Do you accept

[JustJump]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='01 June 2010 - 08:04 PM' timestamp='1275437075' post='2122376']
Correct. Kind of.

The question asks:
Do you accept that the Catholic Church could possibly be wrong, and Christ still is true, and nature is true?

Do I believe the Church could be wrong and Christ could still be the Son of God? No, I do not. If the Church is wrong, Christianity is wrong, and I am a non-believer.
[/quote]

Okay that clears some stuff up, thank you.

I don't think I can agree with you on the last bit though. If the Church is wrong, well then it's wrong, I don't get how that inherently makes Christ wrong. God isn't wrong, but we as His people are wrong about things all the time. (I'm not really talking "big picture" here, like saying that the Church is wrong that God is good and loves us and that we should love Him and others.)

Edited June 2, 2010 by JustJump

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='JustJump' date='02 June 2010 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1275436538' post='2122370']
I never said that celebrating the mass in different ways fails or succeeds...And I agree that celebrating the mass as best we can is the important thing.

And I am a member of the Church because it encompasses the Truth, by which I was implying that I do believe that the Church's "end result" (big picture, main goal, etc) is right. I believe in God and I choose to follow Him. Yes, I think Truth is victorious. I don't think God would call people to the Church to see it fail either.
[/quote]
I wasn't actually disagreeing with anything you wrote, just waffling as usual. The question is a bit confusing, because it does not state in regard to what. The Church teaches Christianity, therefore for the church to be wrong and Christianity to be right is an impossible situation. So USAirways has given a correct answer. As usual I probably jumped in without thinking, considering it applying to more minor details like Mass procedures and rules and regulations.

[JustJump]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='01 June 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1275443478' post='2122459']
I wasn't actually disagreeing with anything you wrote, just waffling as usual. The question is a bit confusing, because it does not state in regard to what. The Church teaches Christianity, therefore for the church to be wrong and Christianity to be right is an impossible situation. So USAirways has given a correct answer. As usual I probably jumped in without thinking, considering it applying to more minor details like Mass procedures and rules and regulations.
[/quote]


Okay, so I understand that view from a logical perspective now. Makes sense. Guess it all depends how big picture we're speaking. I was assuming that we weren't simply saying the Church is Christianity so if the Church is wrong so is Christianity. Sometimes things are simplier than they appear [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/doh.gif[/img]

But I now question why this is a question if it's just logic? church = christianity, thus if church = wrong, then christianit = wrong

Edited June 2, 2010 by JustJump

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='JustJump' date='02 June 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1275444306' post='2122476']
Okay, so I understand that view from a logical perspective now. Makes sense. Guess it all depends how big picture we're speaking. I was assuming that we weren't simply saying the Church is Christianity so if the Church is wrong so is Christianity. Sometimes things are simplier than they appear [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/doh.gif[/img]

But I now question why this is a question if it's just logic? church = christianity, thus if church = wrong, then christianit = wrong
[/quote]

Dairygirlism!

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='JustJump' date='01 June 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1275443321' post='2122454']
I don't think I can agree with you on the last bit though. If the Church is wrong, well then it's wrong, I don't get how that inherently makes Christ wrong. God isn't wrong, but we as His people are wrong about things all the time. (I'm not really talking "big picture" here, like saying that the Church is wrong that God is good and loves us and that we should love Him and others.)
[/quote]
The protestant ecclesial communities (and the Orthodox, for that matter) split directly from the Church.

