|
1 members (Protopappas76),
256
guests, and
21
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear Stlouisix,
I missed your post before the one above.
Whether or not I have a short memory is something for my university professors, who granted me a PhD, to decide.
You may be a research assistant, but I don't know what your academic credentials are.
You write as if they aren't all they could be, however.
Be that as it may, it is clear that you seem to be having trouble thinking outside of your own parameters.
The Immaculate Conception and Assumption doctrines are indeed papal doctrines - and that means they were proclaimed for the belief of the entire church by the Pope.
You seem to have trouble with a basic understanding of Papal teaching (and with the Development of Doctrine, I might add).
You also have NO idea about the perspectives of Eastern Christian theology - that is so painfully clear in your rejoinders so as to be quite sad.
What is even more sad is your pomposity in thinking the East has nothing to teach the West in this and other regards.
The East has always considered the Mother of God to have been sanctified from her Conception. I've said this, and I'll always say this.
The East has a different view on Original Sin than that of Augustine. And this has meant that the Latin West has allowed, until the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception, the view that Mary WAS conceived with Original Sin - and St Thomas Aquinas was not a proponent of the Immaculate Conception in his lifetime.
For the East, the fact that the West allowed this view would have been seen as heretical i.e. that the West allowed for an heretical view of the Conception of the Mother of God. And I think the case can be made for that view.
As for the Assumption, the East's liturgical prayers go far beyond anything the West could ever dogmatize about to glorify the All-Holy Theotokos who sits at the right hand of her Son.
What I said, if you care to think about it for a moment, is that the East has always held to what the RC church pronounced as necessary for Catholic faith (for the Latin faithful since the East always believed that).
In other words, the Christian East was way ahead of the Roman West when it came to these doctrines.
And the West can teach us NOTHING about devotion to the Most Holy Theotokos.
We, at least, never had a tradition of allowing the opinion that she was born with Original Sin.
Your invective against me shows that you are very young and enthusiastic.
You would do well to calm down and reflect more on what you say, but even more importantly, on what others say, before you respond half-cocked as some sort of "hurray-henry" of Latin Catholicism.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
new
|
|
new
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92 |
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear stlouis,
You have also confirmed my suspicion that your "traditional" site is anything but loyal to the Holy See by your reference to what comes before Vatican II.
If you were traditional as you say you are, you would have remembered St Ignatius Loyola's counsel against comparing ourselves to saints in any way in his Spiritual Exercises.
Alex Dear Alex, I'm mystified by your defensiveness in re to what comes before Vatican II for two reasons. 1) Why should you care about Catholicism when your positions taken on this thread are not Catholic? 2) How does referring to what comes before Vatican II disloyal to the Holy See? Such an inference is absurd! Is every Council and Dogmatic Church teaching prior to Vatican II to be thrown into the trash? Did the Catholic Church start with Vatican II? Following your illogic , Catholics referring to Sacred Scripture would be disloyal to the Holy See for doing so. We can forget the end of Matthew's Gospel where Christ admonished His disciples to convert the world to the one true faith for eternity's sake. And my reference to Saints Peter and Paul was to illustrate that even saints can be in error.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
new
|
|
new
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92 |
[My comments are in brackets] Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Stlouisix,
I missed your post before the one above.
Whether or not I have a short memory is something for my university professors, who granted me a PhD, to decide.
You may be a research assistant, but I don't know what your academic credentials are.
You write as if they aren't all they could be, however.
[My, nothing like an ad hominem attack. I would suggest looking in a mirror in re to credentials since it is you who are denying infallible Church dogmas. As for my education, I have an MA in Philosophy from a Catholic Seminary Summa Cum Laude. My other degrees are in the sciences since I'm a research mathematician. And I'm not young. So do not patronize me, which is uncharitable!]
Be that as it may, it is clear that you seem to be having trouble thinking outside of your own parameters.
[The parameters in question are those of Holy Mother Church, not mine.]
The Immaculate Conception and Assumption doctrines are indeed papal doctrines - and that means they were proclaimed for the belief of the entire church by the Pope.
[They are papal doctrines, i.e., dogma, declared ex cathedra for the Universal Church to include the Byzantine Catholic Church which is in Communion with Rome. The Popes who did so were not speaking for themselves exclusively but in their role as Vicar of Christ on Earth for the Church Universal. They were speaking for the Universal Church, which is the nature of Catholic dogmatic teaching.]
