Posted on 05/15/2005 11:00:40 PM PDT by mandatum
Just curious. Are you accusing me of trying to "elude" the directives and judgments of the Church? If you have something in mind, you just let me know. But you don't see me asking to dispense with the Church's perrenial teachings on abortion, birth-control, fornication, marriage. I got no problems with the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the Trinity or the Resurrection of Christ. I believe in the real presence in the Eucharist , the forgiveness of sins and the resurection of the body. I am also a big supporter of the novel idea that Catholics have an obligation to spread the Gospel and convert sinners to the faith. (But I am not entirely sure this is Bishop Levada's take on the subject.) What exactely are you accusing me of trying to "evade"?
Not refusing to submit to the Church on any dogmatically defined teachings. Would however like someone to explain to me how one is to reconcile past dogmatic statements with the pastoral teaching contained in Dignitatis Humanae. Got a sneaking suspicion you have never read it. Also got a sneaking suspicion you haven't read one word of the Vatican II documents. Cuz' your argument, while admirable for its appeal to authority does not have much appeal to reason. Church has a long and noble history of reasoned discourse. Refer to Thomas Aquinas if you have any doubts on that subject. So my offer still stands, can you reconcile DH with Quanta Curia or other Papal encyclicals. I'll help you out here. The subject discussed in DH dealt with Religious Liberty and Church/State relations. Get back to me when you have actually taken a look at the document.
I have never watched the Simpsons, my kids weren't allowed to watch them when they were little, and I will never watch the show. In my judgment the entire show trivializes marriage, family life and the sacredness of life in general.
**Many of the protestants trying to convert Catholics are former Catholics who left because they didn't know the Faith or they wanted divorce/remarriage or they couldn't give up a favorite sin. **
And many of them are making confessions after 30 or 40 years away from the Church!
Praise the Lord!
I have been told that he had a terrible time with some major law suit and perhaps this has been one of the reasons his tenure as Arch-bishop has been rocky. Some of us back here in Michigan have been wondering if Bishop Vignoran will be tapped as his replacement.
My son was telling us about this episode but he came away with a better taste in his mouth than you. I don't know I didn't see it but his description of Marge's Pretestant heaven as opposed to Catholic heaven was funny. Also, he said that the reason Bart and Homer come back to their Protestant Church has nothing to do with faith.
There's at least much as (per population) if not more child molestation - much of it homosexual - in public schools than in the Catholic Church.
Get rid of the Lavender Mafia and child/adolescent homosexual molestation will go way, way down. It's not the fault of Catholicism, it's the fault of the homosexuals who infiltrated the seminaries.
I going to go out on a limb and take a guess that maybe, just maybe there's things we don't know. I get the idea that BXVI is the sort that would keep friends close and enemies closer. That could be a motivation. It could be that Levada showed promise at some point and was practically hamstrung under Mahoney's metropolitan. That might be closer to the mark. But as well as BXVI knows the bishops over here, and everywhere else for that matter, he's not going to pick someone just for the sake of picking someone and I doubt he would be afraid to replace that person somewhere down the road if the appointment turned out to be a mistake.
I think you are correct. I was talking to a young Caldean priest and he was very interested in hearing that some folks in the this Internet chat room I post on are upset by Levada's appointment. The General feeling among the conservative priests I know, at least in this diocese is that Bishop Levada is OK.
Why would the Catholic Church want to have a "Leadership Position" in the world. What's so special about the world. As a Catholic, I see the "world" as a temporary duty assignment" from which I will be liberated from upon my death. The Catholic Church, headed by Jesus Christ, is available to us, to assist us on our journey towards this liberation and "journey home". Vatican II doesn't need to be repealed....it needs to be read!! The jackels that interpeted it for us, giving us the "Spirit of Vatican II", are the ones that need repealing/repudiation.
It doesn't make any sense that Levada would be considered a conservative and then all of a sudden change his stripes. I would imagine being under Mahoney's metropolitan must be purgatory on earth for a conservative, even a mild one. Not many people are going to cross swords with Roger if they are working right under him. Rog can stir up a hornets nest pretty fast. Levada probably did what he was ordered to do and I would imagine that BXVI knows that.
Yes, I recall that there was some kind of lawsuit there - but basically, I think the sharks in SF just ate him alive. Another unfortunate thing was that the Jesuit leadership changed during his tenure (this was not his responsibility, of course). The Jesuits have always been very influential in SF, but the few Jesuits who might have provided some support and encouragement to Levada, such as Fr. Buckley and Fr. Fessio, were basically kicked out of their positions and even out of the diocese.
