Skip to comments.
More Roman Catholic Catechism Changes?
Pastoral Meanderings ^
| 08-10-2018
| Pastor Peters (LCMS)
Posted on 08/10/2018 3:09:22 PM PDT by NRx
A week or so ago the Vatican announced a change in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which changed the teaching regarding the capital punishment. It was now deemed
inadmissible -- whatever that means -- or no longer moral (though Scripture clearly allows this). Now another change, perhaps more devious and clandestine than the announced change on the death penalty. This represents the removal of one sentence and replacing it with something that is completely different, one that fails to acknowledge homosexuality to be
objectively disordered and instead sympathetically suggests that homosexual tendency is not at all a choice but a condition natural to their birth. Perhaps this is how Pope Francis plans to change the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, a few words at a time. If that is the case, who knows where this will lead and who is checking the catechism on a daily basis to see what changes have crept in.
This is another version of change that comes not openly or by consideration but through the back door -- an attempt to re-define the faith without telling anyone about it. Lutherans may only be interested in this for curiosity' sake but we would do well to remember the principle. The most dangerous change comes through the back door and not through open consideration of that change and its debate on the basis of Scripture and the fathers.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill Gods will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lords Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P85.HTM
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill Gods will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lords Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
It appears that
They do not choose their homosexual condition was in the text until something about 2004 or so when the text was changed to
This inclination, which is objectively disordered. While it may, indeed, be true of at least some that they do not choose their homosexual condition, this is a point unrelated to the issue of objectively disordered. Children are born with many conditions not of their choice but the result of a sinful world in which brokenness exists not only in material condition but in spiritual and in which desire is tainted by sin as much as act and choice. Yet, the question remains why changes like this would not be transparent and why there would not be explanation for the change. Coupled with Pope Francis' words that
God made them gay, this represents a distinct softening of the previous stance and a shift away from the very idea that homosexuality is disordered. If that is the case, then my premise still stands. The most dangerous changes in the faith are the ones that enter through the back door without debate and not necessarily the ones on which discussion or even a vote is taken. Too often, the discussion follows the acceptance of change and the vote merely affirms the change already embedded in the hearts and minds of the people.
TOPICS: Catholic; Mainline Protestant; Moral Issues; Theology
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-149 next last
To: ebb tide; Mom MD
How do you know She wasnt sinless? Please list Her sins or back-off. Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 260).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).
61
posted on
08/10/2018 8:22:35 PM PDT
by
ealgeone
To: ebb tide
Well, we wouldn’t know....I see you’ve been crying again.
62
posted on
08/10/2018 8:23:02 PM PDT
by
ealgeone
To: Mom MD
And that music the poster is bragging about has also changed over time.
63
posted on
08/10/2018 8:24:13 PM PDT
by
ealgeone
To: Mom MD
Yup. And God never changes either. Amen to that!
64
posted on
08/10/2018 8:25:53 PM PDT
by
ealgeone
Comment #65 Removed by Moderator
Comment #66 Removed by Moderator
To: ebb tide
So now Mary is saving souls and allowing people into Heaven as well? Thats all kind of messed up on the level of the other poster on this thread who thinks the boring little Bible can not compare to the glories of the Roman sect.
67
posted on
08/10/2018 8:53:34 PM PDT
by
Mom MD
( .)
To: Mom MD
So now Mary is saving souls and allowing people into Heaven as well? Thats all kind of messed up on the level of the other poster on this thread who thinks the boring little Bible can not compare to the glories of the Roman sect.In The Glories of Mary several Roman Catholic writers are quoted as saying something to that effect.
I've compared their writings with Scripture to illustrate where Rome is in error on this issue....among others.
