BeenaBobba Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='May 31 2004, 04:33 AM'] Who said anything about interpretating? The statement doesnt need any interpretation, and please dont play the "it was designed for that time" line, "so its not important now". The statement is plain and simple. [/quote] How do [b]you[/b] know that the statements don't need to be interpreted by the Church? If the Church says they needs to be interpreted, then they need to be interpreted. And guess what? The Church interpreted them a way that is contrary to what you seem to believe. Who am I to trust in this issue: you or the Church? Yeah, I'll trust the Catholic Church over you [b]any day[/b]. That statement is plain and simple -- just how Protestants believe that certain "plain and simple" lines in the Bible justify their beliefs on salvation, eh? [quote]Also. Now Orthodox are apart of the body, but in a imperfect way? How does that work exactly, it that like going to Uni, but not being involved in classes, but still getting the grades and degree? [/quote] You should read the documents I listed in my last post. Take care, Jennifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 [quote name='BeenaBobba' date='May 31 2004, 06:08 PM'] How do [b]you[/b] know that the statements don't need to be interpreted by the Church? If the Church says they needs to be interpreted, then they need to be interpreted. And guess what? The Church interpreted them a way that is contrary to what you seem to believe. Who am I to trust in this issue: you or the Church? Yeah, I'll trust the Catholic Church over you [b]any day[/b]. That statement is plain and simple -- just how Protestants believe that certain "plain and simple" lines in the Bible justify their beliefs on salvation, eh? You should read the documents I listed in my last post. Take care, Jennifer [/quote] Pax Iesus. Ok so the Church back then already stated this and interpretated this, but now the New Church with its stuff, interpretates it again, and you would rather have a Re-interpretation than the interpretation of the time? Okkkkkkk. [color=red][Edited by dUSt: negative criticism of the current magisterium][/color] Pax Iesus Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livin_the_MASS Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 MorphRC, Whats up? You don't believe in the devolpment of doctrine or what? I would suggest being obedient to the Church always now and forever! Holy Mother Church will never fail, Christ promised Himself, it's His Church Pax Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Exactly, Jason! It's all about the development of doctrine! The statements made by previous Popes are just as true as the statements made by the present Pope; however, the current Church has come into a fuller understanding of what those previous statements mean. Take care, Jen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 [color=red][edited by dUSt: negative criticism of the current magisterium][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 (edited) A now for something completely different... Musturde, Could you provide a citation for this? [quote]in an emergency a lay person can hear a confession although no absolution will be given[/quote] Edit: An what would be the point anyway? I mean, I could tell anyone what my sins are if I were so inclined, emergency or not. The point of confession isn't just telling the sins, but receiving absolution... So really, nothing would be gained, sacramentally speaking, by confession to a lay person. Why would the Church provide for this, when their is no real benefit? Edited May 31, 2004 by p0lar_bear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Polar, As soon as you said "laicized Priest" I realized that was what I had been thinking of. Thanks! peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 my previous thing: yes if the person confessing found out it wasn't a priest they confessed to they'd be obliged to confess to a priest. but if they never found out, it'd be valid Ecclesia Supplet. MorphRC, i agree with the quotes you provided. however, they do not contradict the current teaching of the Church. your interpretation of them is in error. The Church has never taught against salvation for the invincibly ignorant and all such things. The Current Magisterium is not in contradiction to previous magisteriums. "New Church" just expanded more on the doctrines of invincible ignorance and culpability of rejection of the One True Church. Because those who are not responsible for the schism are just born into the schism, they do not hold the same culpability for schism as those who broke away did, and thus are imperfectly connected to the Body of Christ through those true doctrines of the Church which they agree with, namely Peter's first Ex Cathedra Dogma which 'was not revealed to him by flesh and blood but by the Father in Heaven' : "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God" Believe that Dogma, and you're becoming subject to the Roman Pontiff in some way whether you like it or not. So long as you're not the one splitting from the Church, your not held responsible for that sin of schism. do not reject the Second Vatican Council, it is just as valid as any other council. simply because it doesn't have as many infallible proclamations does not mean it is anytheless binding. Pax Amorque Christi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voiciblanche Posted May 31, 2004 Author Share Posted May 31, 2004 A note about trusting the Catholic Church - 1. The Church is INFALLIBLE. There isn't much chance that she will mislead her people. 