Orthopraxis vs. Orthodoxy

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 22 2005, 07:25 PM'] [. . .]

btw, I found your latest blog entry quite well-written and interesting.  I don't think anyone on PhatMass said that after theosis it would turn hetero (i could have missed that part, i don't know).  the neither marry nor be married thing makes more sense to me, and we refer to Joseph as Mary's spouse simply because relationships from earth still exist in heaven, they're simply not the same.  Joseph and Mary are not living in a married state, but they would still be in relation to each other be called husband and wife in the same way a father and son are still father and son in heaven even though the father is no longer teaching and raising the son or any of that. [/quote]
What I have said is that the homosexual inclination is not an ontological reality; instead, it is a defect of the will, i.e., it is an objective disorder. Thus, no one is ontologically a "homosexual" in this life, or in the age to come.

God bless,
Todd

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Apotheoun']No one may withhold assent to a doctrine taught as definitive by either the Ordinary or the Extraordinary Magisterium, nor may he dissent from those things proposed by the Authentic Magisterium, rather, he must give a submission of mind and will to those teachings, even if they are not proposed as definitive.

Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are inseparably bound together.[/quote]
And what if one can't give one's assent?

[hyperdulia again]

I'm interested in this, because I have dificulty *believing* most of the Church's teaching in the area of sexual ethics, I was told that as long as I gave my obedience, I was fine.

[spathariossa]

I would argue that if one is doing what the Church says, even if you don't fully agree with it, you are giving implied assent or approval to the Church teaching. As a medieval catholic I'm not into the whole intent vs. action thing.

[Apotheoun]

If a man refuses to give his assent to a dogma that has been definitively taught by the Magisterium, either Ordinary or Extraordinary, as a truth to be believed with divine and catholic faith, he ". . . falls under the censure of heresy." [CDF [u]Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei[/u], no. 5] If he denies a doctrine that has been proclaimed as [i]definitive tenenda[/i] by either the Ordinary or the Extraordinary Magisterium, he ". . . would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church." [CDF [u]Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei[/u], no. 6] Finally, if a man denies a doctrine taught or a norm that has been established by the Authentic Magisterium, his failure to give his assent would be ". . . qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore 'tuto doceri non potest.'" [CDF [u]Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei[/u], no. 10] Orthodoxy and orthopraxy, as I said before, are inseparably bound together. A man's assent to the various dogmatic and doctrinal propositions taught by the Church's Magisterium must inform and motivate his actions. Thus, to withhold assent from something that the Church has proclaimed to be believed as divinely revealed, or something that she has taught as necessarily to be held, separates a man from communion with the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Todd

[cmotherofpirl]

Depends on how you define [i]assent.[/i].

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jan 25 2005, 08:00 AM'] Depends on how you define [i]assent.[/i]. [/quote]
In the case of teachings that are [i]de fide credenda[/i] or [i]de fide tenenda[/i] the assent must be a full and irrevocable assent of faith.

God bless,
Todd

[Good Friday]

And what is the teaching on homosexuality? I know that it's not a dogma. Is it [i]definitive tenenda[/i] or is it a teaching of the Authentic Magisterium? Besides answering with one answer or another, can you also explain? I'm not asking you to explain in order to "prove it," but because I'm not familiar with this distinction between teachings and don't understand the difference. I'd like to understand why the teachings on homosexuality are either [i]definitive tenenda[/i] or the teaching of the Authentic Magisterium.

A couple more questions . . .

1. What precisely does it mean not to be in full communion with the Church? Does that mean that one is excommunicated or what?

2. What does the phrase "[i]tuto doceri non potest[/i]" mean?

3. What is the effect of denying a teaching or prudential judgement of the Authentic Magisterium?

Edited January 25, 2005 by Good Friday

[hyperdulia again]

for whom is belief something that one can willfully give/withhold as he likes? i can give my obedience, but what i do and don't believe is beyond my grasp, i cannot control it in the way apo's post seems to presuppose.

