 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
kololam77
Banned
| Joined: | Tue Aug 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Berlin, Germany |
| Posts: | 67 |
| First Name: | Matthew | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | catholic, nothing, charismatic evangelical, conservative lutheran, conservative evangelical - moving ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 04:58 pm |
|
Can someone help me to figure out:
1st......the differences between the two.
THEN
2nd.....examples of such (i.e. what constitutes dogma? - papal ex cathedra statements, ecumenical council statements, encyclicals, the cathecism of the RCC, - what?
Also.......
Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the first 7 ecumenical councils and how many after these have they held - who attends?
____________________
There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved other than the name of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 07:16 pm |
|
My answer was basically given in my reply to the infallibility thread: the four levels of authority. Most teachings that you would be considering in possibly returning to the Church would be binding on Catholics, and either infallible in the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, or de fide and ex cathedra doctrines. Stuff like whether there is actual fire in purgatory, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether Mary died or not are usually not the biggies in considering conversion. 
We don't need to get into exhaustive lists. Its far easier to give a doctrine that you are wondering about (like papal infallibility, that you mentioned) and I can tell you what level of authority it possesses.
Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the first 7 ecumenical councils and how many after these have they held - who attends?
We accept the first seven. I believe there were 14 more after that. They are attended by bishops and observers.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
kololam77
Banned
| Joined: | Tue Aug 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Berlin, Germany |
| Posts: | 67 |
| First Name: | Matthew | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | catholic, nothing, charismatic evangelical, conservative lutheran, conservative evangelical - moving ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 07:49 pm |
|
Do Protestants and E.O. attend these councils? If so - I cannot imagine their input has any bearing on RC decisions as they pertain to RC doctrine and practice.
My issues are as follows Dave Armstrong:
Immaculate Conception:
If according to Roman Catholic teaching the burden of ancestral sin (what I term inherited sin) causes (or caused) a removal of grace from mankind - then how is one to understand Luke 1:28,30 "Rejoice, thou art full of grace, the Lord is with thee..." as it pertains to Mary?
Contraception:
So this means if my wife needs an emergency hysterechtomy (spelling?) - we are violating church law and are in sin? If I choose to have a visechtomy (spelling?) - I am violating church law? If a man's wife cannot have sex with him, or a woman's husband cannot have sex with her - and the marriage cannot be consummated - they are violating church law as it pertains to contraception and child rearing?
Communion:
Jesus passed both bread and wine - and RC's get only the bread  !
Indulgences:
How can the Pope determine what expiation or satisfactory work performed by a penitent is too much, thus determining the excess (works of supererogation) that can be poured into an indulgence account ready to be offered up to faithful of his choosing?
Annulment:
The fact that if an annulment is not offered - I will not agree with the decree given the fact that what I have been told on this forum and by a canon lawyer almost certainly proves I should get one. Also...if the annulment is not offered I cannot guarantee that I will live with my current wife as brother and sister - and I certainly will not divorce her. I know I must trust God and move through the process - but given the other issues you are aware of annulment proceedings may ultimately be impossible to undertake. With that said - no annulment - no Rome. I know I cannot fight Rome on this one Dave A. - but in my heart and mind I am absolutely convinced in good religious conscience that my first marriage was not a RC marriage. I was preparing to be a conservative Lutheran minister at the time and I FULLY and COMPLETELY denounced Rome - refused to raise children RC - demanded my wife use contraception (which she did) - and moved our marriage into a mainline Protestant church very soon after the marriage. I may not even be able to get the documents necessary to begin the process (as you know) - therefore this whole annulment issue is unsettling with me. I think there is a good chance I cannot even file for one - or if I do - I only have a 30% chance of success since I am in W. Europe and not the U.S.
Penance:
The RC idea of punishment - rather than an edifier as the E.O. teach - sits not well with me given the grace in my own life as a Protestant I have experienced outside the church and with Jesus Christ as it pertains to forgiveness of sin without a works oriented penance structure.
Hell:
Too much to go into here - but I have done a lot of research. Hell seems not to be a literal place for RC bishops and councils. It also seems possible in RC teaching for everyone to be taken from hell by Jesus (more than just sheol when Christ descended) - kind of a RC type of universalism - something like Origen was famous for. A RC priest at an ecumenical event this summer told my wife and I that Jesus is all love and that the RC knows that Jesus is motivated by love so much that His love is strong enough to even save those who do not believe in Him directly and for Him to be able to defeat hell completely. The ancient church never believed this, and as a Protestant I am pretty firmly rooted in hell being a separate, physical place - although I am open to the idea of God being present in hell (fire as a purifier, fire as a burner of chaff - for example).