That's the feeling I have, too. He's only been Pope for a month, so I think it's premature to get hysterical about this appointment. Actually, I'm surprised we're seeing so much early action on his part with respect to the US and various "players" in the Church here. The US bishops have gotten used to coasting along on their own for decades now, but it doesn't look as if the Atlantic is going to protect them anymore.
Now I wish he'd appoint Mahony to be in charge of fund-raising for stray cats in Rome or something like that, and get him out of LA.
For walking into and cleaning up this rat's nest he really is in line for the diocese of SF. He is from SF and has strong ties there and is known by many priests there already.
A few others have been mentioned, a guy from Stockton diocese and an Orange County guy. We'll see what happens!
Actually, DH doesn't call for the destruction of the Catholic State.
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. (DH §1)
Some Fathers affirm that the Declaration does not sufficiently show how our doctrine is not opposed to ecclesiastical documents up till the time of the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII. As we said in the last relatio, this is a matter for future theological and historical studies to bring to light more fully. As regards the substance of the problem, the point should be made that, while the papal documents up to Leo XIII insisted more on the moral duty of public authorities towards the true religion, the recent Supreme Pontiffs, while retaining this doctrine, complement it by highlighting another duty of the same authorities, namely, that of observing the exigencies of the dignity of the human person in religious matters, as a necessary element of the common good. The text before you today recalls more clearly (see nos. 1 and 3) the duties of the public authority towards the true religion (officia potestatis publicae erga veram religionem); from which it is manifest that this part of the doctrine has not been overlooked. However, the special object of our Declaration is to clarify the second part of the doctrine of recent Supreme Pontiffs - that dealing with the rights and duties which emerge from a consideration of the dignity of the human person. (Acta Synodalia S. Conc. Vat. II, Vol. IV, Part VI, p. 719)
With that in mind, it should be no surprise to find that the Vatican still maintains the Catholicity of two states in current concordats:
The State, out of regard for the traditional Catholic sentiment of the Colombian nation, considers the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion as a fundamental element of the common good, and of the integral development of the national community.
In the name of the Most Holy Trinity ... The Catholic, Apostolic, Roman religion continues to be the religion of the Dominican Nation and will enjoy the rights and prerogatives which pertain to it in conformity with Divine Law and Canon Law.
Or to know that Paul VI affirmed that human law must be based on "the divine law, natural and positive" (Allocution of 24 September 1970).
Fine, then explain to me how a rational human being can reconcile DH with previous Papal Encyclicals?
Pius IX, Vatican II, and Religious Liberty by Brian W. Harrison
Religious Liberty: "Rights" versus "Tolerance" by Brian W. Harrison
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Ils L'Ont Découronné reviewed by Brian W. Harrison
John Courtney Murray - A Reliable Interpreter of Dignitatis Humanae? (Part I) by Brian W. Harrison
John Courtney Murray - A Reliable Interpreter of Dignitatis Humanae? (Part II) by Brian W. Harrison
Michael Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty reviewed by Brian W. Harrison
Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est (On the CCC and Religious Liberty) by Brian W. Harrison
Vatican II and Religious Liberty: Contradiction or Continuity? by Brian W. Harrison
current Vatican pronouncements on desirabilty of converting Jews to the faith.
Like this, perhaps?
NOTES on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic ChurchJesus affirms (ibid. 10:16) that "there shall be one flock and one shepherd". Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all, "while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Declaration Dignitatis Humanae)" (Guidelines and Suggestions, I).
I don't deny that it affects all churches.
I just maintain that the legal, monetary, and social effects of the ongoing sex abuse cases within the Catholic church shows it is by far the worst.
It is the only one that has an endemic problem that the hierarchy has left to ferment. Do I need to quote the titles of many books, written by Catholics in the know, about this?
Get real.
read your post #58, for starters.
Sir, I have read every single document of Vatican II. Because I understand the nature of the Christian Church and the nature of Ecumenical Councils, I do not need to debate its decisions/teachings. I do need to accept them with a religious submission of mind. That is Tradition. Your approach is pure protestantism
It is impossible for the Christian Church to do what you are accusing it of - changing Doctrine.
Rather than arrogance, try some humility.
Where were you trained in theology? The Bishops gathered together in Vatican II (the most ever assembled in an Ecuemnical Council) all were trained in theology. It is they, together with the Pope, who are the the Living Magisterium; not you, not The Remnant, not Seattle Catholic, not Bob Sungenis, not Catholic Family News, not Mario Derksen, not the SSPX, not any of the liberal traditionalists on the private judgement right.
Thanks, gbc. Very helpful links
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.