Remnant video on the Synod

[little2add]

Synod reminds me of the word Stunod, coincidence?  

BTY: stunod spelled backwards is "Donut" (coincidence?)

[KnightofChrist]

Synod reminds me of the word Stunod, coincidence?  

BTY: stunod spelled backwards is "Donut" (coincidence?)

I have no idea, but now I want donuts.

[Peace]

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.

 I never asserted that the "ancient faith" changes either. It does not. What changes is 1) the Church's adherence to the "ancient faith" in Her actions and 2) Her understanding of the "ancient faith". 

My previous posts were primarily directed to (1). I do not think that there has ever been a point in time when the actions of the Church were in 100% compliance with the ethical/moral standards given to us by Jesus and the apostles.

Let's say at the time of the death of the last apostle, the church was in 75% compliance.  If you "make a change" or "head in different direction" from the actions of the Church at the time of the death of the last apostle, you have two possibilities: 1) the change brings you in further compliance, or 2) the changes makes you less compliant. So the fact that the Church of today acts differently than the Church of yesteryear is not necessarily an indication that the Church of today is departing from the ancient faith. The Church by changing its actions today could in fact be moving in a direction that is in greater compliance with the ancient faith.

That is basically the point I attempted to make in my previous posts.

Change is only necessarily a departure from the ancient faith if you assume that there was a point in time when the actions of the Church were in 100% compliance with the ancient faith - and I don't think we have any reason to believe that there ever was such a time. I think that the Church continues to better understand the ancient faith with the passage of time and become in greater compliance with it - although there are regressions along the way, as IceNine noted previously.

Point (2) should also be rather apparent. Just because the faith has been delivered does not mean that the Church understands the teaching at the time that it is delivered. You can take the Bread of Life discourse in the Bible as an example of that. The apostles did not fully understand the teaching until the Last Supper. And there have been many other doctrines that the Church has developed a better understanding of with the passage of time, such as the nature of the Trinity.

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.

I agree with this for the most part, but "what the Church teaches" is only part of what constitutes the Church. The Church is a body of people that takes concrete actions. Those actions also matter and can be more/less consistent with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. If were are dealing with gay people, for example, while the teaching that homosexual acts are a sin does not change, certain manners of dealing with the issue are more consistent with the example set by our Lord than other manners of dealing with it. We can stone them to death, or we can try to educate them in a spirit of charity. When I talk about "move in a different direction" I am not talking about changing the teaching that homosexual acts are a sin, but rather, that we should move in a direction that approaches them in a spirit of charity rather than attempting to literally (or figuratively) stone them to death.*

*And that is not to assert that the Church of yesteryear did not move in a spirit of charity. The point is that improvements can be made.

[KnightofChrist]

 I never asserted that the "ancient faith" changes either. It does not. What changes is 1) the Church's adherence to the "ancient faith" in Her actions and 2) Her understanding of the "ancient faith".

I'm unable to break up your reply so I'll bold my reply within yours. No, her adherence does not change either nor does her understanding. Her adherence and understanding has deepened been enriched but change isn't the correct word. Because even with that deepening and enrichment change hasn't happened. Now if you want to speak of her member yes of course our adherence does change and our understanding also changes.

My previous posts were primarily directed to (1). I do not think that there has ever been a point in time when the actions of the Church were in 100% compliance with the ethical/moral standards given to us by Jesus and the apostles.

Let's say at the time of the death of the last apostle, the church was in 75% compliance.  If you "make a change" or "head in different direction" from the actions of the Church at the time of the death of the last apostle, you have two possibilities: 1) the change brings you in further compliance, or 2) the changes makes you less compliant. So the fact that the Church of today acts differently than the Church of yesteryear is not necessarily an indication that the Church of today is departing from the ancient faith. The Church by changing its actions today could in fact be moving in a direction that is in greater compliance with the ancient faith.

The Church has been protected from error if she's failed be faithful or only been faithful 75% of the time in a certain age she has erred. But again, if we are talking about the individual members of the Church yes this applies because we are fallen we do not live up to compliance, we fail to live up to what the Church teaches us through Our Lord and the Holy Spirit. But this is not so if we speak of the Holy Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, she is a perfect and loyal bride who has always followed the teachings of Christ faithfully, with 100% compliance and without blemish.

That is basically the point I attempted to make in my previous posts.