Other issues:
The judicial and penal understanding of God, rather than the love of God and the voluntary giving up of Jesus Christ (Himself) for us. This idea that sin had to be "paid" for and that God requires us to "tow the line" each and every day - a wrathful God demanding moral allegiance at all times. If I am incorrect in my over simplification - then do tell me - but it seems the undestanding of God and how we relate to Him largely changed as a result of Augustine and Aquinas.
Also......and this is a BIG one....ecumenicism. I do not want to be barred from taking communion with select Protestant assemblies (although I know they cannot take it with me if I return to Rome), nor from participating with them in ministry and even agreeing with them on points of theology.
In terms of Greek and Hebrew....well I studied Greek and my wife modern Hebrew - so I guess all that work for nothing since we don't need to read the manuscripts before like we used to? Darn  !
Last edited on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 07:53 pm by kololam77
____________________
There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved other than the name of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 08:43 pm |
|
You're keeping me very busy today Matthew! But I like that: makes the time go faster and keeps my mind stimulated.
Do Protestants and E.O. attend these councils? If so - I cannot imagine their input has any bearing on RC decisions as they pertain to RC doctrine and practice.
They attend as observers. This was certainly the case in Vatican II. People like John Paul II probably talked to them quite a bit and considered their input insofar as a Catholic was able to and still remain Catholic.
My issues are as follows Dave Armstrong:
Immaculate Conception:
If according to Roman Catholic teaching the burden of ancestral sin (what I term inherited sin) causes (or caused) a removal of grace from mankind - then how is one to understand Luke 1:28,30 "Rejoice, thou art full of grace, the Lord is with thee..." as it pertains to Mary?
God, by a special act, removed the stain and effect or original sin from Mary at the instant of her conception. I have two papers where I delve into that verse deeply, and give some extensive biblical argumentation:
Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations
Dialogue on the Exegesis of Luke 1:28 ("Full of Grace"), and the Immaculate Conception
And Mary is our topic tomorrow night in chat, too! I hope people come with all their concerns and questions in that area.
Contraception:
So this means if my wife needs an emergency hysterechtomy (spelling?) - we are violating church law and are in sin?
In most cases, yes. If it is absolutely medically necessary (say there was internal bleeding or something very serious going on), and thus done without the contraceptive intent, I believe there are cases where it would be permitted. I don't know all the details of that particular ethical question, but it is always a matter of intent in Catholic ethics, per the Sermon on the Mount.
If I choose to have a visechtomy (spelling?) - I am violating church law?
It's "vasectomy". Absolutely. This is a sort of self-mutilation that goes against natural law and Church teaching.
If a man's wife cannot have sex with him, or a woman's husband cannot have sex with her - and the marriage cannot be consummated - they are violating church law as it pertains to contraception and child rearing?
I'm not sure what you mean by "cannot have sex". If a person is infertile through no fault of their own, sex is fine, as there is no deliberate attempt to artificially constrain conception or what we call a "contralife will." Women (married ones!) past menopause can engage in sexual relations, or men with a low sperm count. This gets back to the "deliberate intent" factor again. Normatively, a marriage ought to be consummated.
Communion:
Jesus passed both bread and wine - and RC's get only the bread !
We offer the cup too. But the Bible teaches that Jesus is fully present in both the cup and what was formerly bread, so one need only partake of one to receive Him. The biblical proof of this is in 1 Corinthians 11:27:Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Note the "or". This means that partaking of either involves the "body and blood." There is a theological / philosophical question here too. God cannot be divided. You can't have "part of Jesus in the consecrated bread, and part in the consecrated wine." This is why the Church justified the denial of the cup for many years and in many places (also for hygienic and practical reasons; easier to spill, etc.).
Indulgences:
How can the Pope determine what expiation or satisfactory work performed by a penitent is too much, thus determining the excess (works of supererogation) that can be poured into an indulgence account ready to be offered up to faithful of his choosing?