You seem to have trouble with a basic understanding of Papal teaching (and with the Development of Doctrine, I might add).
[Ibid. The problem is not mine, but yours. Doctrine does not change once it is declared; rather, it is only clarified. That is all that can be done. You, on the other hand, are radically changing it by insisting that your positions are Catholic, which they're not.]
You also have NO idea about the perspectives of Eastern Christian theology - that is so painfully clear in your rejoinders so as to be quite sad.
[I'm not interested in perspectives of Eastern Christianity that redefine Catholic dogma to be what it isn't. That is not Eastern Catholicism. It is something else.]
What is even more sad is your pomposity in thinking the East has nothing to teach the West in this and other regards.
[Where did I ever say that the East has nothing to teach the West. The beauty of the Divine Liturgy speaks otherwise. I'm specifically addressing a point of Catholic dogma that Eastern Catholics, as an article of Faith, are called to believe; else, they cannot call themselves Catholic.]
The East has always considered the Mother of God to have been sanctified from her Conception. I've said this, and I'll always say this.
[The marian dogmas apply to the Church Universal. These you dismiss out of hand, which is not Catholic.]
The East has a different view on Original Sin than that of Augustine. And this has meant that the Latin West has allowed, until the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception, the view that Mary WAS conceived with Original Sin - and St Thomas Aquinas was not a proponent of the Immaculate Conception in his lifetime.
[You do not understand basic Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church never held that Mary was conceived with Original Sin prior to the Immaculate Conception. The Dogma itself says just the contrary, i.e., it teaches that she never was conceived with Original Sin. That is the teaching.]
For the East, the fact that the West allowed this view would have been seen as heretical i.e. that the West allowed for an heretical view of the Conception of the Mother of God. And I think the case can be made for that view.
[Looking at the early fathers in Jurgens, for but one ref, there are many citations where what you say here is not correct.]
As for the Assumption, the East's liturgical prayers go far beyond anything the West could ever dogmatize about to glorify the All-Holy Theotokos who sits at the right hand of her Son.
[I don't believe that making such statements serve any purpose. Western spirituality in re to the veneration of Mary is beautiful. The West and the East are not in competition to see who wins. This isn't a game. Your statement trivializes what Marian devotion should be, the honor due to the Mother of God, as is shown in so many devotions to the First Saturdays in ref to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the Marian Litany's, to the daily rosaries being said with May being Mary's month to honor her coronation as Queen of the Universe, speaks to the devotion of the Universal Church for which both east and west should be proud!]
What I said, if you care to think about it for a moment, is that the East has always held to what the RC church pronounced as necessary for Catholic faith (for the Latin faithful since the East always believed that).
[Dogmatic pronouncements are NOT just for the Latin faithful. They are for the Church universal.]
In other words, the Christian East was way ahead of the Roman West when it came to these doctrines.
[That can't be in regard to Original Sin because the Christian East, per the final declared Catholic dogmatic teaching (ref Trent) is not in agreement per what your positions are. And how can the Christian East be ahead of the Roman West in terms of the Marian dogmas when you assert that the East could care less about them?]
And the West can teach us NOTHING about devotion to the Most Holy Theotokos.
[Is that a fact. Do you know what the sin of Pride is?]
We, at least, never had a tradition of allowing the opinion that she was born with Original Sin.
[Neither did the West as was finally declared with the formal ex-Cathedra dogmatic statement.]
Your invective against me shows that you are very young and enthusiastic.
[Better check your mirror. There has been no invective, rather a response to your errors. And stop the patronizing statements please. I'm probably older than you.]
You would do well to calm down and reflect more on what you say, but even more importantly, on what others say, before you respond half-cocked as some sort of "hurray-henry" of Latin Catholicism.
Alex [Sorry to see that your definition of "half-cocked" encompasses those who defend Catholic dogma. Your adversarial relationship between the East and the West serves no purpose. Your position is not defensible in that you maintain that Catholic Dogma is not applicable to the Byzantine Catholic Church, which would come as news to those in the Eparchy of Pittsburgh, clergy and laity alike.]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear stlouis,
I accept ALL of the Catholic Church's teachings, and especially what the Church teaches today as part of the Development of Doctrine.
I am ready to be judged by the Church on what I believe, but not by you.
It is you who deny that Eastern Catholicism is Catholic, it is you who deny that there can be legitimate Catholic theologies and canonical disciplines other than those in the West, it is you who are ready to impute heretical motive to anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the Church's Tradition and it is you who have shown that you are critical of Vatican II and the right of the Holy See to interpret the Faith for us today.