If the Church is wrong, even on one thing, then the "house of cards" effect happens - because She says that she is infallible, if She turns out to be wrong, even on one matter, then She is clearly fallible, meaning that She is false (due to the infallibility being an obvious lie (and would someone who was allegedly the Son of God found a Church based on lies?)). If the Church is false, then I don't know how the rest of Christianity (the lesser Christianity, if you will), which directly split from what would consequently be a falsehood, could still be taken seriously as being true.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='03 June 2010 - 07:43 AM' timestamp='1275507787' post='2122810']
If the Church is wrong, even on one thing, then the "house of cards" effect happens - because She says that she is infallible, if She turns out to be wrong, even on one matter, then She is clearly fallible, .
[/quote]
What do you mean by infallible? When we had this discussion once before, I made some enquiries and was told that infallibility only relates to the main things such as the Jesus history. (Christianity) There are things which the Church (Some have, some haven't) has changed it's views on. E.G. The fate of un-baptised infants. The Vatican website seems to indicate that the Church has never made a determination on this, entrusting it to God's intelligence, compassion, sense of fairness or whatever. However many Catholics seem to be split on whether Limbo is or was a Church teaching or not. People may dispute this example as not making the Church infallible. But if we are to take a strict definition of infallible it should be that no procedure or teaching should ever have been changed and it should be clearly understood and fence sitting is not acceptable either. I can only assume that you are referring to the Magisterium as being infallible, which I think I could accept. But the Magisterium is only the head of the Church, there are many places throughout the world where there are differences in procedures or teaching. On the limbo thread someone claimed that a priest had stated to a bereaved parent that a baby was in limbo. Priests and people are the body of the Church so when a priest makes an incorrect statement in the name of Catholicism he brings the Church into error albeit only minor. Therefore overall the Church is not infallible. And I think this is what we are discussing here and should be the subject of the poll.
The poll should be clearer in what it is asking such as
[u]Is the Church fundamental principles and teachings infallible[/u]- My answer would be yes, because it teaches Christianity which is truth.
[u]Is the Church throughout the world infallible. That is, whatever a priest says or does is correct by default[/u]- My answer is no, Priests are human make mistakes and in worst cases satan has its impostors and false prophets.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='02 June 2010 - 08:06 PM' timestamp='1275523587' post='2122921']
What do you mean by infallible? When we had this discussion once before, I made some enquiries and was told that infallibility only relates to the main things such as the Jesus history. (Christianity) There are things which the Church (Some have, some haven't) has changed it's views on. E.G. The fate of un-baptised infants. The Vatican website seems to indicate that the Church has never made a determination on this, entrusting it to God's intelligence, compassion, sense of fairness or whatever. However many Catholics seem to be split on whether Limbo is or was a Church teaching or not. People may dispute this example as not making the Church infallible. But if we are to take a strict definition of infallible it should be that no procedure or teaching should ever have been changed and it should be clearly understood and fence sitting is not acceptable either. I can only assume that you are referring to the Magisterium as being infallible, which I think I could accept. But the Magisterium is only the head of the Church, there are many places throughout the world where there are differences in procedures or teaching. On the limbo thread someone claimed that a priest had stated to a bereaved parent that a baby was in limbo. Priests and people are the body of the Church so when a priest makes an incorrect statement in the name of Catholicism he brings the Church into error albeit only minor. Therefore overall the Church is not infallible. And I think this is what we are discussing here and should be the subject of the poll.
The poll should be clearer in what it is asking such as
[u]Is the Church fundamental principles and teachings infallible[/u]- My answer would be yes, because it teaches Christianity which is truth.
[u]Is the Church throughout the world infallible. That is, whatever a priest says or does is correct by default[/u]- My answer is no, Priests are human make mistakes and in worst cases satan has its impostors and false prophets.
[/quote]
We have to remember that the Church and her constituents are not the same thing. Limbo has been abolished, but this idea was never defined as infallible. A lot of priests teach things that are questionable, or that are just straight up wrong. My priest, for instance, told me that one was not permitted to receive communion while kneeling ( ). This does not mean that the Church was wrong, simply that the priest was wrong. Similarly, bishops, cardinals, and the pope (when not speaking ex cathedra) are all open to error. The Church is protected from error only on those things which have been proclaimed in an infallible manner (i.e. the doctrines as defined through the 21 ecumenical councils of the Church).