This comes from his prerogative of binding and loosing. Indulgences are an expressly biblical concept, as I have shown, I think:
Explicit Biblical Evidence for Indulgences + Some Important Historical Considerations
Annulment:
The fact that if an annulment is not offered - I will not agree with the decree given the fact that what I have been told on this forum and by a canon lawyer almost certainly proves I should get one. Also...if the annulment is not offered I cannot guarantee that I will live with my current wife as brother and sister - and I certainly will not divorce her. I know I must trust God and move through the process - but given the other issues you are aware of annulment proceedings may ultimately be impossible to undertake. With that said - no annulment - no Rome. I know I cannot fight Rome on this one Dave A. - but in my heart and mind I am absolutely convinced in good religious conscience that my first marriage was not a RC marriage. I was preparing to be a conservative Lutheran minister at the time and I FULLY and COMPLETELY denounced Rome - refused to raise children RC - demanded my wife use contraception (which she did) - and moved our marriage into a mainline Protestant church very soon after the marriage.
That is two definite reasons for an annulment right there. It seems to me it should be no problem to get one, if the hurdle that you have mentioned in private is not a factor.
I may not even be able to get the documents necessary to begin the process (as you know) - therefore this whole annulment issue is unsettling with me. I think there is a good chance I cannot even file for one - or if I do - I only have a 30% chance of success since I am in W. Europe and not the U.S.
Give it a shot for the sake of your conscience and peace. YTou have nothing to lose, right?
Penance:
The RC idea of punishment - rather than an edifier as the E.O. teach - sits not well with me given the grace in my own life as a Protestant I have experienced outside the church and with Jesus Christ as it pertains to forgiveness of sin without a works oriented penance structure.
Huge topic, but to start, here is some introductory material to try to explain these matters to someone not well familiar with the Catholic rationale:
A Fictional Dialogue on Purgatory
Short Exposition on Purgatory
Biblical Overview on Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences
A Fictional Dialogue on Penance
Reflections on Penance and Purgatory
Biblical Evidence for Formal Forgiveness of Sins and Absolution (Confession)
Hell:
Too much to go into here - but I have done a lot of research. Hell seems not to be a literal place for RC bishops and councils.
There has been discussion about hell as a condition rather than as a place, which is fine, because clearly, hell (like heaven) seems to be a trans-dimensional state rather than a literal place as we understand that term.
It also seems possible in RC teaching for everyone to be taken from hell by Jesus (more than just sheol when Christ descended) - kind of a RC type of universalism - something like Origen was famous for.
No; this is much-misunderstood. People like von Balthasar simply stated that we could hope that no one goes to hell, just as we hope for all people to be saved. But this is not to be understood literally, as if it would happen in actuality.
A RC priest at an ecumenical event this summer told my wife and I that Jesus is all love and that the RC knows that Jesus is motivated by love so much that His love is strong enough to even save those who do not believe in Him directly and for Him to be able to defeat hell completely.
It depends on what they know. If they have never heard about Jesus and the gospel and follow God according to their lights, they could be saved. See Romans 2. But Jesus cannot defeate hell co pletely because men have a free will and can choose to reject god and end up there.
The ancient church never believed this,
Neither do we. You simply listened to one priest who either doesn't know his faith very well, or how to defend it, or is knowingly dissenting against it.
and as a Protestant I am pretty firmly rooted in hell being a separate, physical place - although I am open to the idea of God being present in hell (fire as a purifier, fire as a burner of chaff - for example).
If it's a place fine. What we know for sure is that it is eternal torment and separation from God: whether a place or condition .
Other issues:
The judicial and penal understanding of God, rather than the love of God and the voluntary giving up of Jesus Christ (Himself) for us.
Why must one choose? We believe both. God is Love. God is a Judge. Very biblical . . .
This idea that sin had to be "paid" for and that God requires us to "tow the line" each and every day - a wrathful God demanding moral allegiance at all times. If I am incorrect in my over simplification - then do tell me - but it seems the undestanding of God and how we relate to Him largely changed as a result of Augustine and Aquinas.
This sounds a great deal more like Luther and his obsessed overscrupulosity and unwillingness to believe that God loved him, rather than Catholic teaching. It's also common Orthodox caricature of Catholicism. We have all kinds of teaching about God's love and mercy.
Also......and this is a BIG one....ecumenicism. I do not want to be barred from taking communion with select Protestant assemblies (although I know they cannot take it with me if I return to Rome), nor from participating with them in ministry and even agreeing with them on points of theology.
