Remnant video on the Synod

[KnightofChrist]

What specifically does your "ancient faith" consist of?

I think that the Church teaches that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. I don't think we have a hard date on that - but let's say that date was around AD 120 for the sake of argument.

So then are you saying that the year AD 121 was the "pinnacle" of the Church's adherence to the ancient faith? And that anything that deviates from the state of the Church in AD 121 must therefore be a departure from the ancient faith?

I do not see why that needs to be the case. Why cannot it be the case that the Church changed and became closer to the ancient faith in the year AD 122 than it was in the year AD 121?

Take the US Constitution as an example. I think it was ratified in 1787. Does that mean that the state of America in the year 1787 adhered more closely to the ideals set forth in the Constitution in the year 1787 than at the end of the Civil War or after the Civil Rights Laws were enacted? Of course not. The country moved in a different direction by way of ending slavery and legalized discrimination. It changed greatly from the country as it was when the Constitution was ratified, but become something that was closer to the ideals set forth in the Constitution.

So I don't really see why something like that is not also possible with the Catholic Church. If you assume that the Church at the time of the death of the last apostle was in complete adherence with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, then of course any change in the Church after that point it time is a deviation away from the ancient faith. But I do not see any reason to assume that was the case. If the Church at that point in time was not in complete adherence, then any (non-dogmatic) change that you have could be either a departure away from the ancient faith, or a movement towards it.

In short, I do not necessary think that any particular point in the past has to be the ideal to which we should be striving to return. It could be that the ideal lies somewhere else, and that a change in the church can at the same time be a deviation with the past, and something that is more consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

But I think you knew that.

The Church, the Faith, is unchanging. It can't be amended and changed like the US Constitution. She doesn't change along with human progress. No Pope, bishop or priest can preach anything that was not handed down to them from the Apostles, and they received the Faith from God Himself.

 

"For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus - that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning." - Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus

"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." - First Vatican Council

"It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity"[2] can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason." - Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus

[CrossCuT]

I wish I could see Ancillia's response. Thanks Obama!

Edited October 28, 2015 by CrossCuT

[Ancilla Domini]

I wish I could see Ancillia's response. Thanks Obama!

So far as I remember, it went something like along these lines (shame it got deleted. It took so long to phrase it with proper grammar! English will be the death of me. ).

When I said I would rather keep the tag than go against what I said, I didn't mean to say that I believed I deserved it. What I meant was that if the only thing that would convince dUSt to remove my tag were a retraction all of my statements, (none of which, I believe, where against Church teachings) then I would rather keep the title, merited or no.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Ancilla Domini
Grammar, of course...

[Credo in Deum]

It often seems that many view "the church of the past" as some ideal that must be inherently superior to the church of today or the church of the future.

Should that necessarily be the case? There seems to be some feeling out there that the Church is just doomed to get worse and worse until Jesus returns. Is there any biblical precedent for that view?

It seems to me that change can move in either a positive direction or a negative direction. It is not like the Church of yesteryear did not have its own internal problems.

It is actually possible that the current leadership of the Church is moving the church in a better direction. Just because that direction may not be the same exact direction in which the Church has moved in the past, does not mean that the direction in which it wants to move is not a better direction.

The only person who is saying there is an old Church and a new Church is the bishop in the quote.  This is why the quote is very serious since a bishop is saying the "old" Church and how it functioned until the synod was defective, despite the countless saints and doctors it has produced, and that now the new Church, the Synod Church as some are already calling it, is the new and better Church .  

In short, when a bishop says "this is the beginning of a new Church", then that should raise a red flag.

 

Edited October 28, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[dUSt]

Please stop quoting a cardinal with a quote that cannot be verified. Verify it, then quote it. Thanks. 

[Peace]

The Church, the Faith, is unchanging. It can't be amended and changed like the US Constitution. She doesn't change along with human progress. No Pope, bishop or priest can preach anything that was not handed down to them from the Apostles, and they received the Faith from God Himself.

 

"For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus - that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning." - Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus

"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." - First Vatican Council

"It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity"[2] can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason." - Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus

Dogma does not change, of course. You need not quote from Pope Pius IX to convince me of that, although I did find the text you cited to be quite lovely. Please note that I wrote "non-dogmatic" in my post above. I wrote that for a reason. Why do you think I wrote "non-dogmatic"?

Now, when you write "The Church, the Faith" you seem to equate the two. But I do not see why that should be the case. Exactly what definition of "The Church" are you using? If we use the following definition of "The Church":

The Church, "a visible society of baptized Christians professing the same faith under the authority of the invisible head (Christ) and the authority of the visible head (the pope and the bishops in communion with him)

Then think it should be rather apparent that the Church has and does change. The modern Church does not conduct Crusades and Inquisitions, as an example.