Change is only necessarily a departure from the ancient faith if you assume that there was a point in time when the actions of the Church were in 100% compliance with the ancient faith - and I don't think we have any reason to believe that there ever was such a time. I think that the Church continues to better understand the ancient faith with the passage of time and become in greater compliance with it - although there are regressions along the way, as IceNine noted previously.

I of course do very much believe the Church's actions have always been 100% in compliance with her Faith. We can see through history where her children haven't but that doesn't mean she has failed.

Point (2) should also be rather apparent. Just because the faith has been delivered does not mean that the Church understands the teaching at the time that it is delivered. You can take the Bread of Life discourse in the Bible as an example of that. The apostles did not fully understand the teaching until the Last Supper. And there have been many other doctrines that the Church has developed a better understanding of with the passage of time, such as the nature of the Trinity.

At that time they were still being taught by Christ, and had not received the keys or authority to go forth and baptize and teach all nations, they had not yet received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, etc. But Christ the Head of the Church did fully understand. So again yes the Church understood fully. I agree that the Church has deepened (better word than developed imho) her understanding of such things as the Trinity. But all that she understands of the Trinity came from the Apostles who received it from God. 

I agree with this for the most part, but "what the Church teaches" is only part of what constitutes the Church. The Church is a body of people that takes concrete actions. Those actions also matter and can be more/less consistent with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. If were are dealing with gay people, for example, while the teaching that homosexual acts are a sin does not change, certain manners of dealing with the issue are more consistent with the example set by our Lord than other manners of dealing with it. We can stone them to death, or we can try to educate them in a spirit of charity. When I talk about "move in a different direction" I am not talking about changing the teaching that homosexual acts are a sin, but rather, that we should move in a direction that approaches them in a spirit of charity rather than attempting to literally (or figuratively) stone them to death.*

*And that is not to assert that the Church of yesteryear did not move in a spirit of charity. The point is that improvements can be made.

The actions of the members of the Church do matter of course. But if we commit some grave evil we fall out of the state of grace, our actions are not of the Church, but of the Devil. This is what Our Lord told the pharisees who believed in stoning, that they are of their father the Devil. The Church has always been completely loyal to charity and mercy of Christ. Again her head is Christ and she has always followed Him faithfully. Whatever outreach she makes to any sinners today she must keep the same meaning and sense that she has always held. Which has always been good and faithful to Our Lord. The Church has never been in favor or stoning people figuratively or literally because Christ condemned that. Members of the Church, members at high levels yes, or some cruel and unusual punishment similar to stoning but in doing so they betrayed Christ, the Church and the Faith.

[Peace]

I'm unable to break up your reply so I'll bold my reply within yours. No, her adherence does not change either nor does her understanding. Her adherence and understanding has deepened been enriched but change isn't the correct word. Because even with that deepening and enrichment change hasn't happened. Now if you want to speak of her member yes of course our adherence does change and our understanding also changes.

It might help if you could define "Church" in the sense that you are using it. I already set forth the definition that I am using. When I say "Church" I am including the individual people (laity and clergy) who profess the Catholic faith and to be under the authority of the Pope. When you say "Church" or "Her" - specifically what/who is it that you are referring to?

As for the word "change" concerning the understanding of doctrine - I would consider a "deeper understanding" of doctrine to be a change in one's understanding of it.  Change does not always imply contradiction. But that is just semantics I suppose. I think we both understand the sense in which I meant it.

The Church has been protected from error if she's failed be faithful or only been faithful 75% of the time in a certain age she has erred. But again, if we are talking about the individual members of the Church yes this applies because we are fallen we do not live up to compliance, we fail to live up to what the Church teaches us through Our Lord and the Holy Spirit. But this is not so if we speak of the Holy Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, she is a perfect and loyal bride who has always followed the teachings of Christ faithfully, with 100% compliance and without blemish.

Can you define "Holy Catholic Church" "Bride of Christ" and "Body of Christ" as you use them above?

And when you say that the teachings of Jesus have been followed faithfully with 100% compliance and without blemish - can you give some concrete examples of what you mean by that?

Perhaps in the sense that we are joined with Jesus by way of his death on the cross and our baptisms can the individual people who comprise the Church be considered perfect, or in the sense that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and prevents Her from teaching error. But I have not really been talking about the Church in this sense in any of my prior posts, and I thought that I had made that clear.