You can be ecumenical. I am, very much so. Intercommunion is forvbidden because the Bible teaches that doctrinal agreement is presupposed in taking communion. See my paper:
Why Are Non-Catholic Christians Excluded From Receiving the Catholic Eucharist, or Communion?
You can participate in any number of ecumenical activities with Protestants. When I was a Protestant I was involved in pro-life rescues in the late 80s, and there were so many Catholics that it started me on the road to conversion. I sat next to an archbishop at a rally, and next to Ralph Martin at one rescue. I heard Cardinal O'Connor speak at a rally at the Washington Monument. There are many similar things that you can do.
In terms of Greek and Hebrew....well I studied Greek and my wife modern Hebrew - so I guess all that work for nothing since we don't need to read the manuscripts before like we used to? Darn !
I know, it's a joke, but the NAB is based on Greek manuscripts, not just the Vulgate. Catholics are free to engage in biblical commentary just as Protestants are (granted; we need to do much more, and Protestants excel in this, and can teach us a great deal). See my paper:
The Freedom of the Catholic Biblical Exegete
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
kololam77
Banned
| Joined: | Tue Aug 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Berlin, Germany |
| Posts: | 67 |
| First Name: | Matthew | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | catholic, nothing, charismatic evangelical, conservative lutheran, conservative evangelical - moving ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 09:26 am |
|
Thanks Dave A. - I greatly appreciate all of your work.
Did you know that as a non-Catholic I was accepted into the Masters of Christian Theology distance education program offered via Franciscan U. in Ohio? Isn't that like the capital of Catholic Apologetics in North America? Funny actually......I did not think I would be accepted given my issues with Rome - not certain what God is doing. Anyway.......the program is on the back burner for now as I continue to move through this current process. I just found out a few weeks ago via email.
Anyway......I have to look over my posts and the responses as I edit my account before I can move on. I am trying to find an organized way to assimilate and digest all of my questions and their answers offered on the forum without getting off track - which can happen very easily.
My major issues right now are the annulment - which I believe I simply have to proceed with getting regardless of how tedious and ugly the process is going to be. I trust the church will work with me re: what I shared with you privately - although I cannot be certain. My wife and I are planning to speak with a priest in our neighborhood early next week re: this issue. What puzzles me is that I was told by a priest in Berlin that I had to be actively involved in a Roman Catholic church in order to even begin the process of annulment - i.e. attending mass regularly, etc. - is this standard in the U.S.? My current wife is not even Roman Catholic - so I am not certain what she has to do either. I think this is an unfair requirement - if in fact it is true.
Finally.......my other issues are the ones we talked about on my posts where I listed my major obstacles to return. I have to investigate your links and read through the material. I really want to be able to drink the wine - are you certain most churches in the U.S. offer the cup? In Germany I believe many do not - at least not our local church here in the south of Berlin.
Oh yes.......also.......my wife asked me this morning if the Roman Catholic Church has ever admitted that it was incorrect in a magisterium (extraordinary or ordinary) or ex cathedra statement and then retracted it. She also wants to know if the Roman Catholic Church accepts payments for indulgences?
You can take a look at my latest post on "agreeing with everything or only some things". I trust you can offer some advice. I believe we may be moving closer - but I am still not understanding this believing the teaching versus accepting authority issue. The post will clear this up for you.
Thanks again Dave A. and you others. Peace.
____________________
There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved other than the name of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
kololam77
Banned
| Joined: | Tue Aug 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Berlin, Germany |
| Posts: | 67 |
| First Name: | Matthew | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | catholic, nothing, charismatic evangelical, conservative lutheran, conservative evangelical - moving ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 09:34 am |
|
Dave A. said:
You can be ecumenical. I am, very much so. Intercommunion is forvbidden because the Bible teaches that doctrinal agreement is presupposed in taking communion. See my paper:
So - at the Protestant monstery/community last week where we attended an ecumenical meeting - when the Catholic brother living in the community took communion with us on Sunday morning - he clearly violated Roman Catholic teaching an committed a sin?
The rule is - ecumenical participation yes - communion together no?
Thanks again.
Last edited on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 09:35 am by kololam77
____________________
There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved other than the name of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 09:45 am |
|
kololam77 wrote: Oh yes.......also.......my wife asked me this morning if the Roman Catholic Church has ever admitted that it was incorrect in a magisterium (extraordinary or ordinary) or ex cathedra statement and then retracted it. She also wants to know if the Roman Catholic Church accepts payments for indulgences?
