Posted on 07/04/2015 12:23:13 PM PDT by Morgana
RVN_Vet
What manner of absurd reasoning is this? You have been corrected on this before and repeating it simply make you look even more ridiculous. Do you really think that agreeing with an entity on some things necessarily means that you affirm them as authoritative? And to be submitted to in all other such judgments, which must be the conclusion of your logic if it is to have any polemical weight. Do you realize where that logic leads to?
Be assured, I may concur with the judgments of someone but it does not follow that i must hold them as authoritative, much less to be submitted to them in all other such judgments.
Deny it till hell freezes over but it’s fact.
Rather, though largely established, there simply was no indisputable canon until after Luther died, thus scholarly doubts and disagreement continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent over which books were canonical, until Trent provided the first infallible decree on the canon of Scripture. Deny it till hell freezes over but it’s fact .
In addition, rather than Prot concurrence on the NT was no more a recognition of the authority of Rome than for the OT canon, as instead, they did not recognize any authority of Rome to set this, but held the latter as fallible, and their concurrence was due to recognizing both men and writings of God essentially due to their enduring Heavenly qualities and affirmation. Which is what souls did before Rome ever presumed that she was essential for men and writings of God to be recognized as such. And which is how the NT actually began, contrary to the Roman model. Deny it till hell freezes over, but it’s fact
Once again your attempt to defend Rome with your Roman reasoning is an argument against being an RC.
This is totally incorrect. Sorry.
A sorry bare denial, which is contrary to the evidence. And which also applies to those who dissent in part from modern V2 teaching.
First, the pope certainly has a right and function to discern new developments and to teach what Catholic teaching is in the light of social developments, including ecological damage and economy, like as as Pope John XXIII did in Mater et magistra in teaching what Catholic morality demands as regarding determining a just wage.
As a RC commentator states,
Human beings are by nature social animals. If our lives are to be led within society, then it surely would be odd if the Church, whose precepts we must follow if we hope to reach eternal life, could have nothing to say about one of the central aspects of human social life, our economic conduct. Those who endeavor to restrict the Church’s teaching are trying to erect an arbitrary and artificial limitation on her authority. This is not compatible with Catholic orthodoxy. As Pius XI wrote in his first encyclical, Ubi Arcano (1922), concerning those who do not conform their thinking and writing to the social teachings of the popes: “In all this we recognize a kind of moral, judicial, and social Modernism, and We condemn it as strongly as We do dogmatic Modernism” (#61). - https://ethikapolitika.org/2014/09/29/authority-catholic-social-teaching/
The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states,
80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it. - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2037.
And it is evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy.
For the pope presents his teaching as based upon Catholic teaching. Francis first invokes Pope Saint John XXIII who fifty years ago wrote an Encyclical which addressed his message Pacem in Terris to the entire “Catholic world” and indeed “to all men and women of good will,” as a precedent for this Encyclical.
Next he invokes Pope Paul VI who in 1971 referred to the ecological concern as “a tragic consequence” of unchecked human activity:
Then Francis calls upon Saint John Paul II who In his first Encyclical warned that human beings frequently seem “to see no other meaning in their natural environment than what serves for immediate use and consumption”.
And next he cites predecessor Benedict XVI as having likewise proposed “eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment.”
Then he enlists Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as speaking in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage.”
Next Saint Francis of Assisi is appealed to as the patron saint of all who study and work in the area of ecology,
Francis proceeds to invoke church teaching as foundational to his concerns.
The development of the Church’s social teaching represents such a synthesis with regard to social issues; this teaching is called to be enriched by taking up new challenges.
He next cites "THE WISDOM OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS" regarding about the relationship of human beings with the world, and as how the "originally harmonious relationship between human beings and nature became conflictual" (cf. Gen 3:17-19). And that "the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature...is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church."
He proceeds to invoke the story of Cain and Abel, and numerous other texts for support. And how "The work of the Church seeks not only to remind everyone of the duty to care for nature, but at the same time “she must above all protect mankind from self-destruction”"
And that "In our time, the Church does not simply state that other creatures are completely subordinated to the good of human beings, as if they have no worth in themselves and can be treated as we wish." And how The Catechism clearly and forcefully criticizes a distorted anthropocentrism...
Francis further calls upon Saint John Paul II as teaching, stating that “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone”.
Moving on, under New biological technologies, he states that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that experimentation on animals is morally acceptable only “if it remains within reasonable limits..." and goes on to "recall the balanced position of Saint John Paul II."
Francis does on to invoke Benedict XVI as affirming "there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago”
And how the Church set before the world the ideal of a “civilization of love”. And imagines "the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love.."
Finally, 172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support.
2. The authority of papal encyclicals is understood as being "undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Encyclicals: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent , since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.- POPE PAUL VI, LUMEN GENTIUM; http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html-
And it is obvious that Francis sees Climate Change as a dire threat, and that RC faith and morality requires the response he provides, and thus all RCs are to do likewise, and not publicly dissent.
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors . - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
Which type of submission has some weighty endorsement:
I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed . No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope's word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience. - Life of Cardinal Newman, Vol. 2; Chapter 26. The Deadlock in Higher Education (1867); http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html
when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor....
Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en
The above source thus asks, "Again, are these obsolete? Do they only apply when we agree? If we don't follow the advise above, are we not just Protestants?"
Such assent is what sanctioned teaching as these exhort:
“All that we must do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”
“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?"