I told you what the Eastern position is on Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
You answered by saying that I am not a Catholic.
I find that offensive, childish and impudent on your part.
It is based simply on gross ignorance of Eastern Catholic Christianity and on the pride that refuses to admit that you neither know nor care to know much about Eastern theology.
If that is the case, then why should I or anyone here for that matter wish to carry on a "conversation" with someone who responds with traditionalist rants against Eastern Christianity?
By calling me heretical or unCatholic, you are calling Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy the same.
There is no way one can converse with you as you are not interested in conversation.
Have a great life.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780 |
I'm going to jump in here because there seems to be a bit more animosity in this discussion than I want to see. Let me address a couple of issues that are important here. First: And Vatican II was a pastoral, not a dogmatic council, by admission of the convening Pope and the Council fathers. Wrong! The Church has two kinds of councils: local or synodal councils and general or ecumenical councils. There is no such thing as a "pastoral council." The Second Vatican Council was an ecumenical council that was pastoral in nature (which is what the popes actually said!). Pope John XXIII called the council and speficially said it was not to define doctrine but, rather, to address how the Church was to operate in the world today. Secondly, there seems to be some selective reading of posts. Let's make this very clear, the Catholic Church teaches that we do not inherit "actual sin" but the results of that sin (a weakening of the will, death, a weakening of the intellect). That is, we have a "fallen nature" instead of the "preternatural nature" that was the gift of God to Adam and Eve. The concept of a "fallen nature" is important because this is the Eastern understanding. It is not just us who are affected by Original Sin -- it is the world into which we are born! We do not inherit the actual sin because that would require us to commit the sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear that: 405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendents. It is a deprevation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin--an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." This is, in fact, not far from the expression used in the East. Fr. Deacon Edward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear Fr. Deacon Edward,
Even a non-Catholic like myself can come to agree with you!
Perhaps one day I'll re-enter the Church . . .
You have such a beneficent influence over people like me who are so lost in their invincible ignorance!
As for the animosity, by not upbraiding stlouisix for saying I'm not Catholic, you are saying it's all right to say such things about posters here?
Even those like me who are lost forever in the sea of schism and heresy?
I think I need a break from the Forum . . . it is the summer after all . . .
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
new
|
|
new
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92 |
You are not going to be allowed to get away with charging me that I said that Eastern Catholicism is not Catholic. The Byzantine Catholic Church IS Catholic. I just want to ensure that we're talking CATHOLICISM, and not something else. See my comments in brackets.] Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear stlouis,
I accept ALL of the Catholic Church's teachings, and especially what the Church teaches today as part of the Development of Doctrine.
[Doctrine does not develop. Dogma remains invariant, only a clarification is allowed. This is akin to saying the Constitutions of countries can evolve, i.e., be dynamic, other than static. The former leads to penumbra's where activist judges give us Roe v. Wade, Planned Barrenhood v. Casey, and Lawrence v. Texas, all of which are assaults on both faith and reason. The latter is necessary for stability, else anarchy is in the wind.]
I am ready to be judged by the Church on what I believe, but not by you.
[Catholics can overlay the teachings of Holy Mother Church against when is publically proclaimed and make judgments. We cannot judge inner dispositions. Only God can do that.]
It is you who deny that Eastern Catholicism is Catholic, it is you who deny that there can be legitimate Catholic theologies and canonical disciplines other than those in the West, it is you who are ready to impute heretical motive to anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the Church's Tradition and it is you who have shown that you are critical of Vatican II and the right of the Holy See to interpret the Faith for us today.
[This is pure rubbish, as anyone who has objectively followed this thread can quickly ascertain. You have no understanding of Catholic teaching to be hysterically saying what you just did. No one is denying anything other than statements that are in direct contradiction to Catholic dogma. I have painfully shown because I care about the propagation of error in the name of Catholicism that it is NOT my interpretation, but rather that of Holy Mother Church for the Universal Church, which I'm defending.]
I told you what the Eastern position is on Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
You answered by saying that I am not a Catholic.
I find that offensive, childish and impudent on your part.
[You contradict yourself. The Eastern position, or any posistion, for that matter, on Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are irrelevant when it comes to declared Catholic dogma to be believed by the Universal Church. You seem to be arguing from an Eastern Orthodox Church perspective. I'm focusing solely on CATHOLIC dogma.]