No to both. The selling of indulgences was made illegal at the Council of Trent. And if the Church is infallible when teaching doctrine on matters of faith and morals, it cannot retract a single issue, and she never has.
There have been some issues, such as whether the sun circles the earth or the other way around, that have been corrected, but these were not doctrines of faith and morals but scientific matters in which the Church has no expectation of infallibility.
|
|
|
kololam77
Banned
| Joined: | Tue Aug 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Berlin, Germany |
| Posts: | 67 |
| First Name: | Matthew | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | catholic, nothing, charismatic evangelical, conservative lutheran, conservative evangelical - moving ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 10:15 am |
|
This is what I would love to find Rick.......
A comprehesive and easliy understandable list of these infallible teachings on doctrine and morals.
For example - I am not even certain what the Roman Catholic Church teaches (or believes) about evolution, but I would like to know what they have said and if it is binding on all Roman Catholic faithful.
When Ratzinger wrote his book Jesus of Nazerath which I read the forward of here in Germany (wonderful I might add) - he himself said that the book did not represent his formal papal "stamp" so to speak - but I cannot understand why because he brilliantly discussed historical criticism as it relates to biblical understanding and ultimately Christology.
It is very confusing really. What is a formal, binding statement by either the Pope himself or his magisterium - and what is considered only a comment or opinion - and where can a comprehensive list of these subjects be found? I have read the Cathecism almost entirely online - but many questions still remain unanswered.
Are you saying that the RCC only makes formal, binding statements on issues of faith and morals - and not scientific ones - or even other statements as they relate to the secular community and their academic disciplines - i.e. the humanities?
Last edited on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 10:17 am by kololam77
____________________
There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved other than the name of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
kololam77
Banned
| Joined: | Tue Aug 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Berlin, Germany |
| Posts: | 67 |
| First Name: | Matthew | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | catholic, nothing, charismatic evangelical, conservative lutheran, conservative evangelical - moving ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 10:29 am |
|
Oh yes.....one last item on indulgences.......
If the church accepted payment, and then at a the Council of Trent made a formal statement that this payment was illegal - then is such not retracting a binding statement of the RCC?
Confusion......confusion.....!
____________________
There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved other than the name of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 04:36 pm |
|
Thanks Dave A. - I greatly appreciate all of your work.
You're most welcome.
Did you know that as a non-Catholic I was accepted into the Masters of Christian Theology distance education program offered via Franciscan U. in Ohio?
Excellent! No wonder you ask so many questions!
Isn't that like the capital of Catholic Apologetics in North America?
Well, Ohio as a whole is, what with FUS, Scott Hahn, Alan Schreck, Pat Madrid, Dr. Ray Guarendi, and CHNI. 
Funny actually......I did not think I would be accepted given my issues with Rome - not certain what God is doing. Anyway.......the program is on the back burner for now as I continue to move through this current process. I just found out a few weeks ago via email.
Quite impressive.
Anyway......I have to look over my posts and the responses as I edit my account before I can move on. I am trying to find an organized way to assimilate and digest all of my questions and their answers offered on the forum without getting off track - which can happen very easily. My major issues right now are the annulment - which I believe I simply have to proceed with getting regardless of how tedious and ugly the process is going to be.
We highly encourage you to do that.
I trust the church will work with me re: what I shared with you privately - although I cannot be certain.
I'm sure they are familiar with these sorts of situations.
My wife and I are planning to speak with a priest in our neighborhood early next week re: this issue. What puzzles me is that I was told by a priest in Berlin that I had to be actively involved in a Roman Catholic church in order to even begin the process of annulment - i.e. attending mass regularly, etc. - is this standard in the U.S.?
I don't believe so, though it can't hurt on a human level.
My current wife is not even Roman Catholic - so I am not certain what she has to do either. I think this is an unfair requirement - if in fact it is true.
Hopefully she was not married before. Otherwise, she can either become Catholic or if not, at least agree to raise the children Catholic, which is part of the stipulation.
Finally.......my other issues are the ones we talked about on my posts where I listed my major obstacles to return. I have to investigate your links and read through the material. I really want to be able to drink the wine - are you certain most churches in the U.S. offer the cup?
Yes. I rarely take it myself, because it is not strictly necessary.