“..our act of confidence and of blind obedience is highly honoring to Almighty God,..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit... (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ) Therefore, although RCs censure evangelicals for seeking to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of Scripture as their supreme authority, even holding that one must have faith that Rome is authoritative and infallible (which premise is supposed to be the basis for RC assurance of Truth) to even validly know what Scripture consists, yet the fact is that RCs themselves engage in interpretation of their supreme authority. Such as what magisterial level many teachings fall under and thus the degree of required assent, as well as the meaning of such.
This results in disunity, with Rome today being an amalgamation of liberal and conservatives, and with those who dissent in part from V2 teaching and those who profess assent to all. Therefore you have the above teaching requiring implicit assent to basically all public papal teaching, and at the least forbidding public dissent, some of which comes from your own comrades who invoke it in refuting the "recognize but resist" stance of other conservative RCs.
And which you must reject or explain away (unless you will reject modern popes) in order for you to deny that you are bound to give assent of mind and will to social teaching, including the latest papal encyclical, and not to engage in public dissent. Although (unlike infallible teaching) you may internally disagree.
I hesitated to reply to you because you always post reams of crap, but all your writing can be dismissed as easily as this — encyclicals are not infallible (even if some infallible truth is incidentally contained somewhere in the body of an encyclical, the pope does not exercise complete doctrinal authority in presenting it) and V2 was pastoral, not dogmatic. Thus neither require assent, public or private.
Catholic authority is a three legged beast, to be ridden along the salvation trail: Traditions + Scripture + Magisterium = Catholic Authority. When Scripture does not line up with the Traditions, the Magisterium sorts out the variance bringing either in line with catholic authority. Is that about the truth of it?
Transubstantiation is not blasphemous at all.
It is a re-presentation of the Last Supper.
Haven’t I told you this before?
And it is not obvious that the eating of the god of Catholicism is blasphemous?
Which is why you need to to read what is provided, as you simply do not understand RC teaching if you believe only infallible teaching requires assent.
Both infallible and ordinary teaching require assent, though there is a difference in the kind of submission both require. Infallible, irreformable, extraordinary teachings (which arguably constitute the smaller portion of what RCs believe and practice), require (according to various Catholic sources), "sacred assent," "internal assent," that being "assent of faith" "without wavering," "submission of faith," "assent of mind and heart," “obedience of faith,” "theological faith," “divine and Catholic faith.”
One who doubts these articles lacks faith that Rome possesses ensured veracity, and falls into heresy), while "authentic" but non-definitive ordinary teaching requires "ordinary assent," that being "religious submission of will and intellect," submission of mind and will," which "forbids public contradiction of the teaching"." An obstinate refusal to give "assent of faith" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of faith, while obstinate refusal to give "religious assent" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of charity. - (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologian, 32; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html)
For how this applies to the pope's encyclicals see my prior post, which is far smaller than the almost 44,000 word encyclical itself.
Luther believed in the Real Presence, and Luther had the exact same devotion for Mary than any Catholic has. Luther would have burned you at the stake for denigrating the Real Presence.
I’ll make it a lot quicker than someone that denies the word of God.
What can’t you comprehend in His words..........
“Take this, all of you, and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.............
“Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me”.
Just never been able to figure out how some call Jesus a liar and expect to get to heaven.
And I would have been burned before accepting pagan rites by pagan priests who have twisted the Gospel of Grace to serve the empowerment of an man-made institution, just as the Nicolaitans did and Jesus said in Revelation that He hates that. I will not bow to what Jesus Hates. By the way, you were not entirely honest in that assertion regarding Luther.
Do Catholics know why this assertion of caatholicism is so in error? ... Because drinking the actual blood would address the life in the creature, not the spiritual Life which Jesus and ONLY Jesus has the Authority to deliver. The creature life is in the blood. The SPiritual Life is ONLY in Jesus, so drinking His blood would only get blood into your gastric track.
The blasphemous catholic Mass even caught their error, so they asserted that the SOUL AND DIVINITY of Jesus is in the magic wafer. BLASPHEMY. And too many do not have eyes to see it or ears to hear it exposed.
Use your noodle, think about it! The assertion that there was transubstantiated blood in the cup would only address the creature level of life, not the spiritual level of Life Jesus brings to those faithing in Him as Savior and Lord! Stumble over that Truth again and again and eventually you will welcome the stumbling ... until God closes the door because catholics would rather stumble in Heresies than run to Him.
“They can even have my prized Canadian made Graf hockey skates. Hate to let them go, but maybe someone else can use them.”
Lol.
I missed this, which once again examples the interpretive nature of RC teaching, and while you reject V2 as requiring any assent, JP2 stated:
You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." (Paul VI, Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.)
And in closing the V2 council, Pope Paul VI stated,
the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force... ADDRESS OF POPE PAUL VI DURING THE LAST GENERAL MEETING OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, 7 December 1965; http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio.html
Then there is PIUS XI;
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html
You don’t understand what ordinary assent is or what it entails — the faithful exercise of ordinary assent allows, and sometimes even requires, the exercise of faithful dissent from fallible teaching.
Rather, you don’t understand what ordinary assent is or what it entails if you think it allows for public dissent. I have provided much Catholic teaching on this issue by God's grace, but you have your opinions as do other RCs.
I thought catholics rather strongly disliked Luther. I think he lives rent free in catholic heads. I also deny your so called real presence, as a total misinterpretation. I don't deny the words of Jesus, I deny the Roman interpretation. You can think whatever you like. That's on you. I choose not to. I have that freedom. Once again, have a nice forever. I hope you make it. I notice you won't mention that aspect, because I used to be a catholic, and I am sure most catholics have no idea where they will spend eternity. That's on them.
RVN_Vet
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.