD

[dsc]

I was hoping you'd get as far in the article as this:

"V. WHAT TEACHING IS INFALLIBLE?

...

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching...It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two..."

You're using the word "doctrine," but there are problems with definitions. There are many areas I suspect you might include under the heading of doctrine where the Church makes no claim to inerrancy or infallibility.

The Church's assertion of infallibility is nowhere nearly as broad as you would seem to think it is. I think there are many more doctrines about the Church makes no such claim than there are about which it does.

"Next question: Are other churches (besides the RC church) only true in their doctrine when they agree with RC doctrine?"

If the doctrine in question falls in that narrowly circumscribed area described in the article, yes. If it's something like the use of musical instruments in Church, which does not fall in that area, no.

That said, I think virtually any Christian church is in agreement with all of the Apostle's creed except the parts about the Catholic Church and the Communion of Saints.

Many of the quibbles I see, with the exception of predestination, are either inconsequential or based on misconceptions as to what Catholics actually believe.

[Iowegian]

I stand by my statement. And it is a dangerous and unhealthy (for your own church) attitude. Not to mention incredibly arrogant.

Is it any wonder that many children were not believed when they reported abuse by priests? It is all part of a "we are always right" state of mind IMO.

[Iowegian]

Thanks, but Dave's already cut through all the gobbledeegook (cover your rear statements) for us. I appreciate it when you aren't afraid to make clear honest statements defending your church, even if I disagree with you. Unfortunately this is not universal by RC members.

[dsc]

"For the record, I don't believe any church, including my own, is incapable of error (infallible)."

Gee, if that's the case, then it could be true that your Church is mistaken where it disagrees with Catholicism--even on infallibility.

You seem to be saying, "My church teaches that no church is infallible, but we could be wrong about that."

It's important to know that the Catholic Church has a long tradition of allowing the maximum intellectual freedom compatible with the fundamental creeds of Christianity.

For instance, I am free to reject every apparition of Mary every reported, including Lourdes and Fatima, but I cannot reject the Virgin Birth of Christ and still remain a Catholic.

I can reject the Pope's position on the Iraq war, but I cannot reject the Resurrection.

I can reject the concept of social justice, but I cannot reject the Ascension. And so forth.

[Iowegian]

Just to be clear, I don't think that the "we are always right" attitude is limited to the RC church. It is easy to fall into and very dangerous in the long run.

[Iowegian]

I believe that God is infallible, and God's word - the Bible- is inerrant. But as a collection of fallible and fallen creatures, we are together capable of error. This includes all churches.

[SoothingDave]

And it is a dangerous and unhealthy (for your own church) attitude. Not to mention incredibly arrogant.

It ain't bragging if you can do it.

Is it any wonder that many children were not believed when they reported abuse by priests? It is all part of a "we are always right" state of mind IMO.

Who said anyone "wasn't believed?"

DSC has already attempted to explain the severe limitations of our "we're always right" policy. It certainly is nowhere near in scope as you postulate.

SD

[dsc]

"Thanks, but Dave's already cut through all the gobbledeegook (cover your rear statements) for us."

Unfortunately, you still seem to have a false picture of what the Catholic Church teaches.

Catholic theology is sophisticated in the best meaning of that word. It is a theology to which a rational, intelligent adult can give his assent. What that means is that it cannot be reduced to the simple "always right about everything or never infallible" dichotomy you are trying to impose on it.

What you dismiss as "cover your rear statements" were an attempt to explain that the Church does not claim sweeping, universal infallibility on all matters as you seem to think.

That is why your attribution of a "we are always right" state of mind to the Church is inaccurate.

[sitetest]

Dear dsc,

"I can reject the concept of social justice,..."

To the degree that by "social justice", one refers to the constant teaching of the Church regarding relations between men (the laborer is entitled the fruit of his labor, that is, to his wage, each man has rights to his property, each man is obligated to act charitably toward others, especially those in need, etc.), one many not reject the concept of social justice.

But if by "social justice", one means the spurious interpretations thereof which, by and large, promote socialism (already definitively condemned by the Magisterium), then one is not only free to reject such a thing, but in many cases, may be obligated to reject it.


sitetest

[dsc]

"I believe that God is infallible, and God's word - the Bible- is inerrant. But as a collection of fallible and fallen creatures, we are together capable of error. This includes all churches."

That is completely congruent with Catholic teachings. That's why the only things the Church holds to be infallible and inerrant are those things that God has infallibly revealed. First among these, in the Catholic Church, is Scripture.

The infallibility is God's, not man's.

[Iowegian]

I'm fully aware that infallibility only applies in to matters of faith and morals. But isn't this the important matters? Of course. It's just more covering of your rear ends to talk of "sophistication". It's precise yes, I understand. But in the end it is still, in effect "we are right about everything that matters".

[dsc]

Dear Sitetest,

Yes, I understand that. However, I do not think that the principles listed in your first paragraph are correctly subsumed under the heading of social justice. The Church was teaching them for centuries before the term "social justice" was coined. I don't know what to call them. "God telling us how to act right," I guess. Certainly they precede and are above "society."

IMO, your second paragraph sets out the correct definition of "social justice," which I believe to be of and from Satan.

[Iowegian]

That is completely congruent with Catholic teachings.

Not even close, NC's (non-catholics) believe only God and his word are infallible, but we are capable of misunderstanding or twisting it's meaning and so are fallible. RC's do not believe their church (teachings of faith and morals) is capable of misunderstanding or just getting it wrong.

[BlackElk]

Ummmm, it would seem obvious, at least constitutionally, that these United States are empowered to invade Wisconsin in order to remove Governor Doyle since the US Constitution prmises that these United States will guarantee a Republican form of government to each and every state. Bush should begin with Wisconsin and Illinois (Blagojevich: DemGov), then Iowa and Indiana, New Jersey, Pensylvania, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, Louisiana when Blanco tries to take office, and those other states, one by one, which have challenged the federal constitution by refusing Republican government in favor of Demonratic government. A guarantee is a guarantee. Furthermore there may well be WMDs in those Demonratic states and they have all transgressed against solemn opolicy resolutions of the Young epublican National Federation.

Just as JPII is doing his job in carrying out his duty to restore Catholic governance to the dioceses of our region and increasingly elsewhere, so Dubya must take up his responsibilities in guaranteeing to the Demonrat-occupied states like yours and mine Republican governance. It is only just.

Red China's day will come: all in good time.

[malakhi]

No more than anyone appointed you spokesman for apostasized anti-Catholics, Angelo.

The difference being, I don't claim to speak for anyone else. Whereas you apparently feel free to speak for "Catholics". In accordance with your self-proclaimed role, I dub thee "Pope BlackElk".

[sitetest]

Dear dsc,

Though the term may not be 2000 years old, it is nonetheless used in the first sense (those things taught for centuries) by the authoritative Magisterium.

Just because the heterodox wish to hijack a word or a term doesn't mean we have to let them. "Social justice" is a very nice phrase. It is succinct and filled with meaning. It is an apt term to title the Church's teachings on how to live justly in human society.


sitetest

[malakhi]

Just to be clear, I don't think that the "we are always right" attitude is limited to the RC church. It is easy to fall into and very dangerous in the long run.

I fully agree.

[ninenot]

Rightly-Ordered Society

See Thomas Aquinas