The Glories of Mary |
Romans 10:5-13 NASB |
Saint Anselm says, that as it is impossible for one who is not devout to Mary, and consequently not protected by her, to be saved, so is it impossible for one who recommends himself to her, and consequently is beloved by her, to be lost. Saint Antoninus repeats the same thing, and almost in the same words: As it is impossible for those from whom Mary turns her eyes of mercy, to be saved, so also are those towards whom she turns these eyes, and for whom she prays, necessarily saved and glorified. Consequently the clients of Mary will necessarily be saved. (p184) |
5For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN? (that is, to bring Christ down),7or WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEARTthat is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BEDISAPPOINTED. 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.. |
|
But, on the other hand, Mary says in the words applied to her by the church, He that hearkeneth to me shall not be confounded; that is to say, he who hearkeneth to what I say shall not be lost. On which Saint Bonaventure says, O Lady, he who honours thee will be far from damnation. And this will still be the case, Saint Hilary observes, even should the person, during the past time have greatly offended God. However great a sinner he may have been, says the saint, if he shews himself devout to Mary he will never perish.(p185) |
14As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. |
|
68
posted on
08/10/2018 9:08:17 PM PDT
by
ealgeone
To: ealgeone
Magisterium is not a name of a group. One is not a member of the Magisterium. One does not join the Magisterium. The Magisterium does not assemble or meet. The Magisterium does not see, think, deliberate, rule or decide.
Magisterium is an abstract noun meaning Teaching Office, or Teaching Authority: the authority itself, not the people who exercise it. That’s the verb to keep in mind: exercise.
The Pope and Bishops ARE not the Magisterium. In their authority to teach Catholic doctrine, they EXERCISE the magisterium.
If what they write or say is NOT Catholic doctrine, they are NOT exercising the Magisterium.
Theologians, Bishops, and even Popes do not “make something Catholic” just by saying it.
You don’t seem to be clear about that. Try a little harder.
69
posted on
08/11/2018 4:13:22 AM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
("Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." Ephesians 5:8-11)
To: Mrs. Don-o
Magisterium is not a name of a group. One is not a member of the Magisterium. One does not join the Magisterium. The Magisterium does not assemble or meet. The Magisterium does not see, think, deliberate, rule or decide. By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm
Theologians, Bishops, and even Popes do not make something Catholic just by saying it.
Well....yes they do make things Roman Catholic.....though not necessarily Christian.
It's what gets Rome the non-biblical idea of the Immaculate Conception or that a piece of cloth will keep you out of the hell-fire....but only if you wear it the right way.
It's what gives rise to other false doctrines such as the "Treasury of Merit".
You're starting to sound like the Gnostics again.
70
posted on
08/11/2018 6:13:12 AM PDT
by
ealgeone
To: Salvation
So if you get chosen for a jury with the death penalty it's not a sin?
71
posted on
08/11/2018 7:04:32 AM PDT
by
fatima
(Free Hugs Today :))
To: ealgeone
No. Someone doesn’t like it when some people resort to thread-hopping when they have no legitimate argument.
72
posted on
08/11/2018 8:49:32 AM PDT
by
ebb tide
(We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
To: ebb tide
It's not thread hopping to talk about false doctrines. The Scapular is a false doctrine allowed by Roman Catholicism.
If you can't handle that reality, perhaps you should retire to the caucus threads.
73
posted on
08/11/2018 9:12:34 AM PDT
by
ealgeone
Comment #74 Removed by Moderator
To: ebb tide
Scapulars were never mentioned on this thread. Yes, you were thread-hopping. A lot of things being discussed are not mentioned on this thread. That's the way the open forums work. If that's your objection pretty much every post gets pulled.....but Rome likes to shut down disagreement.
Sure seems you're embarrassed by this being known.
75
posted on
08/11/2018 9:18:45 AM PDT
by
ealgeone
Comment #76 Removed by Moderator
To: ebb tide
Im not embarrassed at all. Then why are you having the posts mentioning the Scapular pulled?
You should be the one who is embarrassed by resorting to thread-hopping and personal attacks.
Ah yes...the old "personal attack" defense.
Not sure how stating you wear a scapular is a "personal" attack.
Perhaps the open forums aren't for you after all.
77
posted on
08/11/2018 9:24:24 AM PDT
by
ealgeone
To: ealgeone
It’s a free republic. I’ll post where I wish.
78
posted on
08/11/2018 9:29:19 AM PDT
by
ebb tide
(We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
To: ebb tide
Its a free republic. Ill post where I wish.Post where you want to.