As you know, there is a difference between professing or holding a faith, and acting in accordance with that faith. It is in this latter aspect that the Church has and does change. If you go back and re-read what I wrote with this in mind, perhaps you may better understand the point I was attempting to make. Apparently I did not make it well enough.

[Peace]

The only person who is saying there is an old Church and a new Church is the bishop in the quote.  This is why the quote is very serious since a bishop is saying the "old" Church and how it functioned until the synod was defective, despite the countless saints and doctors it has produced, and that now the new Church, the Synod Church as some are already calling it, is the new and better Church .  

In short, when a bishop says "this is the beginning of a new Church", then that should raise a red flag.

 

Well there seems to be some question whether that quote is accurate.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the quote is accurate. I think that you could be reading too much into it. I do not see it as some broad condemnation of the past/present Church at large, and an assertion that the Church must totally break with her past traditions so as to become something totally new.

I would read a quote like that as an assertion that the Church had a problem in the past, that a change will be made to remedy the problem, and that the Church will be new insofar as that going forward she will have resolved or approach the problem in a different way going forward.

I think that we can give our leadership the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that we need to be on the lookout for "gotcha!" type statements that we can pounce upon as fodder to assert that a particular person or group desires to change doctrine.

[dominicansoul]

I'm not a big fan of the remnant.  Some of them can really go into dramatic hysterics.  I totally agree with dUSts caution with messages like these because unlike these peeps who like to find hell prevailing over the Church in every single crisis, there is the "true remnant" of the Church who quietly go about their days in silent prayer and mortification on behalf of the Church.  These people are what's keeping us afloat.  The Church knows them as contemplatives.  Thank God for these holy men and women who have given their entire lives for the sake of Christ and His Church. I highly doubt it is all in vain...

i see more hope in quiet, prayerful mortification  than in this groups videos and messages.  I just get anxious reading and watching the stuff this group puts out.  Is there some concern over the Synod?  Of course, there always is and always will be concern over the happenings in the Church!  Why?  St Paul said the Church is at war with principalities, evil spirits eager to break down the Church.  The important thing is, we just need to make sure we're not contributing to that break down...

[little2add]

I pray that the Synod fulfills its promise of renewing the Family Unit and instills the importance reaching out to each other in order to promote family harmony.

Amen 

[PhuturePriest]

Please stop quoting a cardinal with a quote that cannot be verified. Verify it, then quote it. Thanks. 

"Winchester is our overlord." -- Cardinal Burke

"Dust's head is the most intimidating and manly thing I have ever laid eyes on." -- Archbishop Chaput

"I love lamp." -- Cardinal Dolan

[KnightofChrist]

 

Dogma does not change, of course. You need not quote from Pope Pius IX to convince me of that, although I did find the text you cited to be quite lovely. Please note that I wrote "non-dogmatic" in my post above. I wrote that for a reason. Why do you think I wrote "non-dogmatic"?

But we are talking about the "ancient faith" not just Dogma and the quotes deal with matters of Faith and not just Dogma. Yes, defined Dogma does not change, and defined dogma is very much part of the "ancient faith." However, defined Dogma is not the whole the Faith and the Faith does not change. Anything that deviates from the Faith as the Church taught by the Apostles is a departure from the Faith which was given and revealed to her by God. The Church, in matter of Faith and Morals has never changed and we are just as close to the "ancient faith" today as any other age after the death of the Apostles. Because it's the same Faith, if it is truly part of the Faith.

Now, when you write "The Church, the Faith" you seem to equate the two. But I do not see why that should be the case. Exactly what definition of "The Church" are you using? If we use the following definition of "The Church":

Then think it should be rather apparent that the Church has and does change. The modern Church does not conduct Crusades and Inquisitions, as an example.

As you know, there is a difference between professing or holding a faith, and acting in accordance with that faith. It is in this latter aspect that the Church has and does change. If you go back and re-read what I wrote with this in mind, perhaps you may better understand the point I was attempting to make. Apparently I did not make it well enough.

In matters of Faith and Morals the Church never changes, she can only teach what was taught to her. The Church can modify her temporal powers, because they not a matter of Faith and Morals. The Crusades, the Papal States or the Church's observational role at the United Nations are examples of temporal powers of the Church that can be changed or discontinued.

