Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's an interesting one, because some people think its been defined infallible and others do not. Which supports my thesis that there's no infallible way of determining what has been infallibly determined - and therefore its a pretty useless doctrine.
Me too.quote=SpiritualAntiseptic;The Church teaches infallibly any time it comes from the Holy Spirit.
Hey! Me too! (sometimes)Doctrines are put forth infallibly by the Councils and the Pope.
You can if you don't think he was acting infallibly when he said it. Or, presumably, if you don't think Vatican I was acting infallibly when it defined the papal infailibility.There are theologians that think all sorts of things. It's pretty hard to argue your way around "I declare that the Church will never have the authority to ordain woman priests," as was penned by John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
You might be surprised what I would say.So you would then also say the idea that the Bible is infallible is also a "useless doctrine"?
Can ya give us a peek at itMe too.
Hey! Me too! (sometimes)
I had to revise my "burn the heretics" doctrine slightly, tho.
The devil's advocate in me says that if the Bible is reliable and your understanding of it has caveats, then you should still consider "the Bible is reliable" a useless concept.You might be surprised what I would say.
"The bible is reliable" is something I can work with precisely because its straightforward - "the church is reliable" is more problematic because it has to carry caveats and conditions, just as "my understanding is reliable provided I've interpreted the bible correctly" might be true but is of little practical use.
No, because while my understanding will always be provisional, limited, and in places just damn wrong, it tells me that going back to reground myself in scripture is always a good thing to do.The devil's advocate in me says that if the Bible is reliable and your understanding of it has caveats, then you should still consider "the Bible is reliable" a useless concept.
you may notice you didn't put anything like"God has given us the responsiblity of dominion over His Creation ~ this relates to faith and is contained in the Deposit of Faith (Genesis).
Global warming exists and is anthropogenic. ~ this does not relate to faith.
Contraception is a grave evil. ~ this relates to morals and is evident from the Natural Law
My red leather shoes are rockin' ~ not a statement regarding faith or morals.
I hope this helps!
There are many occasions where the collegiality of the Church functioned this way. For example, the Council of Trent did in identifying which books had been identified as Scripture. So I don't see why you would say that violates any of the criteria.
Also from which paragraph are you drawing the "free to express opinion" conclusion? I'd like to see how the Church words it. I don't see that phrase anywhere.
And why exactly are you linking to Lumen Gentium from a website calling for women priests?
with some of your own, who don't agree with "the Church."The Church teaches infallibly any time it comes from the Holy Spirit. Doctrines are put forth infallibly by the Councils and the Pope.
I am not sure where you are coming up with those conditions.
you may notice you didn't put anything like"
Mass only in Latin, or it's sinful
eating meat on Fridays is sinful
are these "faith and morals?"
I fail to see how they are not, as if you ate meat on a Friday at one point, you were making a Moral transgressionary act... and now you aren't.
with some of your own, who don't agree with "the Church."
or are they "NOTREALCATHOLICS(tm)?
I don't recall not having Mass in Latin was ever sinful.
Eating meat on Fridays would be a violation of penance on Fridays. All Catholics are still required to make an act of penance. They are allowed to substitute abstaining from meat for another form.
You aren't a Catholic in full communion if you choose to disagree with the faith of the Church.
The difficulty I find is that "the faith of the Church" is really quite amorphous. What was the faith of the church at one time is no longer the faith of the Church. For example, Papal bulls are now considered worthy of only the dustbin of the Vatican whereas at one time they were taken quite seriously. If one believes in an evolutionary view of the Church and divine revelation then one can embrace this theology. However, such a view contradicts the immutability of God's revelation.
## First & all-important point:That's an interesting one, because some people think its been defined infallible and others do not. Which supports my thesis that there's no infallible way of determining what has been infallibly determined - and therefore its a pretty useless doctrine.
you may notice you didn't put anything like"
Mass only in Latin, or it's sinful
## Those two are /were "Precepts of the Church" - there are six in all - and are ecclesiastical in origin. They are not truths revealed by God, or in any way part of the Deposit of Faith, so they are not dogmas, so they cannot be treated as such; so they have no authority but that which they derive from the Church. Which can, for sufficiently weighty reasons, alter or abolish them. So the answer to your q.: = No.
eating meat on Fridays is sinful
are these "faith and morals?"
I fail to see how they are not, as if you ate meat on a Friday at one point, you were making a Moral transgressionary act... and now you aren't.
so are they not free to express their opinion? Is it vote the party line, much like bipartisan politics?
and I linked to it because it was interesting. It appears there are some Catholics that disagree with the methods of infallibility.
## That "CINO" stuff is divisive nonsense - people can be (so-called) "bad Catholics"; but they are still Catholics. Any baptised Christian in union with Rome in any way or degree is a Catholic. In a sense, the only "Real" Catholic is Christ. All of us need God's grace and mercy - otherwise, the saintly would be devils, and so would the unsaintly. A lot is said against abortion - yet warnings against the sin of pride seem to be rare. The devil was not damned for his stance on bio-ethics.
with some of your own, who don't agree with "the Church."
or are they "NOTREALCATHOLICS(tm)?
No, because while my understanding will always be provisional, limited, and in places just damn wrong, it tells me that going back to reground myself in scripture is always a good thing to do.
The distinction I'm trying to put forward here is that the bible itself is well defined. There are a few books and chapters on the fringe that are debated, but for the most part we are clear about what is scriptrue and what is not.I see no difference in your view of the reliability of the Bible and a Catholics view of the reliability of Church teaching (which happens to include the reliability of the Bible).
I would certainly hope so - I don't quite share the entire Catholic Church official thinking, but I'd definitely see myself as a critical friend, not an enemy. (And I'd have to say I probably hold to more of the Church's teaching than most of the Catholics I work with).But we can move on friends and happy.
There is a far greater ambiguity about what is and what is not infallible church teaching. If we replace infallible with a more appropriate notion of reliability then that might not be a bad thing; it becomes more personal, a community-in-knowing.
##I'm aware of the theory.
BTW, could you use a smaller font?
##Unfortunately, not everyone is - & it seemed worth giving a fairly detailed outline of some aspects of it for that reason
I'd rather everyone used the same font - and displays can be adjusted as appropriate. From my perspective, where the standard font is fine, your posts read like someone writing very large in crayon. And I'll freely admit that I don't bother to read posts that are hard to read.And - I can, but it's less easy on the eyes. Still, as you ask.
It's very small
I'm surprised there is a problem for you, because the poster of post 38 seems to be using the same fount as I was; yet only one poster is hard on your eyes. For some reason, most posts come up as in a very small fount.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?