Posted on 11/17/2014 6:17:04 AM PST by marshmallow
That’s probably true, but he should least give us some examples of real-life faiths were women become clergy and the faith still stands strong against things like abortion, ‘gay marriage’ to demonstrate that it is possible. Or even say something like ‘and my hypothetical created faith will reject these things.’
Otherwise it’s kind like saying ‘if I was going to found a country, it would be a communist state, they’ve always worked out so wonderfully.’
Freegards
Instead of listening to GOD the way he is suppost to do, he is listening to the “Modern” Catholics.
I for one take my authority from GOD, and the BIBLE, the pope is a man...this church was built by Jesus upon ‘this rock’ anymore said?
One thing we do know: Scripture does permit a married clergy:
” A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
1 Timothy 3:2
Catholic dogma HAS been changed twice in the last 200 years.
Do you mean that the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was clarified (1854), and the the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (1950)?
Before those dates, those two items weren’t dogma. Now they are. Dogma has changed. Not that big of a deal, anyone can see that they weren’t dogma before and now they are. Just stop with the fiction that dogma can’t change. Perhaps it is more correct to say that ‘dogma, once promulgated, can’t change’.
You are correct that dogma, once promulgated, can’t be changed. However, both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, were widely held beliefs, held for centuries. The Pope, respectively, felt the need to clarify the beliefs by declaring them Dogma.
In 1854, it was all about responding to the Lourdes visions. In 1950, it was to finally resolve the theological debate started in Reformation, but had come to head.
So, yes, addition is technically change. As you said above, promulgated dogma doesn’t change. So there is a distinction, though without a difference.
No, there is a distinction, unless you intend to 'Gruberize' potential converts using Clintonian meanings of 'is'.
To clarify, dogma that has been proclaimed has not been historically novel. Rather, it has been a long-held belief in the Church, but at the time of proclamation, required clarification. As in the last two cases, they were of great importance, and coincided with events of equal importance.
In the case of the Cardinal’s personal preference, it is of no practical consequence. St. John Paul II’s documents spell that out. Additionally, there is no need to proclaim an all-male priesthood dogmatic.
What a potential convert should see is members of the Church Militant are human, but the Church is divine. The Holy Spirit protects the Church and its members from mere opinion.
So which proclaims the weasel words that 'dogma doesn't change'?
As for the Assumption of Mary, the concept is certainly novel to the Apostles, since none mention it. Now required to be believed for salvation, it certainly conflicts with the Apostle John is his Gospel account.
The Holy Spirit protects the Church and its members from mere opinion.
So the Catholic Church has enlisted the Holy Spirit to testify against Himself? Contradicting what He said in John 20: 30-31, the Catholic Church says the Holy Spirit now says 'and belief in the Assumption of Mary is required too.'
Excellent post. Nothing can be added, or should be added.
You are making several logical and factual leaps.
Just because the Assumption wasn’t in the Apostles Creed doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Any number of holy things happened, like the Lord giving the 10 Commandments to Moses, that isn’t in the Apostles Creed.
Second, believe in the Assumption isn’t required for salvation. It never has been. Christ provided salvation, once and for all, to all mankind.
The rest of your post follows from that incorrect statement.
What the Holy Catholic Church teaches dogmatically is divine truth revealed to man. All of it has a foundation in the Scripture. The Church goes on to lay out modes of living to help people get to Heaven. God alone is the arbiter of who gets in.
Finally, can a non-Catholic go to Heaven? Of course!
So the Assumption isn't dogma then? If it is, it is required per Vat I
The Necessity of Roman Catholic Dogmas for Saving Faith.
Does not a Catholic have the responsibility to adhere to the teachings of the church? If so, how can it be said that this dogma can be ignored?
What the Holy Catholic Church teaches dogmatically is divine truth revealed to man. All of it has a foundation in the Scripture.
Be the first then to give chapter and verse for the Assumption of Mary.
As for the Apostle's Creed, I have no qualms about it, they are statements of fact drawn from the Word of God.
Finally, can a non-Catholic go to Heaven? Of course!
Of course, because God makes that determination in fact rather then the Catholic church in theory with Unam Sanctam 's declaration: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”. Your point would appear contrary to the words of Pope Boniface VIII.
Yup.
Well... come on, now! :) I *was* talking about things other than dogma going from “non-definition” to “definition”!
I’m not sure that I could say that I “changed” from going from non-existence to existence, since there was no “me” to change, before the point. As for dogma, the idea of the Immaculate Conception was certainly there, but not “dogma” yet, you’re right. Semantics, I guess; are we really in disagreement, here?
If you are looking for a semantics argument, I am not interested. However, if you are interested in sharing a point of view, OK.
The Assumption is dogma. Your quotation of a Vatican I document doesn’t state what you are stating. From Dogmatic Constitution:
8Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed
which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
whether by her solemn judgment
or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
9Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God [21] and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that
no one can ever achieve justification without it,
neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end.
[21]Heb 11, 6
Paragraph 8 teaches what is to be believed, and paragraph 9 explains the role of faith.
While I reject your premise that every belief must be found chapter and verse, like “trinity,” the Bible does teach the concept. However, here are the citations.
Elisha and Enoch were assumed into Heaven, so the concept isn’t novel. Matthew 27:52–53 continues with the concept, Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6 refer to the Saints being assumed into Heaven when the gates were opened by Christ.
Regarding Unam Sanctum, that is not a dogmatic teaching of the Church, nor was/is it considered infallible. Funny, you have to go all the way back to 13th century to find something to fit your narrative.
Finally, the Catholic Church teaches the truth, and that is a guaranteed. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15
Have a blessed day!
I don’t know, but I don’t have much trust in O’Malley.
During the interview O’Donnell described O’Malley as “shy” and said it took more than a year for him to agree to the interview. He let her push him around on women’s ordination and appeared at times pained to defend politically incorrect Church teaching. When she asked if it was “immoral” to bar women from the priesthood, it was time for him to push back a little bit. He needs to pray for the spine of Mother Angelica. Cardinal O’Connor was kind but never let himself be cowed.
Didn't have to go that far back for the narrative, went there because: that seems to be the place one can find an exposition not couched in mealy mouthed words, where an explanation isn't necessary, where no translation is necessary. I don't agree with him, but I can understand him.
You also need to understand the context of the time. The Church was a waning political force. He was attempting to reclaim some of that stature, as well as defend its independence from outside interference.
He was a highly trained diplomat, as well as a learned theologian. However, he had a bit of an ego, according to reports.
Part of the goal in that particular Bull was to draw a line in the sand. He was also calling on the implied fear of excommunication for political leaders. Sadly, this is wildly inappropriate, regardless of the reason.
Up until really the 20th century, there has been a struggle to protect the independence of the Church from physical encroachment of world powers, while fulfilling its mission to spread the Gospel. Some of the previous Popes took the political side more seriously, and vice versa. However, the fear was real, as foreign powers were regularly sticking their nose into Church affairs, and making trouble for the faithful.
Some people think we have it bad in the US vis a vis govt. interference with religion, especially Obamacare. While it is true, nothing really compares to early middle ages through Henry VIII.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.