cmotherofpirl Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 I love it when people make themselves a Magisterium of one. Being a faithful CAtholic means one surrenders their flawed and imperfect arrogant intellect to the teaching authority of the Church. If you don't, you remain a protestant at heart and a CAtholic in name only. Conversion means heart mind and soul. God and the Church are not here to met your standards of proof, but to lead your butt to salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted August 7, 2003 Author Share Posted August 7, 2003 (edited) And I love it when people throw their brain out the window and dont think for themselves. one of the the reason I reject CCC 841 as a heresy, is that, aside from the Scriptural reasons I just quoted, is that it contradicts two millenia of teaching. If you're proclaiming Jesus Christ to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, with no exceptions whatsoever, for 2000 years, and then suddenly you say "Oh, well except for those Muslims that started up their "religion" in the 14th Century. They worship the same God as us", I wonder who the heretic is? The person who pulled that teaching out of thin air as an attempt to compromise with a corrupt, evil religion, or is it 2000 years of orthodox Catholic teaching? Wake up and smell the fromage, mon amie. NO COMPROMISE. The Church didn't compromise for the Protties (Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli) and their doctrinal poison. Why is the Bride of Christ compromising with the Mohammedans!!!???? Edited August 7, 2003 by ICTHUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysologus Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 But what are you REALLY saying, Don John? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysologus Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Is every part of a conciliar statement infallible, because I was under the impression that only things like "If any one saith ..., let him be anathema" and "We declare, pronounce, and define..." were infallible statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysologus Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 The Catechism's statement about Muslims in no way contradicts Jesus' claim of being the Way, the Truth, and the Life. All the Catechism says is that they worship the same God as we do, that is, God the Father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while not recognizing his Son Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. As such, they are part of God's plan because they believe in him. Theology is a lot more complicated than some people are making it out to be, and just because you read something somewhere, whether it be the Catechism, the Bible, or a church document, which seems to contradict some other Catholic teaching, doesn't mean that there is an actual contradiction. When one does encounter such a situation, instead of rejecting something as heresy, one should research it more. For instance, I'll bet that there are some modern church documents which deal specifically with the church's relationship to the Muslims in more than just passing. They might shed light on both the conciliar document Don John showed and the Catechism's seemingly "contradictory" statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanHooty Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Icthus, the Catechism says that Muslims are included in the "plan of salvation." It does not say that Muslims will be saved, that they are right, or that they have something going for them. All people, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, pagans, atheists, and et cetra, are *somehow* included in God's plan of salvation because they are *human.* And I think Chrysologus already explained the worship of the Judeo-Christian God better then I can in my sleep-deprived state. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted August 7, 2003 Author Share Posted August 7, 2003 On reconsidering, youre right Chrysologous. I'm not backing down from my current position, but I shall research the issue more. Where would you suggest I begin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysologus Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 "Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church." - Code of Canon Law 750.2 This references doctrines which are not "de fide," but are being taught by the Magisterium. This includes everything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Canon 1371 permits the Holy See to punish anyone who rejects these definitive, non-dogmatic teachings. It is a matter of obedience to the church based on the knowledge that the Magisterium would not and cannot teach something which contradicts dogma. Consequently, it is not possible that any part of the Catechism contradicts the truth, including the passage about Muslims. It is possible that the Catechism is badly worded, confusing, and/or misleading (although I don't think so), but the same is true of dogmatic statements (like the dogmatic definition at the end of Unam Sanctam, in my opinion, due to its wording which seems to leave no room for personal culpability). "Many Catholics think they are bound only to accept and believe what is infallibly presented. This is not true at all. In July 1999, the Pope came out with a Motu Proprio, called AD Tuendam Fidem, which basically states that all the doctrine of the Church commonly presented, as in the Catechism, is bound to be accepted by all the faithful, even when not infallible. E.g. The Encyclical Humanae Vitae, of 1968, forbidding artificial contraception may well not be infallible (I personally hold that it is infallible), but it still binds under pain of serious sin. Also, the 10 Commandments were never taught as infallible, but they all bind, and seriously. So, in short, we faithful must accept all the Church's teaching and the best and most convenient source of this is the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. God bless." - Fr. Bob Levis from EWTN (11/20/02) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysologus Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Considering paragraph 841 of the Catechism comes from Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican II, I recommend reading it, especially the quoted paragraph 16. It can be found here. The Catechism also references Nostra Aetate, Vatican II's Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, especially paragraph 3. This can be found here. Keep especially in mind that these documents are from the last ecumenical council, through and with which the Holy Spirit works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Crystologus ---I agree that only things which hold the anathama are infallable-- but this fits Iron monks definition of infallability and being an ecuminical Council certianly has a stronger Claim than that of the Catachism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 I'm a bit confused here, I thought that only the Holy Father, or Church Councils could declare things "infallible". While I agree that everything in the Catechism should be followed "under penalty of grave sin" this does not make it infallible. Haveing priestly celibacy is a discipline. To argue or to disobey it is a grave sin, but it is not an infallible teaching. Is this right, or am I crazy? Just trying to better understand. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 And I love it when people throw their brain out the window and dont think for themselves. one of the the reason I reject CCC 841 as a heresy, is that, aside from the Scriptural reasons I just quoted, is that it contradicts two millenia of teaching. If you're proclaiming Jesus Christ to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, with no exceptions whatsoever, for 2000 years, and then suddenly you say "Oh, well except for those Muslims that started up their "religion" in the 14th Century. They worship the same God as us", I wonder who the heretic is? The person who pulled that teaching out of thin air as an attempt to compromise with a corrupt, evil religion, or is it 2000 years of orthodox Catholic teaching? Wake up and smell the fromage, mon amie. NO COMPROMISE. The Church didn't compromise for the Protties (Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli) and their doctrinal poison. Why is the Bride of Christ compromising with the Mohammedans!!!???? So because you don't understand something, the Church is Wrong? lol THat is a very common view held by many of our protestant visitors. THey think every line of every document must be understood and agreeable and meet their standards before being acceptable. FAITH precedes understanding. I believe Lord, help my unbelief. Are you going to declare something heretical everytime you lack understanding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 And I love it when people throw their brain out the window and dont think for themselves. That's a bit harsh, considering, we do use our brains to make the discision to do what the Church says. In fact, it is in faith that we do what the Church says, but that doesn't prove or disprove whether or not we are researching what the Church has told us to do. For instance, you are researching this - and are telling cmother that it's wrong. On the other hand cmother is defending it, saying that since the Church proclaimed it, we must follow it. Cmother's statement in no way admits that she hasn't herself done considerable research on the issue. It in no way admits that she hasn't prayed or contemplated the issue. Cmother might be a PhD on the issue compared to you, yet you say she is "throwing her brain out the window" simply because she supports something the Church has proclaimed. In my opinion, you have thrown your brain out the window - but that's just pure speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 To follow up: I for one declare that whatever the Church requires me to do, I will do. And all that the Church has required me to do thus far, I have done to the best of my ability. And although in faith I have done and will do what the Church has or will tell me to do... There has never been an instance where I have thoroughly researched one such issue and found it to be in any way contradictory to Scripture or Tradition or to the Teachings of the Magesterium. I have indeed been confused at times, but the confusion was due to my lack of understanding - and in no way connected to an error of the Church. Remember - the Church, the Body of Christ, is DIVINE in origin. She is the Bride of Christ! We are not, we are simply humans. It may take a while to fully understand some of the Teachings of the Church. But as we stand in disbelief, we must believe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysologus Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Clerical celibacy isn't a matter of doctrine at all, so it can't be infallible. It's just a discipline. 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