Dissent In The Church

[Dave]

A little something from the EWTN site:

FATHER ROBERT J. LEVIS COMMENTS ON DISSENT IN THE CHURCH

To sum up the official teaching of the Church:

l. If it is a teaching proclaimed by the extraordinary magisterium,

a good Catholic must assent under pain of heresy.

2. If it is a teaching proclaimed by the ordinary magisterium, e.g.

the 10 Commandments, a good Catholic must assent under pain of

serious sin.

3. If it is a teaching seriously proclaimed by the magisterium in a

non-infallible way, on a non-infallible topic, a good Catholic

must assent under pain of sin, possibly mortal. Canon 752 covers

this case, (see below).

In brief, when the official Church teaches, we must assent. If we

dissent, the gravity of the sin will depend on the gravity of the matter

involved.

You will have to consult Fr. Hans Kueng to find out when the official

Magisterium changed its teachings and on what matters. I know of none.

LET'S consider usury, a matter Kueng considers. The Church forbid its

practice for several centuries on the grounds that inanimate things can't

reproduce themselves. Money is inanimate, thus sterile. I doubt whether

reigning pontiffs of the period ever issued any statements of any weight

tantamount to an encyclical of today or even of a dogmatic declaration.

However, they did teach no usury. For a Catholic of those days to accept

usury would be a sin, a sin of disobedience, even though today's Catholic can

accept usury, or interest on capital.

For centuries, Catholics couldn't eat meat on Friday. Today they can.

When that prohibition was in force, the Magisterium was using its

authority in a seriously binding way. One sinned seriously when one ate

meat deliberately on Friday. Today, the Magisterium leaves the grave duty

of mortifying oneself up to the individual, particularly how one will

practice self-denial. The authority of the Church is involved in both

instances, but differently.

A joke was going around a few years ago on what St. Peter was to do

with those Catholics in hell because they ate meat on Friday. They are

still there, I say, because they deliberately disobeyed the Magisterium.

Stupid Catholics there are. I recall one of them saying to me some

time ago, "Well, if we can eat meat on Friday, we can get divorced and

remarried." Sorry, these folks aren't working with a full deck.

In brief and in summary, when those who have been vested with divine

authority teach in matters of faith and morals and discipline, a good

Catholic obeys. He may not like it, he may detest it, but he assents, he

obeys. He may have some question, like Mary herself at the Annunciation,

but he obeys. There is no dissent, no disobedience, no waffling in the

good Catholic.

Canon 752: While the assent of faith is not required, a

religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any

doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the college of

Bishops, exercising their authentic <magisterium,> declare upon

a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to

proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are

therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord

with that doctrine.

[Hananiah]

In brief, when the official Church teaches, we must assent. If we dissent, the gravity of the sin will depend on the gravity of the matter involved.

Unless of course the ordinary magesterium contradicts the previous teachings of the extraordinary magesterium.

[Dave]

Unless of course the ordinary magesterium contradicts the previous teachings of the extraordinary magesterium.

Ummmm . . . how could that possibly ever happen?

[Hananiah]

Ummmm . . . how could that possibly ever happen?

Well, John XXII taught that the dead would not see the beatific vision until the resurrection of the body at the last judgment. Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680). The St. Joseph edition of the NAB has Vatican approval, yet the commentary contradicts Vatican I's statement that God wrote the Bible. John Paul II has kissed the Qur'an, an action which is objectively contrary to the previous 2000 years of Catholic teaching.

[Dave]

Well, John XXII taught that the dead would not see the beatific vision until the resurrection of the body at the last judgment. Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680). The St. Joseph edition of the NAB has Vatican approval, yet the commentary contradicts Vatican I's statement that God wrote the Bible. John Paul II has kissed the Qur'an, an action which is objectively contrary to the previous 2000 years of Catholic teaching.

1. Pope John XXII -- I've never heard a thing about that. Proof?

2. That's bull about Pope Honorius. I urge you to get Patrick Madrid's book Pope Fiction. They devote an entire chapter to him.

3. I don't know what you're talking about here. Proof?

4. John Paul II's kissing of the Qur'an is NOT a way of saying that Islam is salvific. He just did it as a gesture of respect and acknowledging the truth in Islam (what little there may be -- I mean, all religions have at least a little truth in them, some more so than others, but only Catholicism has the full truth).

[Hananiah]

1. Pope John XXII -- I've never heard a thing about that. Proof?

New Advent

In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.

2. That's bull about Pope Honorius.  I urge you to get Patrick Madrid's book Pope Fiction.  They devote an entire chapter to him.

Ok.