Members of the Church do not always act in accordance with the Faith, but the Church's call for her children to act in accordance to her teaching also does not change. She has used different ways of teaching the same thing, calling for sinners to repent but in the same sense and with the same meaning as she always has taught. Not really a change.

[KnightofChrist]

Can you please link me to the source of this quote?

 

I have no link for it, actually. It is mentioned in the video, and it is also backed up by my father, who attended the conference in which it was said.

For the record: I have found a source for the quote in question. According to Francis DeBernardo of New Ways Ministry he interviewed Card. Turkson while attending the Synod in Rome. Card. Turkson is said to have made the comments during the interview and after repeated those comments during a mid-day press conference. It is likely the mid-day press conference where A.D.'s father and the Remnant Newspaper heard the comments.

During the interview

Q: Last week, Archbishop Palmer-Buckle said that African bishops were reluctant to oppose criminalization, but that they were growing in awareness of lesbian and gay people.  Do you see African bishops outgrowing their reluctance to oppose criminalization laws soon?

A: We are all growing in this regard.  When we come to meetings like the synod and listen to one another, we learn from one another.  We hear bishops telling stories of their relatives’ pain, and we grow.  Western countries have grown in regard to this issue. When I studied in the United States in the 1970s, science considered [homosexuality] a sickness and a disease.  Over the years that evaluation has changed.  Other countries have to grow in the same way and it can take time. 

 

During the mid-day press conference according to New Way Ministry

At the synod’s midday press briefing later in the day, Cardinal Turkson reiterated his call for “no criminalization, no victimization” of gay and lesbian people and of nations, respectively.  When asked if homosexuality was taboo in African nations he responded:  “We don’t consider it taboo, because it has been spoken of in an open way.  They have experiences of people in their own families.  I don’t believe it is a taboo in Africa.  if you think it is taboo, you should go to Russia.  “In an interview this morning, I said I was studying in the U.S. in the 1970s. Every book presented homosexuality as an abnormality.  now it has changed.  The books had to change their content. That shows, you must admit, that countries that do not accept [homosexuality] need further education.  A lot of countries have learned but we need to let them grow and improve.  This is why we educate people not to criminal but also to make sure others are not victimized. ” [Editor’s note:  I think it is safe to assume that the interview he referenced in this comment was the one that he gave to me that same morning, since he mentioned the same point.]

Source: https://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/vaticans-cardinal-turkson-homosexuals-should-not-be-criminalized/

[Peace]

New Ways Ministry? I dunno know if you are very likely to get accurate or unbiased reporting from that source on the issue. . .

Has the Vatican or any reputable news source put out a full transcript?

Anyway. Assuming that those quotes are accurate, I think you have to interpret the comments in light of the question that was asked, relating to whether or not homosexual acts should be criminalized. Those are impromptu comments made at a press conference. When he says "That shows, you must admit, that countries that do not accept  [    ] need further education" it would be reasonable to interpret him as saying that countries that criminalize homosexuality need further education concerning the scientific understanding of the reasons why some people have those inclinations.

I don't read the comments as an assertion that homosexual acts should no longer be considered a sin by the Church. I think you have to be in "Gotcha!!" mode to interpret it that way.

[KnightofChrist]

New Ways Ministry? I dunno know if you are very likely to get accurate or unbiased reporting from that source on the issue. . .

Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's hard to believe that the Remnant Newspaper would have used New Ways Ministry as a source. I do know from other sources that Cardinal Turkson did attend a mid-day presser and did make the comments about the taboo nature or lack thereof of Homosexuality. This is also the presser where Bishop Van Looy made or also perhaps repeated his new church comments. Source: http://aleteia.org/2015/10/23/presser-synod-fathers-will-issue-statement-on-families-in-middle-east/

[KnightofChrist]

Has the Vatican or any reputable news source put out a full transcript?

Not that I am aware of.

Anyway. Assuming that those quotes are accurate, I think you have to interpret the comments in light of the question that was asked, relating to whether or not homosexual acts should be criminalized. Those are impromptu comments made at a press conference. When he says "That shows, you must admit, that countries that do not accept  [    ] need further education" it would be reasonable to interpret him as saying that countries that criminalize homosexuality need further education concerning the scientific understanding of the reasons why some people have those inclinations.

I don't read the comments as an assertion that homosexual acts should no longer be considered a sin by the Church. I think you have to be in "Gotcha!!" mode to interpret it that way.

What I will say about the comments if accurate is that I'm not really sure what he's saying. You could be right and then again perhaps not. For me the comments are ambiguous and could be interpreted different ways. Pressers and interviews with the press are often not the clearest ways to transmit Church teaching.