Is the G.I.R.M. anathematized by Trent?

[brendan1104]

[quote name='jasJis' post='957500' date='Apr 22 2006, 11:45 PM']
Where's the Dogma list?
[/quote]

Here's a partial list. Can anyone contribute anything else?

Everything contained in the various approved Creeds- e.g. Nicene, Apostolic, Athanasian...

Anything defined ex cathedra, including:

The Incarnation
The Redemption
The Resurrection
The Real Presence/Transubstantiation
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Immaculate Conception
The Assumption
No salvation outside the Church.
Papal infallibility...

Edited April 23, 2006 by brendan1104

[jasJis]

How do I know you're right? Isn't the an official Dogma List posted on the Vatican website?

[brendan1104]

The Code of Canon Law is not dogmatic, though the codes may be inspired. For example the Holy Spirit inspired the religious order's founders rules, so It may have inspired the canonists in their canons... besides it's been papally promulgated- infallibly or not, I'm not sure.

[quote name='jasJis' post='957508' date='Apr 22 2006, 11:51 PM']
How do I know you're right? Isn't the an official Dogma List posted on the Vatican website?
[/quote]

anyone here will tell you I am. I don't think there's a list on vatican.va, no.

[jasJis]

You seemed sure that it was infallible and not to be changed in your response to Raphie. But we digress, you threw Dogmatically Defined in there too. I was looking for the Dogma List. I didn't find it in the Catholic Defense Directory. Can you provide the link?

Edit to add.

Our posts crossed in cyberspace. I don't want to seem rude, because you did respond.

Anyone here? Anyone, or one particular person. I was Catholic for a long time, though never a good or smart one, so I'm sure I'm missing some important bits. Who's posting on PhatMass that's an Apostle or the Mouth of God? I mean, if there are certain Dogma's, wouldn't there be a list or a clear definition? But if it's carried in the vesself of all our minds, why didn't I get my bit when I was fully embraced by the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm so confused now. Before I thought I was just dumb. Please help me.

Edited April 23, 2006 by jasJis

[brendan1104]

[quote name='jasJis' post='957510' date='Apr 22 2006, 11:54 PM']
You seemed sure that it was infallible and not to be changed in your response to Raphie. But we digress, you threw Dogmatically Defined in there too. I was looking for the Dogma List. I didn't find it in the Catholic Defense Directory. Can you provide the link?
[/quote]

To what are you referring?

I don't think there is a complete dogma list anywhere.

It seems that when you were in the Church you weren't properly catechized or you left before any catechesis.

Edited April 23, 2006 by brendan1104

[jasJis]

[quote name='brendan1104' post='957512' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:57 PM']
To what are you referring?

I don't think there is a complete dogma list anywhere.

It seems that when you were in the Church you weren't properly catechized or you left before any catechesis.
[/quote]But they way you are describing it. So sure and everything. Dang. 12 years of Catholic education, 40+ years as a member, 4 years teaching it and answering questions. I must be an idiot savant, but very light on the savant part.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='jasJis' post='957510' date='Apr 22 2006, 11:54 PM']
Anyone here? Anyone, or one particular person. I was Catholic for a long time, though never a good or smart one, so I'm sure I'm missing some important bits. Who's posting on PhatMass that's an Apostle or the Mouth of God? I mean, if there are certain Dogma's, wouldn't there be a list or a clear definition? But if it's carried in the vesself of all our minds, why didn't I get my bit when I was fully embraced by the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm so confused now. Before I thought I was just dumb. Please help me.
[/quote]


I googled for a list and I found one for Marian dogmas and doctrines, but not a complete general list.

Listen, Phatmass doesn't have God or the Apostles. But we do have trusted, competent members who have received degrees from orthodox, authentic Catholic insitutions of theology, philosophy, divinity, church history, the bible, exegesis, etc. As for me, I am only a Catholic who has studied the Catechism, and I am only beginning serious extensive study, and God-willing I will one day be a priest.

You're not dumb, and we're here to help. Ask in Questions and Answers about a list of all dogmas, and feel free to post in the various threads, asking questions, etc.



[quote name='jasJis' post='957515' date='Apr 23 2006, 12:00 AM']
But they way you are describing it. So sure and everything. Dang. 12 years of Catholic education, 40+ years as a member, 4 years teaching it and answering questions. I must be an idiot savant, but very light on the savant part.
[/quote]

So you're in your 40's/50's... well that would make sense. Did you receive your education in the Vatican II/post Vatican II years, like I said it seems like improper/poor/unorthodox catechesis. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Edited April 23, 2006 by brendan1104

[jasJis]

I needed the chuckle, Chuckles. I'm member number 10. I was here at phatmass when you were probablly learning to tinkle standing up. (By the way, I was one of the first Church Militants before I burned my draft card. : )

The point is, you aren't as smart as you think, nor know as much as you want to believe. You have to dig a lot deeper to find the Church contradicting itself in official writings.