It is based simply on gross ignorance of Eastern Catholic Christianity and on the pride that refuses to admit that you neither know nor care to know much about Eastern theology.
[I've learned a lot about Eastern theology since my son was married in a Byzantine Catholic Church, and from the Byzantine Catholic priests that I know, who are in disagreement with you.]
If that is the case, then why should I or anyone here for that matter wish to carry on a "conversation" with someone who responds with traditionalist rants against Eastern Christianity?
[What traditionalist rant are you talking about? Even Paul VI has quoted the same documents that I did on this thread to clarify Church teaching on Original sin. How is it a traditonalist rant to be referencing infallibly protected dogmatic teachings of the Universal Church? That makes no sense!]
By calling me heretical or unCatholic, you are calling Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy the same.
[There was a schism was there not? The Byzantine Catholic Church is no longer a part of that schism. At least that is what I was told by Byzantine clerics in my neighborhood. What is one when one denies Catholic dogma for the Universal Church, dogma that is invariant, i.e., it does NOT develop?]
There is no way one can converse with you as you are not interested in conversation.
Have a great life.
Alex [I am having a great life. My priest just the other day prayed that God grant me and my wife on the occasion of our 35th wedding anniversary many happy years!]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear stlouisix,
I offer you my apologies for any unpleasantry and offence I have given you.
It is not my intention to attack the Catholic faith, the faith that two of my relatives died for under the soviets (and who have been since beatified by the Catholic Church as martyrs).
I am clearly in the wrong and do remove myself from this Catholic board so as not to give further offence to anyone.
Sorrowfully and in repentance,
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
new
|
|
new
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92 |
Originally posted by FrDeaconEd: I'm going to jump in here because there seems to be a bit more animosity in this discussion than I want to see.
Let me address a couple of issues that are important here. First: And Vatican II was a pastoral, not a dogmatic council, by admission of the convening Pope and the Council fathers.
Secondly, there seems to be some selective reading of posts. Let's make this very clear, the Catholic Church teaches that we do not inherit "actual sin" but the results of that sin (a weakening of the will, death, a weakening of the intellect). That is, we have a "fallen nature" instead of the "preternatural nature" that was the gift of God to Adam and Eve.
The concept of a "fallen nature" is important because this is the Eastern understanding. It is not just us who are affected by Original Sin -- it is the world into which we are born! We do not inherit the actual sin because that would require us to commit the sin.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear that: [b]405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendents. It is a deprevation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin--an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence."
Fr. Deacon Edward [/b]This is not appear to be what Trent said in regard to Original sin, per a careful reading. The sin itself is transmitted to Adam's posterity. While this is not an actual sin in that those inheriting it commit it formerly, it is the Original Sin of Adam, and not just the consequences thereof that we all have. If this is not the case, then every Catechism that I used to include that of Pope Saint Pius X, and the Baltimore, got it wrong in regard to mankind inheriting Original Sin when I grew up, which I don't believe, and neither do the Byzantine Catholics that I know locally to include some clerics. We get nowhere saying black is white, however good our intentions might be. The canons from Trent that I quoted address this specifically. As for the "pastoral Council" that phrase has been commonly used to differentiate between a council not making dogmatic pronouncements and one which does. One of the problems with the Church operating in the world today is that it has forgotten its dogmas. Conversion has been replaced with dialogue with in some cases, very high ranking clerics incredibly arguing that because of Vatican II the Church is no longer in the conversion business, and the Jews can still wait for the Messiah. I did not come into this thread with the idea of attacking anyone. My sole purpose was to understand what it meant to be a Catholic, West or East. I have seen much masquerading as Catholicism in the world which a Church already rife with confusion does not need. There are problems in both Eastern and Western Churches in central PA. No one is immune, which is why that we have to get it right on the basics! It hurts us all when we see the Catholic masks such as I witnessed at Penn State (I'm on the faculty) promote Mortal Sin. There are non-Catholics here who have a better understanding of the Catholic Faith rooted in the Great Tradition of the Church and Sacred Scripture than those who are given ink to propagate their heresies, e.g., promoting the contraceptive mentality of the age to include abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia. God help us all! Alex, I apologize if I offended you. But you need to understand where I was coming from. You say you saw my website. A careful read would have let you know that things are not well here Catholicwise, which plays right into the hands of the father-of-lies! I'm concerned as a Catholic grandfather, and father about a recognizable faith being left to my children and grandchildren. How could any of us not