3.  I don't know what you're talking about here.  Proof?

Compare the dogmatic teaching of the first Vatican council to the commentary in the NAB.

Vatican I

The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the Decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as Sacred and Canonical. And the Church holds them as Sacred and Canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her Authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their Author.

(Vatican Council I, Sess. III, cap. ii, DE REV.)

NAB, How to read the Bible, 4. Inspiration and Revelation

God Himslf guided (inspired) the Hebrew genius in its searching out of the mysteries of the human condition.  This guidance is called inspiration.  When this restless searching for truth and meaning culminates in unfolding one of God's mysteries, we speak of divine revelation.  This means that God reveals some aspect of Himself or the human condition in and through man's endevors to find out.  Hence, "everything in the Bible is inspired, but not everything is revealed" (Pierre Benoit).  Sometimes inspired searching for meaning leads to conclusions which cannot be qualified as revelation from God.  Think of the "holy wars" of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine.  The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional.  See Judges 1, 1-8.

Also compare Pope Leo XIII's encyclical, Providessentimus Deus

For all the books which the Church receives as Sacred and Canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not True. This is the ancient and unchanging Faith of the Church.

4. John Paul II's kissing of the Qur'an is NOT a way of saying that Islam is salvific. He just did it as a gesture of respect and acknowledging the truth in Islam (what little there may be -- I mean, all religions have at least a little truth in them, some more so than others, but only Catholicism has the full truth).

John Paul II has also invoked John the Baptist to protect Islam.

Edited February 15, 2004 by Hananiah

[Aloysius]

John Paul II has also invoked John the Baptist to protect Islam.

#1 did he say protect ISLAM or MUSLIMS? cuz we could pray for saints to protect ppl even if those ppl believe mistruths.

#2 how is that the ordinary magisterium, a pope's prayer is not his teaching...

Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter

umm... i'm not sure what you're arguing? if the Pope said ppl have perfect freedom on the matter, he had not used his authoritative ordinary magisterium there.

this artical was dealing more with disciplines that arise and decline throughout the ages. while these things prohibited were not bad in themselves, it was a sin OF DISOBEDIENCE to do them. there's no such thing as the sin of eating meat on fridays, but there is a such thing as the sin of disobeying the Church's guidance in her effort to make all her members holy.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

Unless of course the ordinary magesterium contradicts the previous teachings of the extraordinary magesterium.

Ummmm . . . how could that possibly ever happen?

what about the bad bishops and priests who told people that they could buy indulgences and all the reformation stuff. the catholic church never taught that, they said that that was bad, but some clergy didn't listen and told the people that, right? in this case, listen to the Church and not local church (i know nothing about history, so maybe i'm making this up).

[Dave]

what about the bad bishops and priests who told people that they could buy indulgences and all the reformation stuff. the catholic church never taught that, they said that that was bad, but some clergy didn't listen and told the people that, right? in this case, listen to the Church and not local church (i know nothing about history, so maybe i'm making this up).

Well, there were clergy wrongly saying that indulgences could be bought, but just because they taught that didn't mean it was a teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium that it was OK to sell indulgences.

And today, sadly there are many priests and bishops who teach that contraception is OK, that women should be ordained, and other stuff that goes against Church teaching. But it would be wrong to say that the ordinary universal magisterium teaches those things. In fact, the ordinary universal magisterium does NOT teach them.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Well, there were clergy wrongly saying that indulgences could be bought, but just because they taught that didn't mean it was a teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium that it was OK to sell indulgences.

And today, sadly there are many priests and bishops who teach that contraception is OK, that women should be ordained, and other stuff that goes against Church teaching. But it would be wrong to say that the ordinary universal magisterium teaches those things. In fact, the ordinary universal magisterium does NOT teach them.

It should be noted that the main guy in the reformation who ruffled Luther's feathers was merely a rogue priest who abused the Church's teachings on indulgences.

[Laudate_Dominum]

LET'S consider usury, a matter Kueng considers. The Church forbid its

practice for several centuries on the grounds that inanimate things can't

reproduce themselves. Money is inanimate, thus sterile. I doubt whether

reigning pontiffs of the period ever issued any statements of any weight

tantamount to an encyclical of today or even of a dogmatic declaration.

However, they did teach no usury. For a Catholic of those days to accept

usury would be a sin, a sin of disobedience, even though today's Catholic can

accept usury, or interest on capital.

What is often overlooked on the matter of usury is that the criteria for what constitutes usury differs in depending on the context. Usury is still a sin, but exactly what is considered usury is different in the context of modern economic systems as opposed to medieval social structures. This is the main flaw in the thinking of people who try to assert that the Church has changed it's teaching.