In Germany I believe many do not - at least not our local church here in the south of Berlin. Oh yes.......also.......my wife asked me this morning if the Roman Catholic Church has ever admitted that it was incorrect in a magisterium (extraordinary or ordinary) or ex cathedra statement and then retracted it.
No. By definition those are irreformable. I don't believe there has ever been such a contradiction in fact.
She also wants to know if the Roman Catholic Church accepts payments for indulgences?
Not that I know of.
You can take a look at my latest post on "agreeing with everything or only some things". I trust you can offer some advice. I believe we may be moving closer - but I am still not understanding this believing the teaching versus accepting authority issue. The post will clear this up for you.
I'll keep readng and responding!
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 04:41 pm |
|
So - at the Protestant monstery/community last week where we attended an ecumenical meeting - when the Catholic brother living in the community took communion with us on Sunday morning - he clearly violated Roman Catholic teaching an committed a sin?
I don't know if it would be a sin, but it is improper, according to canon law and (I would say) the demands of honesty in acknowledging doctrinal difference. I don't imagine that this community believes in transubstantiation (??). If not, then by partaking, this person is in effect saying he doesn't believe in transubstantiation and the ordination of priests through apostolic succession, who alone (including Orthodox priests) can preside over a valid eucharistic service. If he doesn't believe in whatever this community believes about the Eucharist, how can he participate? If he does, on the other hand, then he has denied a dogma of the Catholic Church and ought not receive there. Either way, something is awry.
The rule is - ecumenical participation yes - communion together no?
Pretty much, yes.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 05:05 pm |
|
This is what I would love to find Rick....... A comprehesive and easliy understandable list of these infallible teachings on doctrine and morals.
Your best bet, then, is Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
I did a brief treatment of these issues here:
Where Can One Find a List of Infallible Catholic Doctrines?
For example - I am not even certain what the Roman Catholic Church teaches (or believes) about evolution, but I would like to know what they have said and if it is binding on all Roman Catholic faithful.
All Catholics are required to believe that the soul is created by God at the moment of conception and that there was a primal human pair: Adam and Eve (a denial of "polygenism"). But a Catholic can be a creationist or an evolutionist. Most scholars, theologians, bishops appear to believe in theistic evolution. Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis delved into these things:36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM
When Ratzinger wrote his book Jesus of Nazerath which I read the forward of here in Germany (wonderful I might add) - he himself said that the book did not represent his formal papal "stamp" so to speak - but I cannot understand why because he brilliantly discussed historical criticism as it relates to biblical understanding and ultimately Christology.
He is recognizing that not everything he writes is formally in the realm of papal authority. That's why we limit the instances where he is exercising full authority, in which case he could not be contradicted by anyone.
It is very confusing really.
On one (philosophical, abstract) level it is. On another level (concrete and practical) it is very simple: accept what the Cathechism teaches, and give assent to it, and you can't go wrong. Let theologians and bishops (and on a far, far lower scale in the scheme of things, apologists) figure out all the fine details. That's their job.
What is a formal, binding statement by either the Pope himself or his magisterium - and what is considered only a comment or opinion - and where can a comprehensive list of these subjects be found?
Answered above, and see the four levels of the Church's teaching again, as sunmmarized by Fr. Most.
I have read the Cathecism almost entirely online - but many questions still remain unanswered.
Ott! Denzinger! Those are the best available sources.
Are you saying that the RCC only makes formal, binding statements on issues of faith and morals - and not scientific ones - or even other statements as they relate to the secular community and their academic disciplines - i.e. the humanities?
Science relates to matter of faith and morals only when it intersects or directly concerns those. Hence, abortion with its taking of a human life clearly enters the realm of theology and morality, and so the Church condemns it in no uncertain terms, and uses the latest science (embryology, neurology, cardiology, genetics, pharmacology -- since birth control pills are usually abortifacients now -- etc.) to back up its claims.
In the evolutionary debate, as I showed above, the Church is concerned to preserve the doctrines of the soul and original sin: both of which would be denied by those who think science is the sum of all knowledge (it clearly is not and is itself a philosophy that starts from several unproven and ultimately unprovable assumptions).
Oh yes.....one last item on indulgences....... If the church accepted payment, and then at a the Council of Trent made a formal statement that this payment was illegal - then is such not retracting a binding statement of the RCC?
This was a reform of corruptions of a doctrine. The doctrine itself remains intact, as it is based on explicit biblical evidences (that I referred to, as explained in a paper of mine, above).