I like honesty. I believe I petitioned dUSt, or supported him, when the idea of labeling people like you as 'phishy'.

Edited April 23, 2006 by jasJis

[brendan1104]

[quote name='jasJis' post='957522' date='Apr 23 2006, 12:08 AM']
I needed the chuckle, Chuckles. I'm member number 10. I was here at phatmass when you were probablly learning to tinkle standing up. (By the way, I was one of the first Church Militants before I burned my draft card. : )

The point is, you aren't as smart as you think, nor know as much as you want to believe. You have to dig a lot deeper to find the Church contradicting itself in official writings.

I like honesty. I believe I petitioned dUSt, or supported him, when the idea of labeling people like you as 'phishy'.
[/quote]



I should've recognized you. Anyways nobody's as smart as they think they are. I'm not as smart as Cam, for example. Boy oh boy you fooled me.

And all's I did when I joined was saying that I sympathized/supported the SSPX and that I went to their Masses. That's why I'm phishy.

Edited April 23, 2006 by brendan1104

[qfnol31]

I'd like to make a quick response here.

[quote]If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.[/quote]

Actually here it only says that if anyone denies the Rite of the Roman Church is to be condemned...let him be anathema. According to the Rite the canon and words of Consecration are pronounced in a low tone, but I think that's more a point of reference rather than the Rite. It's not defining the Rite as to what it should be, but rather just showing what it says. (Why, I haven't the foggiest). If it had mandated that the Canon be allowed to be spoken quietly it would have put it later when it condemns people who say that it should only be in the vernacular. It doesn't and doesn't actually condemn it, but uses a relative clause that has very little to do with the condemnations.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='brendan1104' post='957477' date='Apr 22 2006, 09:25 PM']
"An infallible statement requires more than simply being ex cathedra." That's heresy! Ex cathedra is infallibility, and vice-versa, for all intensive purposes.[/quote]
Last time I checked, an infallible papal statement required that it be an ex cathedra statement on faith or morals. Liturgical form is neither of those.

You cannot equate ex cathedra with infallibility, though they are related.

Anyway, like I said...the Church is not bound to her own non-infallible definitions. Because discipline never falls under the blanket of infallibility, the Church is never bound to the disciplines she imposes. Members of the Church are, yes, but the Church as a whole is free to change her disciplines through the magisterium.

As for Quo Primum, which is a similar situation, you need only look at the context. The document was forbidding aberrations from the established form of the Mass by priests who were looking to do their own thing, not restricting the ability of the Universal Church to change the form of the Mass.

Context and the use of language can provide tricky situations. You'd better learn the historical context as well as the original languages if you want to be a good theologian. Look at the early Church for evidence...one council establishes a certain Christological term, another condemns it...why? Because the semantic range of the term itself had changed over time to include things not originally meant by the Church and the Church had to clarify. The Church didn't change anything...it just changed the language...because the language it was using changed.

So it is with the liturgy.

Any attempt to reduce the liturgy to a mere formula is an attempt to deny that the Church is alive. Go read Mediator Dei...it's pre-conciliar...and it will tell you in plain language that the Mass is a living thing, not a dead set of rubrics.

Don't proclaim the death of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ and Christ is risen. Alleluia.

[qfnol31]

Although Papal Magisterium requires Ex Cathedra, there are other types of infallibility, such as the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and extraordinary councils.

[jswranch]

Jasjis, I am impressed and pleased by your open questioning. You ask for some great proofs. I would like to see your conversion story/testimony. However, (in my semi-enlightened perception) I find it unwise for you to have left the church on the grounds you have provided (so far). There are truths the RC church holds you do not fully understand or agree. You have questions. Fine, so do I. But I remain faithful and obedient while not agreeing or understanding all. If I were to shake my fist at heaven on these matters, heaven might respond, "Do not worry yourself with such knowledge; continue your vocation. Discerning the finite details of the truths revealed by God is not what brings you closer to me." I am not to sit in the dirt, refusing to move along the path of truth, slowed by my own unquenchable curiosity. As having been recently received into the church, "I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God." This includes the dogma that the church serves as God's provided path of grace. He wishes all to cling to her for better or worse, for richer or poorer, till death eternally binds us all in heaven. However, I do not necessarily understand it all, but I am allowed to ask questions.