[Guest Aluigi]

one should not be content with private disagreement with Christ's Church, but practicing the teaching and not actually opposing it I believe is assent. Meaning I cannot accept this, but I will trust the Church and follow it. I may not go out and try to convince people it is true, but I also will not go out to convince people it is not true. I will stay publically silent because I trust that the Church is wiser than me, I will practice it, and I will continue to strive to be a better Catholic. Not believing something because one cannot bring oneself to believe it does not constitute heresy at all. This is simply about what a person's fallen emotions and fallen intellect refuse to accept as true, but through grace they are able to follow it anyway. Orthopraxis is the important thing, and it is not seperable from orthodoxy. But by that I do not mean one cannot be orthoprax without being orthodox, I mean that if one truly does become orthoprax on an issue they will eventually, through the working of grace through that faith they have placed in the Church, become orthodox. That may be a period of 50 years, or a period of 10 or 5 or whatever, but orthopraxis breeds orthodoxy. Orthodoxy without orthopraxis is hypocrisy, but orthopraxis without orthodoxy is holy obedience that God will work through with His grace to bring about the orthodoxy.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Jan 25 2005, 02:18 PM'] for whom is belief something that one can willfully give/withhold as he likes?  i can give my obedience, but what i do and don't believe is beyond my grasp, i cannot control it in the way apo's post seems to presuppose. [/quote]
The act of faith most certainly involves an act of the will on a man's part, and so to withhold assent, that is, to fail to give positive assent to a definitive teaching of the Church, is to no longer be a Catholic. Therefore, not opposing the teaching of the Church is not enough; rather, one must actively assent to the Church's teaching.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 25 2005, 08:17 PM'] I may not go out and try to convince people it is true, but I also will not go out to convince people it is not true. I will stay publically silent because I trust that the Church is wiser than me, I will practice it, and I will continue to strive to be a better Catholic. Not believing something because one cannot bring oneself to believe it does not constitute heresy at all. [/quote]
Quite the contrary, to withhold assent to a dogma that has been proposed by the Magisterium as divinely revealed is to fall into the sin of heresy. To withhold assent to a doctrine that has been proposed by the Magisterium as [i]definitive tenenda[/i] is to fall into theological error, and one who fails to give assent to a teaching proposed in this way is no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church.

If a man privately refused to assent to the dogma of the Trinity, such a man would be a heretic and would no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church, and this would be the case in spite of the fact that his error was not public knowledge.

God bless,
Todd

[jiyoung]

is it not orthodoxy, though? i mean what he would hypothetically be doing is, though he cannot understand, he follows anyway. isn't that how we are in ANY aspect of the faith? how can we even begin to try and comprehend God in all His glory? we start out going "i dont understand and i dont even know if i can accept it [intellectually] but i will practice it." but as we put our faith in God and practice the faith He gives us, though we may not understand, we are in effect obeying Him. it's faith like a child, i suppose. and this faith, by nature, seeks understanding (though does not require it). even though we don't UNDERSTAND it intellectually, we put our faith in the Church that God gave us, and in the infallibility of the pope.

this is my own fallible reason though...i'm sure the wisest thing to do is see the Church's official stance.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jiyoung' date='Jan 25 2005, 11:46 PM'] is it not orthodoxy, though? i mean what he would hypothetically be doing is, though he cannot understand, he follows anyway. isn't that how we are in ANY aspect of the faith? how can we even begin to try and comprehend God in all His glory? we start out going "i dont understand and i dont even know if i can accept it [intellectually] but i will practice it." but as we put our faith in God and practice the faith He gives us, though we may not understand, we are in effect obeying Him. it's faith like a child, i suppose. and this faith, by nature, seeks understanding (though does not require it). even though we don't UNDERSTAND it intellectually, we put our faith in the Church that God gave us, and in the infallibility of the pope.

this is my own fallible reason though...i'm sure the wisest thing to do is see the Church's official stance. [/quote]
Certainly a person may be invincibly ignorant of theoretical aspects of a specific doctrinal proposition, but a person may not withhold assent to a dogma of divine and catholic faith or a truth of catholic doctrine, because to do that is to cease being Catholic.

The thing that must be borne in mind is that living a certain way cannot save a man; instead, he is required to make an act of faith assenting to all that God has revealed or that has been definitively proposed by the Church's Magisterium, for to hold that orthopraxy without orthodoxy is salvific is to fall into the Pelagian heresy. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are inseparably bound together.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

The teaching that homosexual acts are gravely immoral is a doctrine [i]de fide tenenda[/i].