be! I start each day at work praying for Pope Benedict XVI. Pope John Paul II was in my daily morning offerings. I always believed that one of the best ways to witness to the faith for conversion sake is to educate yourself in it, and not be afraid to say the hard things publically. Many of us locally have tried to do that with little or no support from the Church. Prayerfully and hopefully this will change will a new Byzantine Catholic Church in State College, PA. The new mission Church is scheduled to start October 15. We need a lot of prayers here, and it serves no purpose to fight amongst ourselves, when the devil presents the greatest enemy. In Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear stlouisix, I will think carefully upon your words. Perhaps it is the case indeed that I have been tending toward Eastern Orthodoxy without knowing it. I will reflect on my own identity, whether it is Catholic or Orthodox. Perhaps it is that I am confused. I apologise for any harshness toward you on my part and I was obviously wrong when I said you were "young!"  (Young at heart, for sure!). I will take the next few weeks to reconsider things prayerfully and recollectedly, to see any error in my ways, and what purpose there is to posting here on topics that divide, rather than unite us. Cheers, Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780 |
stlouisix: You wrote: This is not appear to be what Trent said in regard to Original sin, per a careful reading. The sin itself is transmitted to Adam's posterity. While this is not an actual sin in that those inheriting it commit it formerly, it is the Original Sin of Adam, and not just the consequences thereof that we all have. If this is not the case, then every Catechism that I used to include that of Pope Saint Pius X, and the Baltimore, got it wrong in regard to mankind inheriting Original Sin when I grew up, which I don't believe, and neither do the Byzantine Catholics that I know locally to include some clerics. The reason I cite the Catechism is that is reflects the current understanding of the Church. We have to understand that no document in the Church can be taken out of the context in which it was written. The Council of Trent has exactly the same level of authority as the Second Vatican Council, no more and no less. There is a tendency among Catholics to do their own interpretation of Church documents. This is, of course, contrary to the teaching of the Church. Only the Church has the authority to interpret her own documents. Was Trent wrong? No. However, Trent did not present the full picture either. As with most councils and Church documents, they address a particular situation that faces the Church at that time and place. It is also true that no teaching of the Church is, in and of itself, complete -- for that would mean that we have exhausted the Deposit of Faith which is impossible. The Catechism reflects the Church's understanding of Original Sin in the broader context of both East and West, the Greek Fathers and the Latin Fathers rather than simply presenting a particular position (i.e., that of the Latin Fathers). We get nowhere saying black is white, however good our intentions might be. And we get nowhere by taking Church teachings out of context. The canons from Trent that I quoted address this specifically. Yes, they do. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which you seem to dismiss out-of-hand) tells us how to understand that teaching. As for the "pastoral Council" that phrase has been commonly used to differentiate between a council not making dogmatic pronouncements and one which does. One of the problems with the Church operating in the world today is that it has forgotten its dogmas. Conversion has been replaced with dialogue with in some cases, very high ranking clerics incredibly arguing that because of Vatican II the Church is no longer in the conversion business, and the Jews can still wait for the Messiah. But the term is one coined by those who wish, for some reason, to ignore the teaching of the Second Vatican Council as if, by using this term, it reduces the weight of the teaching of the Council. I did not come into this thread with the idea of attacking anyone. My sole purpose was to understand what it meant to be a Catholic, West or East. I have seen much masquerading as Catholicism in the world which a Church already rife with confusion does not need. As I read though your posts it did not (and does not) appear that you came here to "understand" since your posts are not consistent with the dialog that leads to understanding but, rather, with assertions that we in the East are wrong and have a flawed understanding which you are only too happy to correct. There are problems in both Eastern and Western Churches in central PA. No one is immune, which is why that we have to get it right on the basics! Yes, and one of the basics is that the Church interprets for us her teachings. We do not interpret them for the Church, we do not define for ourselves what the Church teaches. Fr. Deacon Edward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92
new
|
|
new
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 92 |
See my comments in brackets. Originally posted by FrDeaconEd: stlouisix:
You wrote: This is not appear to be what Trent said in regard to Original sin, per a careful reading. The sin itself is transmitted to Adam's posterity. While this is not an actual sin in that those inheriting it commit it formerly, it is the Original Sin of Adam, and not just the consequences thereof that we all have. If this is not the case, then every Catechism that I used to include that of Pope Saint Pius X, and the Baltimore, got it wrong in regard to mankind inheriting Original Sin when I grew up, which I don't believe, and neither do the Byzantine Catholics that I know locally to include some clerics.