At that time they were still being taught by Christ, and had not received the keys or authority to go forth and baptize and teach all nations, they had not yet received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, etc. But Christ the Head of the Church did fully understand. So again yes the Church understood fully. I agree that the Church has deepened (better word than developed imho) her understanding of such things as the Trinity. But all that she understands of the Trinity came from the Apostles who received it from God. 

I think here again I would like to respond to what you wrote after you define the exact sense in which you are using the word "Church".

The actions of the members of the Church do matter of course. But if we commit some grave evil we fall out of the state of grace, our actions are not of the Church, but of the Devil. This is what Our Lord told the pharisees who believed in stoning, that they are of their father the Devil. The Church has always been completely loyal to charity and mercy of Christ. Again her head is Christ and she has always followed Him faithfully. Whatever outreach she makes to any sinners today she must keep the same meaning and sense that she has always held. Which has always been good and faithful to Our Lord. The Church has never been in favor or stoning people figuratively or literally because Christ condemned that. Members of the Church, members at high levels yes, or some cruel and unusual punishment similar to stoning but in doing so they betrayed Christ, the Church and the Faith.

OK. I think we are just using the word "Church" in different senses. I defined the way that I used it. You seem to be using the word in the more mystical sense that I described above. I took a look at what the Catechism says about that and it appears that you are correct in the sense that you are using the word "Church" (although a definition would still be helpful):

II. THE CHURCH IS HOLY

823 "The Church . . . is held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy. This is because Christ, the Son of God, who with the Father and the Spirit is hailed as 'alone holy,' loved the Church as his Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her; he joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God."²⁸⁹ The Church, then, is "the holy People of God,"²⁹⁰ and her members are called "saints."²⁹¹

824 United with Christ, the Church is sanctified by him; through him and with him she becomes sanctifying. "All the activities of the Church are directed, as toward their end, to the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God."²⁹² It is in the Church that "the fullness of the means of salvation"²⁹³ has been deposited. It is in her that "by the grace of God we acquire holiness."²⁹⁴

825 "The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect."²⁹⁵ In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: "Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state - though each in his own way - are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect."²⁹⁶

826 Charity is the soul of the holiness to which all are called: it "governs, shapes, and perfects all the means of sanctification."²⁹⁷

 

If the Church was a body composed of different members, it couldn't lack the noblest of all; it must have a Heart, and a Heart BURNING WITH LOVE. And I realized that this love alone was the true motive force which enabled the other members of the Church to act; if it ceased to function, the Apostles would forget to preach the gospel, the Martyrs would refuse to shed their blood. LOVE, IN FACT, IS THE VOCATION WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHERS; IT'S A UNIVERSE OF ITS OWN, COMPRISING ALL TIME AND SPACE - IT'S ETERNAL! ²⁹⁸

827 "Christ, 'holy, innocent, and undefiled,' knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal."²⁹⁹ All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners.³⁰⁰ In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time.³⁰¹ Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ's salvation but still on the way to holiness:

 

The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace. If they live her life, her members are sanctified; if they move away from her life, they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for those offenses, of which she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.³⁰²

828 By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.³⁰³ "The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church's history."³⁰⁴ Indeed, "holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal."³⁰⁵

829 "But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle, the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary":³⁰⁶ in her, the Church is already the "all-holy."

I think that you are using the word "Church" more in the sense of paragraph 823 while I was using it more in the sense of paragraph 825.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Peace

[little2add]

All I know is that there far too many families that have been torn apart by the many tribulations of todays modern society.   .  If this Synod is able to unify the family unit that I'm all in for the change.  That doesn't mean that in any way lowering the standards of Christianity,  not at all.  

remember, Jesus didn't come here to save the faithful, he came here save the sinners and to guide us all, sinners and faithful alike to paradise.

[KnightofChrist]

It might help if you could define "Church" in the sense that you are using it. I already set forth the definition that I am using. When I say "Church" I am including the individual people (laity and clergy) who profess the Catholic faith and to be under the authority of the Pope. When you say "Church" or "Her" - specifically what/who is it that you are referring to?

As for the word "change" concerning the understanding of doctrine - I would consider a "deeper understanding" of doctrine to be a change in one's understanding of it.  Change does not always imply contradiction. But that is just semantics I suppose. I think we both understand the sense in which I meant it.

Can you define "Holy Catholic Church" "Bride of Christ" and "Body of Christ" as you use them above?

And when you say that the teachings of Jesus have been followed faithfully with 100% compliance and without blemish - can you give some concrete examples of what you mean by that?