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='02 June 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1275528449' post='2122962']
We have to remember that the Church and her constituents are not the same thing.[b] Limbo has been abolished[/b], but this idea was never defined as infallible. A lot of priests teach things that are questionable, or that are just straight up wrong. My priest, for instance, told me that one was not permitted to receive communion while kneeling ( ). This does not mean that the Church was wrong, simply that the priest was wrong. Similarly, bishops, cardinals, and the pope (when not speaking ex cathedra) are all open to error. The Church is protected from error only on those things which have been proclaimed in an infallible manner (i.e. the doctrines as defined through the 21 ecumenical councils of the Church).
[/quote]
Rexi's gonna eat you.

[Vincent Vega]

Ok, fine, Limbo of the Infants, not Limbo of the Fathers.

It was contextual.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='02 June 2010 - 11:15 PM' timestamp='1275538511' post='2123017']
Ok, fine, Limbo of the Infants, not Limbo of the Fathers.

It was contextual.
[/quote]
Same deal- he'll still eat you.

Have you been living in a hole or something?

Edited June 3, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='03 June 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1275537813' post='2123010']
Rexi's gonna eat you.


[/quote]

Lawl!

There is an important distinction to be made, in terms of things like limbo, eating meat on Friday, etc. There is a difference between a discipline and a doctrine. A doctrine is an infallible declaration of the Church in the matters of faith and morals to which a member is bound to give their assent of faith. Whether that is made by the Holy Father in his office ex cathedra, or by a declaration of the Magisterium, those are things which Catholics may not dissent from. However, there are teachings and devotions which are considered to be disciplines, on which there is no definitive teaching, and to which no particular assent of faith is due from the faithful. For example, Friday is recognized as a universal day of penitential observance, but after V2 the observation of abstinence from meat on every Friday was abrogated. However, the observance of penance on that day was not. Does that mean that because the Church required its faithful to abstain from meat on Fridays at one point, and then, at a later date, changed the observance of a penitential discipline, mean that its teachings were wrong? No. It simply means that the Church has recognized that the day of penitential observance may be honored and contemplated in a better way by some people in some manner that doesn't involve consuming meat.

As far as limbo (of infants), the teaching is not defined by the Church. There is neither a declaration requiring someone to believe it nor one disallowing belief. It is simply an undefined concept. While the deposit of faith may never be altered, it is possible for the Church to revise and refine its teaching positions and practice of devotions for the benefit of the faithful. Our Church is built on the rock, founded on an immutable God, but it must continue to grow with the needs of the flock.

Hope that distinction helps clarify things.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Marie-Therese

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='03 June 2010 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1275538900' post='2123025']


As far as limbo (of infants), the teaching is not defined by the Church. There is neither a declaration requiring someone to believe it nor one disallowing belief. It is simply an undefined concept. While the deposit of faith may never be altered, it is possible for the Church to revise and refine its teaching positions and practice of devotions for the benefit of the faithful. Our Church is built on the rock, founded on an immutable God, but it must continue to grow with the needs of the flock.

Hope that distinction helps clarify things.
[/quote]
Phphew it's a relief to read that!!! Nihil almost caused me to have an anxiety attack.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='02 June 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1275528449' post='2122962']
Limbo has been abolished, but this idea was never defined as infallible. [/quote]

Wrong.

You should not trust sensationalist news articles, especially about specialized subjects like Catholic theology.

The document that the media said "abolished limbo" was not an authoritative document of the Magisterium. It was not published in the[i] Acta Apostolicæ Sedis[/i], the publication in which official acts of the Holy See are published (N.B., the [i]Acta Apostolicæ Sedis[/i] can be found on the Vatican [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index_en.htm"]website[/url]). In fact the International Theological Commission itself is not an authoritative teaching body, rather it is an advisory commission that carries out theological studies. If a person wants to say that infants' limbo has been "abolished" and is no longer an acceptable theological view or a Catholic to hold, that person had better find an explicit condemnation of infants' limbo by the Magisterium of the Church.

Additionally, if you actually read the study carried out by the International Theological Commission, you would see that the text of the study never describes infants' limbo as an unacceptable opinion for a Catholic to hold, let alone does it abolish it!

Edited June 3, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Vincent Vega]

K.

[Resurrexi]

From the study done by the advisory commission:

"It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. [b]It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.[/b]" (International Theological Commission, [i]The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized[/i], my emphasis).