Yet, you don't allow others to do so.
But if you cannot handle the free flow of a debate, then the open forums are not for you.
79
posted on
08/11/2018 9:59:11 AM PDT
by
ealgeone
To: ealgeone
I don't mean to be condescending or snippy about this Magisterium definition thing. It's a concept ordinary Catholics don't use every day, and it's abstract so it's easy for any of us to garble.
I myself can get tripped up by mishandling abstract words, for sure.
Here's an example or two which may clarify things, because --- due to having a pope right now whose expressed theological opinions are sometimes bogglingly imprecise and ambiguous --- we're having to debate "meanings" and "levels of authority" which were never considered debatable before.
If you perceive that Pope Francis has been setting off flashbangs all over the Church, you're perceiving right. He's a strangely anti-papal Pope such as we haven't seen for generations, maybe centuries.
So here's one example quite relevant for today:
1. Doctrine: Legitimate civil authorities have from God the lawful authority to justly carry out capital punishment in order to protect society from evildoers.
2. Doctrine: God has not made capital punishment mandatory, e.g. He didn't require the execution of Cain (for murdering Abel), David (for murdering Uriah), or Saul (for murdering the early Christians) so therefore there are at least some circumstances where you don't have to, or even must not, execute murderers.
3. This statement could be a permissible exercise of the Magisterium. "Capital punishment should be carried out very rarely."
4. This statement could be a permissible exercise of the Magisterium. "Capital punishment should not be carried out on women who might possibly be pregnant."
5. This statement could be a permissible exercise of the Magisterium. "Capital punishment should not be carried out on minors."
6. This statement could be a permissible exercise of the Magisterium. "Capital punishment by methods W, X, Y, and Z should never be permitted because they are too cruel and sadistic."
... now, how about these examples:
7. "Capital punishment is inadmissible unless there is absolute moral certainty that the convict is actually actually guilty of this crime, and did it when there was zero question of cognitive deficit or mental/emotional illness."
My opinion? This could be a permissible exercise of the Magisterium, even if it resulted in practically no executions being done ever --- or, say, one per century! --- because of uncertainty of fact.
8. "Capital punishment is inadmissible because the Death Penalty is intrinsically morally wrong: civil authorities have no right, ever, under any circumstances, to carry it out."
I would argue strongly that this could NOT be a permissible exercise of the Magisterium, because it would directly contradict #1, which is a settled doctrine of the Church. It is part of what we call the Ordinary Magisterium.
`
The reason there's a bunch of controversy right now, about Pope Francis' altering a paragraph of the 1997 Catechism, is because of the ambiguity of the word "inadmissible."
It's an "import" word from civil law; it's not found in any previous Catechism, and it hasn't been clarified whether "inadmissible" here
- means "prohibited always, for everyone, everywhere, under all circumstances ,"
or whether it means
- "prohibited right now, under present circumstances, but that could change under different, exceptional circumstances."
And here's the kicker:
- If it's "a", it can't have any Magisterial authority, even if Pope Francis put it in the Catechism,, because is directly contradicts #1.
- it's "b", it's not in the precise form needed for a doctrine, because it doesn't spell out what those "changed", "different", "exceptional" circumstances might be.
So what do we do?
Well, we can petition Pope Francis for a clarification, but he's already notorious for refusing to provide direct answers to direct questions.
That leaves us with an axiom of Catholic Moral Theology called "Probabilism": a doubtful law is not binding ("lex dubia non obligat"). That's a heck of a position to be in, if you're dealing with a literal life-or-death question.It leaves you with a section of the Catechism which cannot be said to be binding law.
I am personally convinced that this is dereliction of duty on the Pope's part. I am quite angry that the Pope ("this Pope, this present Pope") has once again thrown in a flashbang and left us all in controversy. And I fear he does this deliberately.
And no, I'm not in mortal sin for saying that.
I have never hears ANYONE say that, except you.
80
posted on
08/11/2018 10:03:46 AM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
(Hmmm. That's odd.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-149 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson