Being Catholic

I suggest that you read up on the definitions of practice, discipline, doctrine, and dogma, since you seem to be confused about, focused on, and obsessed with, a rather rigid personal belief that the first three named are effectively rolled up into the latter.

Many years,

Neil

thereselittleflower said:

Steve, the definitive word was always out.

This idea that we don't have to take the Church at Her word until She says something explicitly about a detail that is covered already under the umbrella of previous statements by the Church gives rise to the idea that it's ok to look for loopholes.

And I am speaking out against that philosphy.

The Vatican said it was ALREADY clear BEFORE the letter was issued.
"for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law,the Church's discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing."
How much clearer does the Vatican have to be to show the approach you advocate to use is flawed?

Click to expand...

You are correct in that you are arguing--interminably. And, don't pretend that you understand Rahner just because you looked something up on the internet.

Irish Melkite said:

I suggest that you read up on the definitions of practice, discipline, doctrine, and dogma, since you seem to be confused about, focused on, and obsessed with, a rather rigid personal belief that the first three named are effectively rolled up into the latter.

Many years,

Neil

Click to expand...

Neil, you're misunderstading then.

We should all pray about this. There is definitely a different role for differences regarding practice, doctrine and dogma. I would add devotion to these three.

We can readily see this with regard to differences between the Latin and Eastern Rites. Catholics have often had this discussion with regard to married priests, which is, of course, an issue of a difference in discipline in the Latin Rite (subject to exception).

There is no room for differences in dogma. It is only for us to understand and assent. The situation is different for theological opinion (doctrine), practice and devotion. At least, the situation should be different.

Irish Melkite said:

I suggest that you read up on the definitions of practice, discipline, doctrine, and dogma, since you seem to be confused about, focused on, and obsessed with, a rather rigid personal belief that the first three named are effectively rolled up into the latter.

Many years,

Neil

Click to expand...

mark1 said:

We should all pray about this. There is definitely a different role for differences regarding practice, doctrine and dogma. I would add devotion to these three.

Click to expand...

And the Dogma I am speaking of here is obedience to the Church.

When the Church instructs as to
we are bound to obey Her by the dogmatic Teaching of the Church on OBEDIENCE.

This is in a nutshell what I have been saying and which others have been arguing with this piece or that piece drawing focus on one aspect of what I have been saying into hyperfocus.

The issue is we are bound to obey the Church.

The Church has said no one may add to the Mass.

Despite all the arguments against this, the Vatican has said that it is something that was ALREADY CLEAR according to the law of the Church that those who are not allowed to receive communion are not allowed to approach communion or receive a blessing:
What needs to be prayed for is an obedient heart that will willingly submit to the laws of the Church in obedience as a child docily submits to its mother instead of looking for ways around them because we think the way we want to do something is better than the Apostolic See gives us to do things.

This is what needs to be focused on.

We can readily see this with regard to differences between the Latin and Eastern Rites. Catholics have often had this discussion with regard to married priests, which is, of course, an issue of a difference in discipline in the Latin Rite (subject to exception).

Click to expand...

And we are bound to OBEDIENCE to which ever rite we are under, etc.

The issue is OBEDIENCE.

Just because a different rite does something differently than the Latin rite does, does not give us any license to change what we have been given to do in our rite.

That license does not belong to us. It does not belong to the parish priest. It does not even belong to the Bishop.

It belongs to the Apostolic See.

Why do we think we can usurp the priviledges and authority of the Apostolic See, even with the VERY BEST of intentions (though they be misguided) to order the Mass how we see fit?

This is the issue.


It all comes down to Obedience.

There is no room for differences in dogma. It is only for us to understand and assent. The situation is different for theological opinion (doctrine), practice and devotion. At least, the situation should be different.

Click to expand...

And you make my point for me. There is no room for differences in domga.

It is dogma of the Church we submit in obedience to Her.

It all comes down to obedience.
This is the issue.

The dogmatic teaching of the Church on obedience.


And this is at the heart of the discussion/debate about going up for a blessing during communion is about.

The promotion of going up for a blessing at communion is simpy a symptom of a much bigger issue.

An issue with Obedience.

Fantine said:

And it made you feel uncomfortable, didn't it?

Is that the image we want the Church to present to non-Catholics, or to Catholics who are struggling with feeling accepted due to divorce and remarriage, sexual orientation, or other problems?

Click to expand...

I'd be less than honest if I didn't say yes at times. But then when I've been known to receive, I also recall turning around to return to my seat seeing a lady in the front roll peering at me with such a frown on her face. Maybe she didn't like that I wasn't in a suit and tie. I've become somewhat thicker skinned as I've engaged with conservative Catholics on internet forums however. But no I wouldn't think it is the image Catholics would want to present.

CMatt25 said:

Originally Posted by Fantine

And it made you feel uncomfortable, didn't it?

Is that the image we want the Church to present to non-Catholics, or to Catholics who are struggling with feeling accepted due to divorce and remarriage, sexual orientation, or other problems?
​

I'd be less than honest if I didn't say yes at times. But then when I've been known to receive, I also recall turning around to return to my seat seeing a lady in the front roll peering at me with such a frown on her face. Maybe she didn't like that I wasn't in a suit and tie. I've become somewhat thicker skinned as I've engaged with conservative Catholics on internet forums however. But no I wouldn't think it is the image Catholics would want to present.

Click to expand...

So .. when the Vatican says divorced and remarried persons are not permitted to approach communion, and are not permitted to receive a blessing (as no one else is either)
we should say in response to the Vatican

"This isn't the image Catholics would want to present.." ??

thereselittleflower said:

So .. when the Vatican says divorced and remarried persons are not permitted to approach communion, and are not permitted to receive a blessing (as no one else is either)

4. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, 'forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry'. To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.

"5. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church's discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin)."

​

we should say in response to the Vatican

"This isn't the image Catholics would want to present.." ??

Click to expand...

OK, I'll amend it to "this isn't the image Catholics SHOULD want to present."

If a particular Catholic pastor (or a particular Catholic like yourself) thinks that alienating people and driving them away from the Church you believe is "one and true" for another church that follows the REAL gospel message--healing, reconciliation, love and compassion--so be it.

Thankfully there are pastors (and particular Catholics like myself) who use our hearts and common sense to make more common sense judgments.

But of course I didn't really look at the quotes you gave....I know that alot of times when people here can't find the answer they want they go to the 1940's, or the 1920's, or the 1820's....and perhaps that's the case here.

thereselittleflower said:

False accusations are really unnecessary and contrary to the spirit and keeping of Lent.

Consistantly presenting the truth of Church teaching is what this forum is for. I am not being wishy-washy in my posts. I am being direct and clear. That is not "cyberbullying." That posts are now devolving into personal attacks and false accusations because the issue of obedience is not being allowed to be swept under the rug indicates a need, IMNO, for those who would want to be free to do things their way to step back and prayerfully reflect on what the words of the Church mean here for them:
Vatican 1
Fourth Session - Chapter 3

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50].

This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation
The Vatican Council



And herein is the issue.

We are not free to disobey the Church simply because our conscience tells us we can.

We are not free to ride a bicycle into Mass because our conscience tells us we can.

We must be very careful about presuming upon God on the basis of a poorly formed conscience given that no one can depart from the teaching of the Church on obedience without endangering our faith and salvation as declared in the teaching of the Church in Vatican 1 above.

As per the words of Padre Pio:
"Without obedience there is no virtue, without virtue there is no love, without love there is no God, without God there is no salvation."

Click to expand...

Obedience is your passion, I understand that, and obedience is a quality that is needed for Catholics.

The subject of conscience is a hot topic in Catholic theology. Do we stand before God according to our own conscience or is the Church's place to be between our conscience and God? That is an important question.

Aquinas said that we are bound to follow our conscience even if we are wrong! Joseph Ratzinger said that nothing stands between a man's conscience and God, not even the authority of the Church!

This is a very important topic. On the one hand, our conscience needs to be formed in the Church. Yet, on the other hand, a person faces the "tribunal of his conscience" alone before God.

I'm sure you have something very interesting to contribute to this topic.

thereselittleflower said:

Steve, the definitive word was always out.

This idea that we don't have to take the Church at Her word until She says something explicitly about a detail that is covered already under the umbrella of previous statements by the Church gives rise to the idea that it's ok to look for loopholes.

And I am speaking out against that philosphy.

The Vatican said it was ALREADY clear BEFORE the letter was issued.
"for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law,the Church's discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing."
How much clearer does the Vatican have to be to show the approach you advocate to use is flawed?

Click to expand...

I think we've already gotten that message, but I don't see how exploring possibilities is a flaw.
What I advocate is to always be ready to explore possibilities. To me, that is part of the role of theology. It is that type of theology that influenced Vatican II, IMHO.

To explore possibilities is a good thing. Look at John Courtney Murray who wrote about freedom of religion in the first half of the 20th century. He was silenced for three years by the Vatican, but later those same ideas he was silenced for became part of what Vatican II was about, and Murray was the main architect of the document on freedom of religion.

I do not advocate disobedience. You'll not find that in what I write. But I do advocate creating possibilities for the future.

steve_bakr said:

I think we've already gotten that message, but I don't see how exploring possibilities is a flaw.
What I advocate is to always be ready to explore possibilities. To me, that is part of the role of theology. It is that type of theology that influenced Vatican II, IMHO.

To explore possibilities is a good thing. Look at John Courtney Murray who wrote about freedom of religion in the first half of the 20th century. He was silenced for three years by the Vatican, but later those same ideas he was silenced for became part of what Vatican II was about, and Murray was the main architect of the document on freedom of religion.

I do not advocate disobedience. You'll not find that in what I write. But I do advocate creating possibilities for the future.

Click to expand...

This way of thinking is not something that just comes up around the time of Vat II - it is something you can see in the way that theologians and saints always used in how they interacted with the Church. Theology is a collective process in the Church and it always has been. The times when the hierarchy has resisted that it has tended to have poor results in the short term, at least (the Reformation, for example.)

You dare agree with Aquinas, Cardinal Ratzinger and the Catechism on the role of a well-formed conscience.

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

steve_bakr said:

Aquinas said that we are bound to follow our conscience even if we are wrong! Joseph Ratzinger said that nothing stands between a man's conscience and God, not even the authority of the Church!

This is a very important topic. On the one hand, our conscience needs to be formed in the Church. Yet, on the other hand, a person faces the "tribunal of his conscience" alone before God.

Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you have raised every proclamation of the Church to the level of dogma. This is certainly a novel view of theology and of the Church.

thereselittleflower said:

And the Dogma I am speaking of here is obedience to the Church.

Click to expand...

TheOtherHockeyMom said:

It sounds like you are saying that the Priest is supposed to make a judgement call on everyone who goes up for Communion, and if they have reason to suspect a person is not in a state of grace, they should turn them away? Is that a correct understanding of your post?

If so, how should that work? "Sorry Bob, but I heard a rumor you cheated on your taxes, and I haven't seen you in Confession since tax time, so I better not let you receive?"

Click to expand...

Put the shoe on the other foot.

If you were a priest with 9 years of studying behind you - and knowing full well your own eternal judgment will be based on any judgment faced for the laity who received Communion at your hand - knowing they have serious sin on their souls and ought not receive - would you be so 'easy' in giving it to them - possibly damning them and yourself in the process?

Those who are given more - are judged more.
Maybe you didnt know that. But priests do - or should. So judge them not on the heavy burdens they carry.

steve_bakr said:

freedom of religion.

Click to expand...

That's a very simplistic approach to Vat ll.

Fantine said:

OK, I'll amend it to "this isn't the image Catholics SHOULD want to present."

If a particular Catholic pastor (or a particular Catholic like yourself) thinks that alienating people and driving them away from the Church you believe is "one and true" for another church that follows the REAL gospel message--healing, reconciliation, love and compassion--so be it.

Thankfully there are pastors (and particular Catholics like myself) who use our hearts and common sense to make more common sense judgments.

But of course I didn't really look at the quotes you gave....I know that alot of times when people here can't find the answer they want they go to the 1940's, or the 1920's, or the 1820's....and perhaps that's the case here.

Click to expand...

I second this.

WarriorAngel said:

That's a very simplistic approach to Vat ll.

Click to expand...

The topic of religious liberty was written about by John Courtney Murray in the first half of the 20th century. After years of opposition to his views, even to the point of being silenced, Murray became the chief architect on a Vatican II document on the very subject he was censored for, which I won't go into here.

I did not say that Vatican II was exclusively about freedom of religion. The point that I was trying to make--apparently not clearly enough--is that Murray was but one example of many of the theologians who explored possibilities for the Church in their work in the first half of the 20th century.

It was this kind of spirit which influenced so much of what went on at Vatican II, as many of the theologians who were censored before the Council became contributors and even architects of Vatican II documents.

The subject I was really referring to is the value of exploring possibilities in theology.

Please carefully re-read the post that you snipped that one phrase out of. Between that post and this one here you ought to be able to understand the point I was making.

TheOtherHockeyMom said:

So between doing some Lenten reflection and reading some posts here, I've got a question about who is Catholic and what it means to be Catholic.

We have a thread about people being denied Communion, and in a related thread, a poster mentioned that VP Biden was no longer Catholic since he excommunicated himself. We've also got an interesting thread about Mary that includes a lot of references to what a Catholic may question and must accept to remain Catholic.

So here's my questions. One, if a person is not in a state of grace for some reason (like they support pro-choice legislation in the case of some politicians, or they are in a non-sacramental marriage, are living together, or any number of other myriad things), and they choose to exclude themselves from receiving Communion but still attend Mass prayerfully and support their parish are they still Catholic or have they excommunicated themselves? Does their status change if they do not exclude themselves from receiving Communion? Is it the act of receiving Communion that causes them to be severed from the faith?

Should a person in either status still proclaim they are Catholic, or is it kind of like a professional license...once you let it slip, you cannot legally use the title, even if you are working to get it back? (e.g. a professional engineer who fails to maintain their license cannot promote themselves as an engineer while they are working on renewing a lapsed license).

What about a person who hasn't got any unconfessed mortal sin on their conscience, but has difficulty accepting a teaching of the Church? The teachings regarding Mary seem to be one example that some people have difficulty with. If in a questioning or confused state, should one receive Communion? Call themselves Catholic?

Click to expand...

thereselittleflower said:

It is not just dogmas we are required to assent in faith to. All the Church teaches, regardless of whether it has been made dogma or not, requires our obedient and submissive acceptance and assent.

For example, in regards to Mary in addition to the declared dogmas, we are also required to believe all the Church teaches us about Mary including her roles as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Helper, and Benefactress.

Click to expand...

True enough. Good point. The overall idea I was trying to express is that obedience is a big part of being a faithful Catholic. (or a faithful anything else, I suppose). Most of us are limited in our understanding of some of the deep theological and philosophical ideas that went into the development over time of our doctrines. This is a key reason for the Church to begin with. To be the repository of the faith under one roof, so to speak, so that the average layman can be satisfied that even though he may have doubts on this or that doctrine, that the Church has already anticipated this doubt, and settled it among the shepherds. We can then trust in Jesus Christ, and his Church.

The primary point is that all people are attacked by doubt and wonder about the doctrines of the faith. This is natural, and of no problem, so long as you are living and acting out your life in accordance with the doctrines, and seeking to understand what you are able through the grace of God. Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II before him stressed faith and reason. They go hand in hand.

I'm Catholic but I first and foremost consider myself a Christian, and what it means to me personally is first and foremost that it gives me an enormous sense of belonging to a community, and that is something that I think non-Christians really miss out on. It's a great way to live your life.