Cam42 Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='May 18 2005, 03:24 PM'] So you agree that Socrates was wrong. Karl Rahner (thank you, Myles) was never declared to be a heretic. The really neat part of being a cleric with authority over others is that you can "silence" them if you disagree with them. This, of course, has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong. [/quote] No, actually, I agree with Socrates. Karl Rahner SJ taught what was contrary to the Faith. He taught heresy. He was a heretic. He was rehabilitated by Paul VI after being silenced by John XXIII. He again entered into heterodoxy by holding views that were contrary to Catholic teaching. Heretical views. He held that women's ordination was acceptable and that Humanae Vitae was not a valid expression of Catholic Faith. Those are both heretical notions. For what is heresy? [quote]"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same...." (CCC 2089)[/quote] Duh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Cam42' date='May 18 2005, 05:29 PM'] No, actually, I agree with Socrates. Karl Rahner SJ taught what was contrary to the Faith. He taught heresy. He was a heretic. He was rehabilitated by Paul VI after being silenced by John XXIII. He again entered into heterodoxy by holding views that were contrary to Catholic teaching. Heretical views. He held that women's ordination was acceptable and that Humanae Vitae was not a valid expression of Catholic Faith. Those are both heretical notions. For what is heresy? Duh.... [/quote] Any evidence this time CAM? Edited May 18, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest goingcatholic Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 I believe he was a wonderful man and was inspired by the Holy Spirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='May 18 2005, 06:18 PM'] Any evidence this time CAM? [/quote] Does it really matter what I post? You won't believe it anyway.... I know you twisty noodle. However, to show the other Catholics who are orthodox: The Heresy that Rahner and his contemporaries Congar, Curran, deChardin, et al., subscribe to is MODERNISM. I suggest that you find a copy of the book [i]Turmoil and Truth[/i] by Phillip Trower. It does the best job possible in explaining all of this. Here is one of his books..... [url="http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=524"]The Christian of the Future by Karl Rahner[/url] (disclaimer: In no way do I condone or support this work. It is heterodox and simply offered as a proof to the heterodox teaching of Karl Rahner.) Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Incidentally, I have always provided proof....you are the one who is lacking, brother Littleles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='May 18 2005, 04:22 AM']Errors which adversely affect the lives of people should be corrected![/quote] What are these "errors which adversely affect the lives of people"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Cam42' date='May 18 2005, 09:01 PM'] Incidentally, I have always provided proof....you are the one who is lacking, brother Littleles. [/quote] You've provided no "proof." Rather typically, only assertions without evidence which you then claim to be proof. As in the case with Rathner. Edited May 19, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 [quote name='Archangel' date='May 19 2005, 02:21 AM'] What are these "errors which adversely affect the lives of people"? [/quote] I'm afraid that to answer this question properly, we would have to start its own thread. But lets take a few: (1) The objection on moral grounds to tolerating the use of condoms to limit the spread of AIDs to the wifes and newborn of HIV positive persons. (2) "Silencing" publications of any moral views other than those of the present hierarchy. (3) Continuing to ascribe an inferior status of women. (4) Failing to reexamine it's views on homosexuality. (5) Failure to more thoroughly examine its views on birth control etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 (edited) [quote name='goingcatholic' date='May 18 2005, 06:33 PM'] I believe he was a wonderful man and was inspired by the Holy Spirt. [/quote] But CAM tells us that Rahner was silenced for heresy! As reported in our newspapers, Jesuit Father Thomas J. Reese, familiar to most Americans as the commentator on the events at the recent conclave, and the editor of "America" magazine, was force to resign that post as editor by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Traditionally, the Catholic hierarchy "silences" anyone over which it has authority who questions the party line or insists on accountability (as in the managemnt of the recent sex abuse scandal). It doesn't want its "true believers" (aka "loyal Catholics" or "simple faithful") to ask questions. Just accept what they are told. What was Reese's misdeed? As the editor of America, he sometimes allowed views other than current strictly orthodox ones to be published. As "Commonweal" another Catholic magazine wrote in a recent editorial: "Those calling for the strict regulation od Catholic discourse argue that public dissent from church doctrine creates scandal, confusing the "simple faithful." What really gives scandal to the people in the pews, however, is the arbitrary and self-serving exercise of ecclesiastical authority." Edited May 19, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 All the reasons you mentioned are heretical and underscore Cam's point. The Church silences dissidents for heresy not for honest intellectual debate but for going beyond the boundaries of that debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='May 18 2005, 11:56 PM']I'm afraid that to answer this question properly, we would have to start its own thread. But lets take a few: (1) The objection on moral grounds to tolerating the use of condoms to limit the spread of AIDs to the wifes and newborn of HIV positive persons. (2) "Silencing" publications of any moral views other than those of the present hierarchy. (3) Continuing to ascribe an inferior status of women. (4) Failing to reexamine it's views on homosexuality. (5) Failure to more thoroughly examine its views on birth control etc.[/quote] They don't "adversely affect" devout Catholics. Why must the Church be the one to alter its teachings and beliefs? Why not the ones who have issues? If someone has any issues, they can leave and join some other "party line", such as the Middle East (and have an issue with 3) or the military (and have an issue with 3 and 4), etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 [quote name='Myles' date='May 19 2005, 04:14 AM'] All the reasons you mentioned are heretical and underscore Cam's point. The Church silences dissidents for heresy not for honest intellectual debate but for going beyond the boundaries of that debate. [/quote] No Myles, as in Fr. Reese's case, it is for allowing any debate at all. Current Catholic teachings are the only thing permitted. At least until they change. But, there's the rub, how will errors be corrected if debate isn't allowed? We don't want to confuse the "simple faithful" now do we? LittleLes If Galileo were a member of the clergy who could have been effectively silenced, we would still have to believe the Church's scriptural interpretation that the earth doesn't move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Archangel' date='May 19 2005, 04:26 AM'] They don't "adversely affect" devout Catholics. Why must the Church be the one to alter its teachings and beliefs? Why not the ones who have issues? If someone has any issues, they can leave and join some other "party line", such as the Middle East (and have an issue with 3) or the military (and have an issue with 3 and 4), etc. [/quote] Now I see. No open discussion in Catholicism. Only "true believers" who never question and always accept the party line. Is that your view? Edited May 19, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 [quote]Now I see. No open discussion in Catholicism. Only "true believers" who never question and always accept the party line. Is that your view? [/quote] Depends on the issue doesnt it? Women's ordination for example has been ruled out by Mother Church's disclaimer that she has no authority to do such things. Therefore continued 'discussion' of the topics by Catholics is superflous at best and sedition at worse. Vatican II's document 'Lumen Gentium' paragraph 25 spells out what Catholics' responsibilities are and if they feel their conscience tells them otherwise maybe they should read 'Gaudeum et Spes' paragraph 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='May 19 2005, 12:30 AM'] Now I see. No open discussion in Catholicism. Only "true believers" who never question and always accept the party line. Is that your view? [/quote] There was discussion. 2000 years' worth. And the Church has arrived at God's Truths. Do you allow anyone to question your party line? Or do they have to accept it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now