Anyways,....
[quote name='jasJis' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:45 PM' post='957500']
Where's the Dogma list?[/quote]

...here is [u][b]a[/b][/u] dogma list. It is a summation of a widely recognized book on the subject.
[url="http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-IV-Mother"]http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-IV-Mother[/url]

I use '[b][u]a[/u][/b] dogma list' because no 'dogma list' has ever been defined (provided by the magisterium). The number of items listed here is 252. (It is missing the invalidity of women's ordination, via JPII.) Granted some items listed are considered 'proxima fide' vice dogma, but that issue will not be addressed here. I hope this helps. For further detail, the canons of the 21 councils are considered to be infallible on faith and morals. The book Denzinger also quotes papal decrees [url="http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/store.ItemDetails/SKU/475/"]http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/Fu...etails/SKU/475/[/url]. Denzinger is used as a reference by the Vatican.
[quote] ...[where is a dogma list?]....Who's posting on PhatMass that's an Apostle or the Mouth of God? [/quote] I will not accept this title, but will settle for induction as "Third order Engineer in Google-Copy-Link Apostolate of the Child Jesus"

FYI, I almost never use the vatican website for documents. Use [url="http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp"]http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp[/url]
though it is not smooth.

Let me [s]pick at[/s] discuss some of your pervious posts. :
[quote name='jasJis' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:35 PM' post='957488']
Outside of Grace there is not salvation. [/quote]
Amen. I could not agree more.


[quote] The Roman Catholic Church is not the only source of grace. [/quote]
Wrong. God is the only source of grace. I really do not know where you got this one. The Catholic Church does in no way claim this one. The Catholic Church claims God merely ordained the CC to distribute the sacraments of grace on earth. Other communities (with a valid priesthood) may also validly distribute these sacraments. This is a very important distinction to make. However, there remains a problem with separation from the chair of Peter and the truths it proclaims. Since you did not bring this topic up here, neither will I.

[quote] Besides, I've been baptized... [/quote]
Excellent, you are a brother Christian. However, valid baptism is not the only requirement for assured salvation. I can give further evidence if queried.

[quote]...I don't have to choose to belong to a... temporal club to know God.[/quote] Whoa. This statement contains [u]partial truth[/u] and [u]some error[/u].
Partial truth:
One does not have to belong to any church, much less be a Christian, to learn of God and to seek his nature. (See NOSTRA AETATE [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2non.htm)"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2non.htm)[/url]. God has made knowledge of himself revealed to man in various ways from the beginning of man. We are to cling to these truths and investigate them to the fullest possible extent. In more recent times, God sent Jesus, his son and his substance, to provide us a more complete knowledge and union with God/himself (among other purposes). This is a new knowledge for all.

Some error:
We are to be members in a temporal club. As seen above, this new knowledge or "New Testiment," we have been blessed with tools to include Sacred Scripture for binding ourselves to the creator. Sacred Scripture is to be weighed along side our other tools. Sacred Scripture by itself tells us we need to be part of a church or 'temporal club.' I challenge anyone's attempt to use Sacred Scripture prove the church is not physical or temporal. I challenge anyone to use Sacred Scripture to show membership or 'belonging' is not required. I profess that membership in the church is required by Sacred Scripture. If you believe Sacred Scripture does not apply, we will need a different discussion.

[quote]You're not the first one to be so 'blunt'.[/quote]
Jesus too was blunt. He also engaged in 'socially unacceptable' behaviour.

[quote]hateful legalistic temporal club[/quote]
Ouch! I have a hard time seeing how the same body that brought you DEUS CARITAS EST is a hatefull club. Tell us how. What is intolerable to the Catholic Church that is tolerable to God? As for legalism, show me the Catholic Church is any more legalistic than the church Christ set up. Even if we can conclude Jesus and the Apostles promoted fewer 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' for the faithfull than the Catholic Church, it fails to prove the current Catholic Church 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' are not the will of God nor do we disprove that such rules are not binding on Christians. But you may always try.

[quote] ....[prove] the Catholic Church's 'Canon Law [is] Inspired by God' like the Bible...[/quote]
I can't. No one can. More importantly, no one claims it is "inspired by God like the Bible." Briefly described, the Code of Canon Law a list of 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' from the above paragraph.