NOTE: Edited to shorten link Last edited on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 10:54 pm by
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 07:10 pm |
|
Wow Matthew, and I thought I had issues with R.C. teaching. Perhaps I have too much time on my hands today. Blame it on the weather and the fact I did not go to school today. But your posts as of late have compelled me to respond, something I haven't been inclined to do all that much within the past several months.
So as to make things less confusing, I will try to comment on each of your points separately. It makes reading easier on the eyes. BTW, I think you are getting excellent instruction on what the R.C. faith teaches from Dave Armstrong. He must have wrestled with quite a bit before crossing the Tiber. Or else he has studied extensively since the jump.
kololam77 wrote:
Do Protestants and E.O. attend these councils? If so - I cannot imagine their input has any bearing on RC decisions as they pertain to RC doctrine and practice.
I read Dave's response in which he said that Protestants, "attend as observers. This was certainly the case in Vatican II." I would argue, (not in a nasty way mind you), that Protestants had more of an effect on the outcome of Vatican II than some Roman Catholics know or are aware of. Vatican II's proclamations, reformations and finally, its results, have played a major role (among other things) in dissuading me from joining the Church. Six Protestant clergy collaborated with Bognini (Chief of the Liturgical Revisionists of Vat. II) while Vatican II was in the making. Their opinions and their counsel was extremely important in shaping Vatican II. A quote, from Archbishop Bognini on March 19, 1965, Observatore Romano:
"We desire to do everything to facilitate the path of union for our separated brethren, by removing every stone that could constitute even the shadow of a risk of stumbling or of displeasure."
Such a statement caused me to investigate Vat. II more in depth. But, I will go no further in regards to this, since I know how controversial it could become. Let it suffice to say, that I think Vat. II changed the R.C. Church in ways that has been very detrimental. The fruit of that is evidenced even in what Pope Paul VI said, "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church."
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 07:51 pm |
|
Hi Darlene,
Protestants had more of an effect on the outcome of Vatican II than some Roman Catholics know or are aware of. Vatican II's proclamations, reformations and finally, its results, have played a major role (among other things) in dissuading me from joining the Church. Six Protestant clergy collaborated with Bognini (Chief of the Liturgical Revisionists of Vat. II) while Vatican II was in the making. Their opinions and their counsel was extremely important in shaping Vatican II. A quote, from Archbishop Bognini on March 19, 1965, Observatore Romano:
"We desire to do everything to facilitate the path of union for our separated brethren, by removing every stone that could constitute even the shadow of a risk of stumbling or of displeasure."
Such a statement caused me to investigate Vat. II more in depth. But, I will go no further in regards to this, since I know how controversial it could become. Let it suffice to say, that I think Vat. II changed the R.C. Church in ways that has been very detrimental. The fruit of that is evidenced even in what Pope Paul VI said, "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church."
I would be very wary of these sorts of judgments. This is Catholic so-called "traditionalist" boilerplate (I've dialogued with dozens of these people and have even written a book about it), and I would highly suspect that is where you picked it up. Both Orthodox and Protestant anti-Catholics speak in this way. Vatican II was perfectly orthodox and in accord with previous Tradition. It was co-opted by liberal dissidents and made to be many things it was not in fact.
You can't judge the Church by what fringe elements say about it. If you were to tell me where you learned this sort of rhetoric, I could easily and quickly show you
how they are out of line with the Church. The "fruit" is not the fruit of Vatican II, but of modernism and liberalism. But they have not changed any Catholic doctrine or moral teaching yet, have they? We continue to teach what we have always taught.
Last edited on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 07:52 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 282 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 09:06 pm |
|
Darlene, Many Catholics share your concerns about Vatican II and the modernism that crept in after the Council. I hope you will tread this issue very carefully with good direction from solid Catholics. There is some truth to the history you cite but it can be easily misinterpreted as Dave says.
I do wish this forum could discuss this more evenly and thoroughly, but it is such a complex subject, its almost impossible to do in postings. There are a lot of questions such as yours that should be answered - to ignore the elephant in the room tends to create misunderstanding.
We still have our Church and its doctrines have not changed, in spite of how some may interpret the effects of Vatican II.
Please PM me if you have any questions I might be able to answer offline.
Now I must run, RUN to choir.
God Bless all,
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Current time is 10:22 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