[The Council of Trent was a dogmatic council. Vatican II was not. Trent's declarations contain anathemas. So I respectfully submit that given the importance of what Trent addressed in terms of formally defining De fide articles of faith that must be believed by the entire Church, there is a distinct difference in importance between the two.]
There is a tendency among Catholics to do their own interpretation of Church documents. This is, of course, contrary to the teaching of the Church. Only the Church has the authority to interpret her own documents.
[Agreed.]
Was Trent wrong? No. However, Trent did not present the full picture either. As with most councils and Church documents, they address a particular situation that faces the Church at that time and place. It is also true that no teaching of the Church is, in and of itself, complete -- for that would mean that we have exhausted the Deposit of Faith which is impossible.
[Better be careful here. In regard to De fide belief, Trent did present the full picture. To imply that Trent's dogmatic declarations were a function of the situation that faced the Church at that time only, allows for the inference to be made that such dogma might be changed per another contemporary situation, which is not true.]
The Catechism reflects the Church's understanding of Original Sin in the broader context of both East and West, the Greek Fathers and the Latin Fathers rather than simply presenting a particular position (i.e., that of the Latin Fathers).
[A careful read of the Catechism shows that it is saying exactly what Trent said. How could it be otherwise, since no Catechism or Council upon which the Catechism is based can change dogma?]
We get nowhere saying black is white, however good our intentions might be.
[No one is taking Church teachings out of context. Rather, the context is clearly annunciated by the dogmatic teachings.]
The canons from Trent that I quoted address this specifically.
[No one is dismissing the CCC. But there have been errors in the CCC that were corrected, very serious errors in re to homosexuality to name one prominent example. Any Catechism worth its salt has a compendium or series of refs to Catholic dogma upon which its clarifying statements are made. There is certainly nothing wrong to going back to that dogma to see what it said.]
As for the "pastoral Council" that phrase has been commonly used to differentiate between a council not making dogmatic pronouncements and one which does. One of the problems with the Church operating in the world today is that it has forgotten its dogmas. Conversion has been replaced with dialogue with in some cases, very high ranking clerics incredibly arguing that because of Vatican II the Church is no longer in the conversion business, and the Jews can still wait for the Messiah.
[The teaching of the Second Vatican Council must adhere to the traditional teaching on faith and morals of Holy Mother Church. There are numerous ambiguous statements in the Council docs, one of which I referenced for you directly addressed by Pope Paul VI himself, in the matter of a misplaced notion of collegiality, which is still held by those who believe that they are popes of their own private fiefdoms.]
I did not come into this thread with the idea of attacking anyone. My sole purpose was to understand what it meant to be a Catholic, West or East. I have seen much masquerading as Catholicism in the world which a Church already rife with confusion does not need.
[Dialogue for the purpose of understanding must have as its foundation seminal Catholic Truth. Eastern Catholics cannot be wrong since they are in Communion with Rome. The problem was a position that was being presented that was not Catholic. I don't know how many times this has to be said.]
There are problems in both Eastern and Western Churches in central PA. No one is immune, which is why that we have to get it right on the basics!
[And this interpretation was done very clearly in the dogmatic documents which were provided as evidence on this thread. I certainly cannot be accused of defining for myself what the Church teaches when the core of my argument was a defense of the Catholic faith using literally what the Church teaches, i.e., the Church's interpretation.]
Fr. Deacon Edward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14 |
stlouisix wrote:
Dialogue for the purpose of understanding must have as its foundation seminal Catholic Truth. Eastern Catholics cannot be wrong since they are in Communion with Rome. The problem was a position that was being presented that was not Catholic. I don't know how many times this has to be said. Posting the same false accusation over and over does not make it true. The fault here is in your understanding of Catholic Teaching, not in the Eastern doctrine that has been presented. Maybe you should stop accusing the world of heresy and attempt to listen and learn?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear Administrator, Whew! So I'm not a heretic after all! (Although . . . well,no, not really . . .). You don't know what a terrible burden you've lifted from my shoulders this afternoon! And as for my identity, I'll remain an "Orthodox Catholic!"  All Hail to our Chief, the Administrator!! Salve Magister, nos morituri Te salutamus! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Alright, I'm confused.
Does the Catholic Church teach that we inherit the guilt of original sin and not just the consequences of it?
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