[quote]12 years of Catholic education, 40+ years as a member, 4 years teaching it and answering questions. I must be an idiot savant, but very light on the savant part.[/quote]Nearly every major heresy in church history was started by the ordained. These folks had more Catholic Church theology experience than you and they still started great error. Your experience "40+ years.." is a blessing, however it in no way means you know it all.

[quote] I'm so confused now. Before I thought I was just dumb. Please help me. [/quote]
God bless you brother. Blessed is he who blieves but has not seen. Keep your head up. Sometimes we all stumble in some way. Seek God, for God seeks you. Even some of the greatest saints doubted. Let us all keep talking this confusion out.

[jasJis]

[code]We are to be members in a temporal club. As seen above, this new knowledge or "New Testiment," we have been blessed with tools to include Sacred Scripture for binding ourselves to the creator. Sacred Scripture is to be weighed along side our other tools. Sacred Scripture by itself tells us we need to be part of a church or 'temporal club.' I challenge anyone's attempt to use Sacred Scripture prove the church is not physical or temporal. I challenge anyone to use Sacred Scripture to show membership or 'belonging' is not required. I profess that membership in the church is required by Sacred Scripture. If you believe Sacred Scripture does not apply, we will need a different discussion.

Ouch! I have a hard time seeing how the same body that brought you DEUS CARITAS EST is a hatefull club. Tell us how. What is intolerable to the Catholic Church that is tolerable to God? As for legalism, show me the Catholic Church is any more legalistic than the church Christ set up. Even if we can conclude Jesus and the Apostles promoted fewer 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' for the faithfull than the Catholic Church, it fails to prove the current Catholic Church 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' are not the will of God nor do we disprove that such rules are not binding on Christians. But you may always try.
I can't. No one can. More importantly, no one claims it is "inspired by God like the Bible." Briefly described, the Code of Canon Law a list of 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' from the above paragraph. [/code] Seemingly a thorough job, but you missed much of the sarcasm. I don't deny the Church is physical and temporally present. Let's look at the Church's definition of Church and then make a judgement. Please clarify Catholic Church is not the only Church. I don't have a hard time seeing that the same body that brought me knowledge of grace does not practice what it preaches. What is tolerable to the Catholic Church many not be tolerable to God. Did not the Jews finally seperate themselves from God and do much that is intolerable to God. Hateful? What did the Catholic Church preach direct how the Jews were to be treated until it changed? Only a lawyer's words will twist that to nothing. The Church was corrected, but would it have been wrong of me to treat a Jew like a person in 1382? Wrong by whose standards? It the Church has temporal status, it has corruptibility. I did not say complete corruptness, nor, I asssume, do you claim the Church is completely infallible in everything.

I don't worship the temporal Church.

[MichaelFilo]

I'd rag on you, because I love you, but I'm sure the army of Church Faithful and Militant will rush you with a divulge of posts, and EENS will throw some comment about your eternal damnation (I am assuming all this, and I love EENS so much I pick on him), but I'd really like to do be the first to do either.

The Church, with it's multidues throughout so many ages has promiesd the charism of infalliablity to two areas, dogma and morality, and then has perserved to a select group throughout the ages. If one Pope calls the Jews subhumans, thats one Popes deal, it is outside of his jurisdiction as to the nature of the Jew's humaniy. The Church can be corrupted at it's highest levels (Go go Pope Julius II and Alexander IV, Cardinal Mahony, etc (but certainly, I do not mean to criticize them, but only to submit to the general criticism of the age about these men whose hearts I do not know, and whose intentions I know very little about)). Regardless, from a theological standpoint, you can hardly disagree (with reason) with the Church's claim to teach absolute Truths in the matters of Faith and morality. However, humanity corrupts, as it has been corrupted itself, the Bride of Christ, but luckily we cannot corrupt the Spirit, which safegaurds these things of the Church by mere strings (or so it seems at time).

In conclusion, if you know it's got the Truth, make it your home. IF you don't think that, then theres space for a new thread (the modernists here love the threads, as the meaningless one's crop up everywhere, and the one's worth arguing about get shutdown (just kidding mods, sort of)). And while worshipping the Church is wrong, it is the only source of Grace (salvic primarily, but all other spiritual Graces come through Her since Her establishment). That is the nature of God's Church, the pillar of all Truth, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ (and thats just from the Bible, wait until you hear what She has to say about Herself). So, if you hope to get to Heaven, even those who escape the requirement for an actual Baptism, are baptized in some other form and join the Mystical Body (that is the Church). Extra eccalsiam non Salus, and you know it.

God bless,
Mikey