Perhaps in the sense that we are joined with Jesus by way of his death on the cross and our baptisms can the individual people who comprise the Church be considered perfect, or in the sense that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and prevents Her from teaching error. But I have not really been talking about the Church in this sense in any of my prior posts, and I thought that I had made that clear.

I think here again I would like to respond to what you wrote after you define the exact sense in which you are using the word "Church".

OK. I think we are just using the word "Church" in different senses. I defined the way that I used it. You seem to be using the word in the more mystical sense that I described above. I took a look at what the Catechism says about that and it appears that you are correct in the sense that you are using the word "Church" (although a definition would still be helpful):

I think that you are using the word "Church" more in the sense of paragraph 823 while I was using it more in the sense of paragraph 825.

I believe this is a acceptable understanding of our positions, good enough anyway lol. I'm using Church in a very real but mystical sense. Admittedly it's not easy to explain just as the Trinity is not easy to explain. How can God be three persons but one being, how can the Church be her members yet also Christ? Although her members do fail to always be holy, and always be faithful and always have  understanding of the Faith, the Church is always Holy, always faithful and always has a right understanding of the Faith. The reason behind this is that Christ keeps his bride holy, faithful and true to the Faith because Christ and his Bride are one. Anyway, I can agree with most of what you've stated if we understand it in such a way that we mean individual members of the Church have not always understood the Faith or been 100% faithful to the teachings of the Church.  I'm sorry for the lateness in my reply. I've had car issues, very expensive car issues, the transmission in my car is going out again, for the 4th or 5th time, it's only a 2009 car. :\ Naturally this is extremely stressful and well depressing. I don't have the money to fix it and I don't think I'll be able to trade it in it's current condition. Still life is worth living.

Pax to you Peace

[Norseman82]

"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

"FP is not a fetus" - Bishop Barron and Michael Voris

[Ash Wednesday]

Well I can understand why people would worry... but as far as Remnant goes, dismissing gay people as "sodomites" is no way to reach souls, son.

 

 

[little2add]

It's not just gayness that needs addressing    Divorce is a fact of life, now-a-days, people reunite, fall in love, remarry and have children.  Sometimes one of the original couples is at fault, more often both 
Children born to divorced couples are alienated from the church and that shouldn't be.  

If all the sinners are excluded from Catholic services then who will attend mass

[BG45]

If all the sinners are excluded from Catholic services then who will attend mass

Enough to bring me out of my lurking and occasional visits for a clap.  Falls well in line with the fact the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.   The late Father Andrew Greeley was entirely too liberal with his theology for my tastes, but one thing he said, or had a character say, has always resonated (paraphrasing), "If God wanted a perfect church, He would have left it in the hands of angels.  That it has survived so long in the hands of men is a testament to the fact it must be true and under His protection."

As for the video, I couldn't get through it.  Then again, I'm not a fan of The Remnant.  It always seems too alarmist to me.  That said, the Southern Poverty Law Center also lists it as a hate group publication.

[KnightofChrist]

The far left of centered Southern Poverty Law Center also lists the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute as a hate group and others that have no business being labeled as a hate group. I wouldn't trust them that much. Sure the Remnant has it's issues but calling it a hate group is way out in left field.

[Peace]

The far left of centered Southern Poverty Law Center also lists the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute as a hate group and others that have no business being labeled as a hate group. I wouldn't trust them that much. Sure the Remnant has it's issues but calling it a hate group is way out in left field.

Is there anyone that SPLC doesn't consider to be a hate group?

[Credo in Deum]

It's not just gayness that needs addressing    Divorce is a fact of life, now-a-days, people reunite, fall in love, remarry and have children.  Sometimes one of the original couples is at fault, more often both 
Children born to divorced couples are alienated from the church and that shouldn't be.  

If all the sinners are excluded from Catholic services then who will attend mass

Divorce was a fact of life back in Christ's time as well, so I don't see how it being a fact of life has anything to do with the price of tea in China. 

[little2add]

Divorce was a fact of life back in Christ's time as well, so I don't see how it being a fact of life has anything to do with the price of tea in China. 

divorce was considered adultery, those guilty of adultery were stoned to death in Christ's  time

Divorce was a fact of life back in Christ's time as well, so I don't see how it being a fact of life has anything to do with the price of tea in China. 

The children from a divorced family should not suffer for the sins of one or both of the parents.