2. We are called to listen to the Church AT ALL TIMES. If something wrong was taught, which is very unlikely, God has mercy on the members of the Church because they usually don't know any better, and are only trusting the Church that Christ gave to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 [color=red][edited by dUSt: negative criticism of the current magisterium][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 [quote name='voiciblanche' date='May 29 2004, 05:12 PM'] We've talked about the Catholic Faith versus other faiths and how we all share in the Truth in my theology class, and the teacher said only three churches believe in the Presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament - the Episcopalian, the Eastern Orthodox, and, of course, the Roman Catholic. He said that the Episcopals practice their services believing that they have the Presence of our Lord, but they don't. He then said that even though the Eastern Orthodox isn't the Roman Catholic, they still practice and hold the Presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Is this even true, and if it is, why? [/quote] LoL, your Theology teacher is correct. One of the cool things about the Orthodox Church is that we can go to them if there's no way for us to make it to a Catholic Mass (or Divine Liturgy, whatever your Rite may be ) and it will count as our obligation. As was mentioned before, they do have Apostolic Succession and so are valid Masses (just as SSPX is valid). But since we're not part of their Church, and they're not under the Pope, we're not able to receive. I actually know many people at my school (Catholic) who receive from both...I believe the reason we don't is that they don't want us to. The Episcopal (Anglican) Church broke off from the Catholic Church just so that Henry VIII could get a divorce. Since they broke away, they don't have Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox situation is a little more complicated, but thankfully, many eastern Churches are now Rites under the Pope. Go Byzantines! Anyways, since the Anglicans/Episcopals don't have valid Masses, they can't have a valid Sacrament. Divine Liturgies are valid (as I mentioned earlier), and so the Sacrament is valid. The schism between us when Rome split made the Church really confusing, so the Greek Orthodox do not believe that the Pope in Rome is the true Patriarch. They really didn't want to split, but because of confusion, we did. Now, I mentioned SSPX. I don't know if this has been discussed much before, but they are valid Masses. However, after reading a lot about SSPX, it makes sense why they're illicit. The Bishops were wrongly Consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre (who was excommunicated). Well, anyways, they priests have Apostolic Succession, but they are not under the authority of the Pope (though they claim they are). That is an example of modern day where a Mass outside the Church can be valid. [quote name='"voiciblanche"']1. The Church is INFALLIBLE. There isn't much chance that she will mislead her people. 2. We are called to listen to the Church AT ALL TIMES. If something wrong was taught, which is very unlikely, God has mercy on the members of the Church because they usually don't know any better, and are only trusting the Church that Christ gave to them. [/quote] I was just going to say that this is true, however the Bishops (and Pope, just in certain circumstances) can err. Once a Pope excommunicated St. Athanasius because he denounced Arianism. I was going to say that only occassionally are people freed by ignorance. In a case where someone could know the truth, then they would be bound to follow that. This would be the case if for some reason the Bishop said that murder is okay. By Natural Law, we know better, so it would be better for people to disagree. However, I say this hesitantly because it happens very rarely, but even so, it gives good reason for all of the laity to be well-educated in matters of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 (edited) [quote name='MorphRC' date='Jun 1 2004, 01:53 AM'] Also I never denied that the Church taught on Invinicile ignorance, I understand that, How can a person be punished for not knowing?. [/quote] St. Thomas Aquinas says that if you can know, but are too lazy to find out, or for reasons such as that, then you are at fault. Just wanted to make that clear to all. (Not always the case). [quote name='MorphRC']The Church alone possesses [...] the beneficial use of the Sacraments, the efficacious instruments of divine grace. Catechism of Trent[/quote] Are you saying that the Orthodox don't have the Sacraments? Edited June 1, 2004 by qfnol31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 [color=red][edited by dUSt: negative criticism of the current magisterium][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thicke Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='May 31 2004, 02:44 AM'] And Yes Im officially Pre-V2-Catholic Now! [/quote] Don't you see this statement makes you non-Catholic???? Don't you see this statement makes you just as much a schismatic as the Orthodox???? Please, do not let the fact that you see contradiction where there is none push you away from your salvation. I'm praying for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 [color=red][edited by dUSt: negative criticism of the current magisterium][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts