One Catholic Writer's Take On Kate Kelly

[3DOP]

On EWTN today I heard an apologist claim no Pope had ever errored in faith or morals even when there were bad Popes.He also said no Pope would ever do so because of Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church. How can we be sure this is true? Could we blindly accept a papal statement on doctrine when the Pope was wrong? Maybe infant baptism or the doctrine of hell for examples?

And how can we be sure a Mormon prophet could not have fallen and taught something wrong like polygamy. Is it possible that depending on authority can lead us all astray?

 

I agree with EWTN. I guarantee you they meant that no pope has erred when he speaks ex cathedra, from the chair of Peter. Very few popes have ever so spoken such as Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception, or Pius XII on the Assumption. No bad pope has ever done taught a false doctrine that Catholics are bound to accept. However, popes are susceptible to false doctrine when they are acting as merely private teachers, choosing not to define dogma once and for all with the authority of the keys of Peter.

 

Why is Pope Francis alive more authoritative than Pius X, XI, or XII dead? I WANT to believe every word that any pope has ever spoken too. But we can't. John XXII was tried and found guilty of heresy in his lifetime. He repented and recanted his error on his deathbed. Does this episode have no relevance for us today? I guess not? John XXII didn't teach ex cathedra, but still made his private opinion public and got into trouble with it. It had something to do with the general or particular judgment. It doesn't matter though. If John XXII were pope today, the whole church would go walking merrily on its way while giving the stinkeye to people like me who dare to have a doubt about the private opinion of a living pope.

Edited September 2, 2014 by 3DOP

[Bart Burk]

I agree with EWTN. I guarantee you they meant that no pope has erred when he speaks ex cathedra, from the chair of Peter. Very few popes have ever so spoken such as Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception, or Pius XII on the Assumption. No bad pope has ever done taught a false doctrine that Catholics are bound to accept. However, popes are susceptible to false doctrine when they are acting as merely private teachers, choosing not to define dogma once and for all with the authority of the keys of Peter.

 

Why is Pope Francis alive more authoritative than Pius X, XI, or XII dead? I WANT to believe every word that any pope has ever spoken too. But we can't. John XXII was tried and found guilty of heresy in his lifetime. He repented and recanted his error on his deathbed. Does this episode have no relevance for us today? I guess not? John XXII didn't teach ex cathedra, but still made his private opinion public and got into trouble with it. It had something to do with the general or particular judgment. It doesn't matter though. If John XXII were pope today, the whole church would go walking merrily on its way while giving the stinkeye to people like me who dare to have a doubt about the private opinion of a living pope.

How do you know some early pope did not teach false doctrine that came down to us? I doubt any early pope ever knew anything about ex-cathedra this or that. And could doctrines have simply disappeared? If it is not in scripture how much faith can you put in some pope's definition of a particular sin? Or in a matter of faith like auricular confession to a priest? I am not questioning these doctrines as much as the assumption we make about authority we hand over to others in religious matters.

[Yirgacheffe]

. They can get an annulment if there was never a marriage. But if there was a marriage, which is what divorce indicates, they are not free to remarry while the spouse lives. No pastoral initiative can change that. 

Wouldn't they have to get a divorce and an annulment?

[3DOP]

How do you know some early pope did not teach false doctrine that came down to us? I doubt any early pope ever knew anything about ex-cathedra this or that. And could doctrines have simply disappeared? If it is not in scripture how much faith can you put in some pope's definition of a particular sin? Or in a matter of faith like auricular confession to a priest? I am not questioning these doctrines as much as the assumption we make about authority we hand over to others in religious matters.

 

Good question. I agree about ex cathedra. I am such a liberal, I don't think dear St. Peter knew about that yet either. (gasp) The only reason I do so believe, is because I was alive after 1870 when it was formally defined.

 

Bart Burk, here is what I suggest: By their fruits ye shall know the the good shepherds, and the true prophets.

 

I want to imitate the faith that struck a pagan empire to its knees until it squealed, "Uncle." I follow the fruit. I follow the miracles, sometimes they are physical, but more often moral miracles. As a Catholic we believe in the communion of saints. What have those believed who came before us and whose faith we were happy to receive as our own? Were they following the utterances of one pope, or a long string of heirs of the See of Peter who agreed on the things we believe?

 

Anyway, hang in there Bart Burk, praise God for your conversion, and God love you. I have chided you a bit for your not wanting beer gardens and sausage fests. I am sorry. You don't have to be a boozehound to go to heaven. I need to remember that sometimes! The communion antiphon spoke authoritatively to your question this week (Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost), in regards to the place of alcohol in the life of the Catholic. They have probably suppressed that antiphon for you guys in the new calendar. Pray for the Holy Ghost dear friend. God will not give you a stone. God will give you the Holy Ghost if you ask. Grace and the Holy Ghost are the two things we can pray for with all confidence, knowing it is God's will to shed both abundantly on the condition that we merely ask. He will give us Himself as our exceeding great reward..."The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (please forgive my KJV memory, but the KJV isn't too bad.)

 

I think of my days as a Baptist preacher...I was so far from home...but the good God always had me in mind, always pouring more graces on me than sins I could commit. Thank God much, and love God with all of your heart and mind and soul. (That was our reading from the Gospel this week too.). I bet you had the same Gospel? And who is our neighbor? Just lets love everybody, and we will not miss our neighbour, eh? That poor dumb lawyer, trying to find an excuse to not love somebody because somebody does not qualify as a neighbour...But we need to see ourselves in him too, don't we?

 

Thank God for your Catholic faith. Praise Him. Thank Him, because it was Him that drew you. Not that He doesn't try to draw everyone. "Tis a mystery, but it is His will not to violate our wills. 

 

Anyway, I am a little sorry about the way I jumped you for not liking beer fests sponsored by the parish. I like beer fests better than I like the new Mass! But I am glad that they haven't become prohibitionists yet. Heh.

 

God love you Bart Burk, and you too saemo. I am sorry we are not all seeing eye to eye right now, but with God's help we'll be okay together pretty soon. We don't live long. Pray for me, that I make the most of the rest of my time. May God bless you, and God love you, may He continue to lead in your journeys of faith, my dear Catholic friends in Christ. Forgive me my trespasses.

 

Rory 

 

Wouldn't they have to get a divorce and an annulment?

Edited September 2, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Wouldn't they have to get a divorce and an annulment?

 

If you were never married, a divorce isn't necessary according to ecclesiastical law. How can you divorce someone to whom you were never married? The state might say something else, but that has not been my concern. Annulment means that a marriage never took place because of some impediment whether there were children or anything else that resembles marriage. It does not bother me, as it does many, especially the conservatives, that the Church is pretty liberal about granting annulments.

[Yirgacheffe]

If you were never married, a divorce isn't necessary according to ecclesiastical law. How can you divorce someone to whom you were never married? The state might say something else, but that has not been my concern. Annulment means that a marriage never took place because of some impediment whether there were children or anything else that resembles marriage. It does not bother me, as it does many, especially the conservatives, that the Church is pretty liberal about granting annulments.

But if someone wanted to get married again they would have to get a marriage license for the new marriage, something they can't do if the state sees them as currently married.  Does the Catholic church marry people outside of the state, can you get married in a Catholic church and no be married according to the laws of the land?  And if you can get married in the church only how many Catholics just get married through the church and don't bother with having the state recognize the marriage?

Edited September 2, 2014 by Yirgacheffe

[3DOP]

But if someone wanted to get married again they would have to get a marriage license for the new marriage, something they can't do if the state sees them as currently married.  Does the Catholic church marry people outside of the state, can you get married in a Catholic church and no be married according to the laws of the land?  And if you can get married in the church only how many Catholics just get married through the church and don't bother with having the state recognize the marriage?

 

I don't think licensing enters into whether someone is Sacramentally married. Licenses are a recent phenomenon. It is possible that the Church could recognize a valid marriage that the state did not recognize. I am not familiar with an instance of that but if there is such an instance, the couple could receive Communion. A secular state that is led by citizens who think it their civil duty to ignore the Sacramental laws of Catholic Matrimony are not in a good position to understand who is married, according to the Catholic Church, and who is not.

 

As a Baptist minister, unordained, I performed the wedding of two persons who were both divorced and remarried. What was the state supposed to do? Could a state committed to separation of church and state say the marriage was invaild because I wasn't ordained? What does such a state know, or care, in regards to whether a religious minister is endowed with the Sacrament of Holy Orders? The state has treated these folks as married persons now for these twenty-five years or so. Why, in a society committed to separation of church and state, would the state insist that I follow some religious procedure before being qualified to be the official at someone's wedding? The state doesn't care about such nuances...and rightly so where there is separation of church and state. In such an instance the state presumes a marriage has taken place.

 

Its kind of funny, I remember making a phone call to some bureaucrat about what we needed to do to make the wedding official. I conceded that I was an unordained minister and that I rejected the idea that someone had to lay their hands me so that I would be qualified to officiate a wedding. The guy on the other line didn't like it. Good for him. He sensed the problems of separation of church and state...which can never be complete. He said something about how I couldn't just be any old somebody. I had to have some kind of qualification he thought. No I didn't.

 

As a Catholic who believes that the state should cooperate with the true Church, I have since confessed my sin of performing a false wedding. But the secular state in which I still live, and presumably this bureaucrat have never, and will never question whether I had the authority to make a marriage official; in the eyes of the state. For what that's all worth. I am sorry if it is boring.

[saemo]

3DOP, I have a friend in Italy who is of the same mind as you. A devout Catholic who at one time chided me for not keeping up on the documents scandal thing.

Personally, I feel far from Rome, not theologically but geographically. My ties to the Church are here, in Utah, where Catholicism has always been a minority. We don't have a grand history of Catholic political, of even in honor of today, labor leaders. Catholics in Utah, live our faith, and have had to learn to live ecumenically, long before Vatican II.

I live in a mixed marriage, as do all of my friends who are converts whose spouse has not followed. I had a great nagging concern that my marriage is not Sacramental, because obviously I was not married in the Catholic Church. So a kind Deacon has reassured me that my marriage is Sacramental because I am a convert and my husband is not and never has been Catholic.

I understand the importance of having a Sacramental marriage, and I don't fake it for granted. Involved as I am with RCIA, the question of previous marriages and baptisms is always at the forefront. Canonical law is complicated and though I've had it explained to me, in detail, by a member of our clergy who deals with marriages on a regular basis...I still don't understand the canonical aspects and won't pretend to. I do know that in my area there are a lot of Pauline privileges because of so many converts to Catholicism from Mormonism, who are divorced.

I also know that we've had instances where a non-Catholic Christian wanting to be received into the Church, had a previous marriage and her ex was uncooperative with the process to settle the marriage, canonically, and so she waited ten years to be received. The entire time, attending Mass as a faithful Catholic, and participating in the parish as a Catholic. Who had ever known such a faith as that?

I don't see that annulments are being handed out so easy, not here, but that each person has the pastoral care they need and don't always receive the answer they hope for, but they understand why.

At any rate, I read Pope Francis' Angelus address where you objected to his framing of the Church being founded on faith. I found the address, for myself, read it, and understood him to be saying that Peter expressed his faith in the Son of God, which faith, led to Jesus naming him the rock. I didn't read it as Pope Francis saying the Church is founded on faith. Why, because I am Catholic and understand the Pope is Catholic, and why would I hear what the Pope is teaching without framing it in the Catholic faith? Taking his words out of that framework is the exact same thing the media does when they headline ridiculous things like the Pope supports gay marriage. Really? He never said any such thing.

I thank you for your kindness, and if I sounded unkind, it was not my intention and I apologize. I know my posts here are often viewed as unkind, so I'll leave it at that and wish God's blessing for you and your family.

PS and ETA: see CCC 424, which Protestants will use in arguments, along the lines of "see even your church teaches that the Church is founded of faith". Which has been addressed by CAF, and they'll point you to CCC 552. The point being, Peter's faith is not separate from Peter, the man, and Catholics don't do violence to Peter by separating his faith from him. I think the Pope knows this, don't you?

Edited September 2, 2014 by saemo

[Yirgacheffe]

I don't think licensing enters into whether someone is Sacramentally married. Licenses are a recent phenomenon. It is possible that the Church could recognize a valid marriage that the state did not recognize. I am not familiar with an instance of that but if there is such an instance, the couple could receive Communion. A secular state that is led by citizens who think it their civil duty to ignore the Sacramental laws of Catholic Matrimony are not in a good position to understand who is married, according to the Catholic Church, and who is not.

 

As a Baptist minister, unordained, I performed the wedding of two persons who were both divorced and remarried. What was the state supposed to do? Could a state committed to separation of church and state say the marriage was invaild because I wasn't ordained? What does such a state know, or care, in regards to whether a religious minister is endowed with the Sacrament of Holy Orders? The state has treated these folks as married persons now for these twenty-five years or so. Why, in a society committed to separation of church and state, would the state insist that I follow some religious procedure before being qualified to be the official at someone's wedding? The state doesn't care about such nuances...and rightly so where there is separation of church and state. In such an instance the state presumes a marriage has taken place.

 

Its kind of funny, I remember making a phone call to some bureaucrat about what we needed to do to make the wedding official. I conceded that I was an unordained minister and that I rejected the idea that someone had to lay their hands me so that I would be qualified to officiate a wedding. The guy on the other line didn't like it. Good for him. He sensed the problems of separation of church and state...which can never be complete. He said something about how I couldn't just be any old somebody. I had to have some kind of qualification he thought. No I didn't.

 

As a Catholic who believes that the state should cooperate with the true Church, I have since confessed my sin of performing a false wedding. But the secular state in which I still live, and presumably this bureaucrat have never, and will never question whether I had the authority to make a marriage official; in the eyes of the state. For what that's all worth. I am sorry if it is boring.

So you are saying a Catholic could get an annulment skip getting a legal divorce and remarry in the church while still legally married to his or her first spouse and that would qualify as a "sacramental" marriage? 

[3DOP]

So you are saying a Catholic could get an annulment skip getting a legal divorce and remarry in the church while still legally married to his or her first spouse and that would qualify as a "sacramental" marriage? 

 

I don't know why the Catholic would bypass whatever civil proceedings would inform the government of a dissolution of a previously legal marriage. I would have to check canon law, and I am not an attorney to see if that would be an impediment. It might be an impediment for the confusion and scandal that might arise. It seems like if there was a good reason, like if the Catholic converted from Islam, and lived in a country that would be hostile to his receiving a Catholic annulment, it might be allowed to bypass legal proceedings with the state. It does not seem like one in that position should be prevented from Sacramental marriage. Ordinarily, it would seem highly unadvisable in most Western countries. But I don't know the answer for sure.

[3DOP]

3DOP, I have a friend in Italy who is of the same mind as you. A devout Catholic who at one time chided me for not keeping up on the documents scandal thing.

Personally, I feel far from Rome, not theologically but geographically. My ties to the Church are here, in Utah, where Catholicism has always been a minority. We don't have a grand history of Catholic political, of even in honor of today, labor leaders. Catholics in Utah, live our faith, and have had to learn to live ecumenically, long before Vatican II.

I live in a mixed marriage, as do all of my friends who are converts whose spouse has not followed. I had a great nagging concern that my marriage is not Sacramental, because obviously I was not married in the Catholic Church. So a kind Deacon has reassured me that my marriage is Sacramental because I am a convert and my husband is not and never has been Catholic.

I understand the importance of having a Sacramental marriage, and I don't fake it for granted. Involved as I am with RCIA, the question of previous marriages and baptisms is always at the forefront. Canonical law is complicated and though I've had it explained to me, in detail, by a member of our clergy who deals with marriages on a regular basis...I still don't understand the canonical aspects and won't pretend to. I do know that in my area there are a lot of Pauline privileges because of so many converts to Catholicism from Mormonism, who are divorced.

I also know that we've had instances where a non-Catholic Christian wanting to be received into the Church, had a previous marriage and her ex was uncooperative with the process to settle the marriage, canonically, and so she waited ten years to be received. The entire time, attending Mass as a faithful Catholic, and participating in the parish as a Catholic. Who had ever known such a faith as that?

I don't see that annulments are being handed out so easy, not here, but that each person has the pastoral care they need and don't always receive the answer they hope for, but they understand why.

At any rate, I read Pope Francis' Angelus address where you objected to his framing of the Church being founded on faith. I found the address, for myself, read it, and understood him to be saying that Peter expressed his faith in the Son of God, which faith, led to Jesus naming him the rock. I didn't read it as Pope Francis saying the Church is founded on faith. Why, because I am Catholic and understand the Pope is Catholic, and why would I hear what the Pope is teaching without framing it in the Catholic faith? Taking his words out of that framework is the exact same thing the media does when they headline ridiculous things like the Pope supports gay marriage. Really? He never said any such thing.

I thank you for your kindness, and if I sounded unkind, it was not my intention and I apologize. I know my posts here are often viewed as unkind, so I'll leave it at that and wish God's blessing for you and your family.

PS and ETA: see CCC 424, which Protestants will use in arguments, along the lines of "see even your church teaches that the Church is founded of faith". Which has been addressed by CAF, and they'll point you to CCC 552. The point being, Peter's faith is not separate from Peter, the man, and Catholics don't do violence to Peter by separating his faith from him. I think the Pope knows this, don't you?

 

Thank you for your kind wishes saemo, no worries about hurt feelings or anything on my side.

 

I know someone who is studying here, but from Italy, who is the same mind as you! I don't mean to rattle everybody's cages. But all of a sudden I was off and running on the defensive. I think I need to chill for a few days. Heh. Keep the faith. Yours in Jesus and Mary,

 

Rory

[3DOP]

Hi saemo. I do say stuff like that...but it is supposed to be obvious that I am so far from becoming Mormon, yet, I am even farther from something else.

 

If I recollect, I said I could sooner be Mormon, than try to defend a Catholic faith that didn't get ecumenism or religious liberty right, and also hated Jews until 1965. I said that that was way too late to be finally getting it right with regards to such questions. That is way too long to be wrong about things, and to be canonizing kings, and prelates and theologians who supported policies and contradicted Vatican II. How do you canonize a king who made Catholicism the state religion, and then turn around and say that was wrong? I don't know how to do that. Yeah, I could sooner believe in an apostasy than try to have a "hermeneutic of continuity" that looks like that! But as it happens, that is your problem, not mine if you treat Vatican II like every other Council before it. I accept what the Church taught before 1965 and I have it on the highest authority, the pope himself, Paul VI, who affirmed that Vatican II defined no new dogma. If that is true, then nothing has changed and I can rely on Pius XI for ecumenism, Pius X for modernism, Pius IX for religious liberty, and continue to believe that a Jew who rejects Christ is in no better position by virtue of his ethnicity than anybody else. 

 

If you don't mind, for sake of time, rather than writing everything out, I think a lot of what I said to a friend some time back, apparently before the summer of 2007, named Dave, still explains my conscience on this matter. If you don't read anything else, ponder the papal quotes that are bolded. (The last quote is by Cardinal Ratzinger before his elevation to the papacy. It is bolded as well.)  At the end, I even speak to the question you raise regarding my excommunication!

 

__________________________________

 

1) "Differing from other councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral."

 

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of August 6, 1975, To the rectors of the Universities of the Society of Jesus

 

2) "Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council...But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements..."

 

Pope Paul VI, Address of the last general meeting of the Council, Dec. 7, 1965

 

3) "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

 

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966

 

4) "Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such."

 

Addendum of Nov. 16, 1964 (alluded to by Paul VI above) in the Explanatory Note to Lumen Gentium. A little commentary might be helpful here. Many of the council fathers were wary of some of theological ambiguity that characterized the volumes of words with which they had to deal. You can read about this in The Rhine Flows Through the Tiber, by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen. Earlier councils were written with the concise brevity and clarity that characterizes your writing Dave. Your writing is easy to analyze. It is easy to know if you agree or disagree, and it is the kind of writing that is required in an infallible pronouncement. Of what use is an infallible pronouncement that is subject to multiple interpretations?

 

So, some of the more conservative council fathers, before signing off on Lumen Gentium, wanted to make certain that they weren't signing off on something that could be said to be binding on the Church. In response they were directed to a document written four months previously to Lumen Gentium, that applied not only to that document, but to the entire council. It can be misleading seeing it is now seen as an explanatory note to Lumen Gentium, but a careful reading of the whole explanation will reveal that it applied to all of the Council teachings. That would be why Paul VI cited that explanatory note when qualifying the teaching authority of the entire Council in his audience of Dec. 1, 1966.

 

It seems to me to be at least very doubtful about whether Paul VI intended to proclaim Vatican II to be proclaiming infallible teachings. Subsequently, many conservative Catholics have taken a position which doesn't take into consideration the distinct difference drawn between Vatican II and all previous ecumenical councils by its promulgator, Pope Paul VI. The problem is that those Catholics who have recognized the liberty we have to question the fallible teachings of the Council, have been so attacked and maligned by the liberal bishops who predominate in the episcopal conferences, that we have been demoted to an at best irregular status in the Church, while many or most are convinced we are excommunicated and in schism. It is the saddest story, and upon hearing it and understanding it, recognizing that we are not bound to accept fallible teachings, I gained a clear conscience in associating myself with faithful Catholics who in their own ironic way, are much more liberal than those who malign them. Those in the majority cannot perceive of any development in the Catholic understanding of an ecumenical council. They seem unwilling to even comment upon the statements of Paul VI, or the history of a Council where it seems like many of the documents were only accepted with the assurance that they were NOT infallible.

 

One of the young "periti", (episcopal advisers) at the Council has commented very clearly, it seems to me, in concurrence with what I have tried to propose in regards to Paul VI and the fallible teachings of Vatican II. In 1988, amidst the hair pulling which accompanied the decision of Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate the four bishops against the wishes of the Holy Father (one of whom has since ridden in my car to the airport and asked me all manner of questions about Mount St. Helens!), Josef Cardinal Ratzinger spoke disappointedly about the events but with charity and forthcoming candor about the rupture between the Society of St. Pius X and Rome to the assembled bishops of Chile on July 13, 1988. Without condoning the consecrations, he was very sympathetic with some of the reasons why so many good Catholics were being drawn toward the Society's point of view. In regard to our present question, the dogmatic authority of Vatican II, he said this: "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

   

There's the rub David. Forget about the liberty to question. The "Conciliar Church" doesn't even recognize the liberty to insist that Vatican II reconcile itself with Catholic Tradition. Instead, Vatican II has somehow become the "New Tradition" by which every other tradition must be judged! And that is why, in my opinion, because of his unwillingness to acknowledge the "superdogma", as Cardinal Ratzinger called it, Archbishop Lefebvre, the priests he ordained, and his seminarians were persecuted into a state of necessity. A state of necessity, according to John Paul II's 1983 Code of Canon Law, arguably grants a bishop the right to consecrate bishops apart from papal permission. I say arguably, but twenty years later, no ecclesiastical court has ever been held to try the case. Instead, Rome hangs on to John Paul's declaration that the four and Archbishop Lefebvre were excommunicated latae sententiae, by virtue of the act. Unless it is latae sententiae, there is no excommunication. They were never tried, and in keeping with John Paul's unwillingness to exercise his disciplinary authority, he never used his own keys to declare by virtue of his office, the excommunication. That is why I consider it very doubtful that the bishops are lawfully excommunicated and certain that I am not.       

 

Rory

 

PS: You may access the entire talk given by Cardinal Ratzinger by googling "Ratzinger Chilean Bishops".

 

This is a complete plug for my friend Dave's blog. It is Dave I am writing to pre-summer of 2007. Now I want you to know we are NOT in what is commonly referred to as "in cahoots" together. He is not Catholic. Heaven knows what he will be when he is called to report for the Judgment. I don't guess he at this time identifies with any community. But he is amenable to Catholicism as well as Mormonism. I could add other things that if I had my way, he weren't amenable to. But he is my friend, not my child; and I can't control him. If anybody is interested, he has just started a blog thread on a subject never before discussed. (kidding) "Are Mormons Christian?" I suspect you will find less agenda and more substance than you might ordinarily find on the subject if you visit his blog here: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/

 

I anticipate that I will continue to maintain that Mormons are Christian, as I have for over ten years now...that is not to say that all Christians make it to heaven as others seem to understand such a statement. I think it promises to be an interesting discussion...just starting if you are interested. I just got off the phone with him. One post. His.

 

3DOP

[Yirgacheffe]

I don't know why the Catholic would bypass whatever civil proceedings would inform the government of a dissolution of a previously legal marriage. I would have to check canon law, and I am not an attorney to see if that would be an impediment. It might be an impediment for the confusion and scandal that might arise. It seems like if there was a good reason, like if the Catholic converted from Islam, and lived in a country that would be hostile to his receiving a Catholic annulment, it might be allowed to bypass legal proceedings with the state. It does not seem like one in that position should be prevented from Sacramental marriage. Ordinarily, it would seem highly unadvisable in most Western countries. But I don't know the answer for sure.

How does it make sense that a Catholic who gets an annulment doesn't have to get a divorce to go along with it?  Even in an Islamic country how would anyone know if an annulment was granted and why would it matter?  Quite frankly that a church would marry people who were publicly married to someone else is rather shocking and I would have a hard time having any respect for their view of marriage.  How much stock am I supposed to have in a church when it  agrees to marry people who let their previous public commitments to others stand.

[why me]

At any rate, I read Pope Francis' Angelus address where you objected to his framing of the Church being founded on faith. I found the address, for myself, read it, and understood him to be saying that Peter expressed his faith in the Son of God, which faith, led to Jesus naming him the rock. I didn't read it as Pope Francis saying the Church is founded on faith. Why, because I am Catholic and understand the Pope is Catholic, and why would I hear what the Pope is teaching without framing it in the Catholic faith? Taking his words out of that framework is the exact same thing the media does when they headline ridiculous things like the Pope supports gay marriage. Really? He never said any such thing.

I thank you for your kindness, and if I sounded unkind, it was not my intention and I apologize. I know my posts here are often viewed as unkind, so I'll leave it at that and wish God's blessing for you and your family.

PS and ETA: see CCC 424, which Protestants will use in arguments, along the lines of "see even your church teaches that the Church is founded of faith". Which has been addressed by CAF, and they'll point you to CCC 552. The point being, Peter's faith is not separate from Peter, the man, and Catholics don't do violence to Peter by separating his faith from him. I think the Pope knows this, don't you?

True, the pope never said such a thing that he supported gay marriage. But he also hasn't chided the media that they got it wrong. So, there is a little confusion out there just what the pope says about gay marriage. The pope seems vague on certain issues and this can lead to people having various interpretations about what he actually said. Even on this forum, the early threads about him were applauding his liberality on the social issues.

 

Kindness is an interesting concept. On CAF as you know, kindness is in short supply when mormonism is discussed. In fact, the threads can be quite uncatholic because of the unkindness expressed toward mormons and the lds church. Catholics need to learn to be kind toward other faiths on CAF but this will not happen because of the mindset of some of its posters on the non-catholic religion discussion threads.

 

I guess the point is simple. No reason to get bogged down in this or that. Just live the faith with love for others regardless of their religion or faith or lack of faith. And respect other faiths in threads and in conversations. Mormons and catholics have much in common. We should celebrate the commonality and not show hate by exclaiming 'the mormon jesus' or the 'mormon god' etc as is often done on CAF.

Edited September 3, 2014 by why me

[TOmNossor]

Rory, Saemo, Whyme, and all,

Lots of thoughts:

I believe there is sufficient evidence for the restoration.

I believe there is sufficient evidence for the lack of Peterine succession in the very beginning.  This includes an evaluation of development theories and the decision that they are complicating but not vindicating of the Catholic position.

 

In addition to Rory, I have 2 other friends I would call ultra-trads.  One Rory knows from our time together in Portland.  I cannot speak for him, but he is not happy with Pope Francis and sounds more Sedavacantist every time we talk.  The other is a Sedavacantist and made the leap from SSPX long before Pope Francis. 

 

Rory:

What is it about the Peterine succession evidence and the development of Christianity that keeps you Catholic?  I understand well the Vatican II "pastoral council" argument.  I understand well that the "charism of infallibility" does not guarantee the Pope will not teach heretical things in some situations.  But from my perspective the "scale" tips more and more away from the idea that Francis or his successors are the Vicar of Christ.

And, since your "scale" is where it is, can you think of anything that would so rebalance the scales that you would need to look to the Reformation or the Restoration?

 

Saemo:

I read Jimmy Akin's blog and see a 1x per month or so topic dedicated to defending the Pope from some Ultra-Trad accusation.  He just posted his weekly Francis, but has not specifically addressed the Matthew 16 comments Rory mentioned.  I am not particularly exercised by the way divorced and re-married folks are treated within the CoJCoLDS, but I see three thing where the Catholic Church is being pushed.

 

1. The Fate of the Unbaptized Infant: A tectonic shift has occurred and Catholics are encouraged to have HOPE for the unbaptized infant who dies.  I am not convinced there is any theory of development that allows for this.  I know that Limbo was theological speculation, but at least it didn't CHANGE the universal teaching of the church that the unbaptized baby is in hell.

 

2. Eucharist for the divorced and remarried: It seems clear that there is a push by liberal Catholic folks to remove the restrictions on partaking of the Eucharist by those who are living as husband and wife, but did not receive an annulment from a previous marriage.  There are smart Catholics who think this may change.  I am not sure it can.  (I could see an annulment simplification/acceleration).

 

3. Female Priests: This was declared impossible by JPII.  Still there are intelligent Catholic woman who claim it must happen in the name of equality.

 

So, 1 has happened.  2 IMO might happen.  3 is a long way off.

First, do you see the concerns that Rory has for the state of the Catholic Church post Vatican II?  Is he all wet or is there something to be concerned about.  Benedict XVI IMO saw that there was something to be concerned about.  What are your thoughts?

Second, as a committed and informed Catholic, it seems clear that you are aware of #1 and the other things Rory has spoken about on this thread.  Is there a "tipping point" for your scale?  What about #2?  What about #3?  Would you be a Vatican II rejector or Sedavacantist in the case of 2 or 3?  Or what?

 

 

I will try to post on David's blog, but I thought I would add this in here first because I am following both.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

duplicate

Edited September 3, 2014 by TOmNossor

[Bart Burk]

Rory, Saemo, Whyme, and all,

Lots of thoughts:

I believe there is sufficient evidence for the restoration.

I believe there is sufficient evidence for the lack of Peterine succession in the very beginning.  This includes an evaluation of development theories and the decision that they are complicating but not vindicating of the Catholic position.

 

In addition to Rory, I have 2 other friends I would call ultra-trads.  One Rory knows from our time together in Portland.  I cannot speak for him, but he is not happy with Pope Francis and sounds more Sedavacantist every time we talk.  The other is a Sedavacantist and made the leap from SSPX long before Pope Francis. 

 

Rory:

What is it about the Peterine succession evidence and the development of Christianity that keeps you Catholic?  I understand well the Vatican II "pastoral council" argument.  I understand well that the "charism of infallibility" does not guarantee the Pope will not teach heretical things in some situations.  But from my perspective the "scale" tips more and more away from the idea that Francis or his successors are the Vicar of Christ.

And, since your "scale" is where it is, can you think of anything that would so rebalance the scales that you would need to look to the Reformation or the Restoration?

 

Saemo:

I read Jimmy Akin's blog and see a 1x per month or so topic dedicated to defending the Pope from some Ultra-Trad accusation.  He just posted his weekly Francis, but has not specifically addressed the Matthew 16 comments Rory mentioned.  I am not particularly exercised by the way divorced and re-married folks are treated within the CoJCoLDS, but I see three thing where the Catholic Church is being pushed.

 

1. The Fate of the Unbaptized Infant: A tectonic shift has occurred and Catholics are encouraged to have HOPE for the unbaptized infant who dies.  I am not convinced there is any theory of development that allows for this.  I know that Limbo was theological speculation, but at least it didn't CHANGE the universal teaching of the church that the unbaptized baby is in hell.

 

2. Eucharist for the divorced and remarried: It seems clear that there is a push by liberal Catholic folks to remove the restrictions on partaking of the Eucharist by those who are living as husband and wife, but did not receive an annulment from a previous marriage.  There are smart Catholics who think this may change.  I am not sure it can.  (I could see an annulment simplification/acceleration).

 

3. Female Priests: This was declared impossible by JPII.  Still there are intelligent Catholic woman who claim it must happen in the name of equality.

 

So, 1 has happened.  2 IMO might happen.  3 is a long way off.

First, do you see the concerns that Rory has for the state of the Catholic Church post Vatican II?  Is he all wet or is there something to be concerned about.  Benedict XVI IMO saw that there was something to be concerned about.  What are your thoughts?

Second, as a committed and informed Catholic, it seems clear that you are aware of #1 and the other things Rory has spoken about on this thread.  Is there a "tipping point" for your scale?  What about #2?  What about #3?  Would you be a Vatican II rejector or Sedavacantist in the case of 2 or 3?  Or what?

 

 

I will try to post on David's blog, but I thought I would add this in here first because I am following both.

Charity, TOm

If Petrine succession is a false notion I don't see any viable alternative among any other Christian group.  In that case I would just trust in Jesus, read my Bible and figure things will turn out all right.  I might join some conservative Protestant church and declare the entire idea of authority an illusion.

 

But I believe in Petrine succession and don't see any good reason to doubt it.  I have faith that if Jesus started a church He also has the power to keep it going in spite of the failure of humans.  

 

By the way, I don't believe the Catholic Church ever infallibly taught that infants were going to wind up in hell.  Nothing was changed when the Church declared we should have hope that God will deal mercifully with unbaptized infants who die.  That's just common sense.

[mfbukowski]

I can see the point about the meaning of the Latin language not changing since it is a dead language, but in your first quote you mention three things that in the Latin Mass (is that the right name?) that are in the vernacular.  If these parts are in the vernacular how does the Latin Mass solve the problem of people being separated by language?  Do you just do the Mass in Latin and English and to heck with the Spanish and Vietnamese speakers?

 

Let me translate this from Catholic to plain English for you.

 

In the "Latin Mass" all the important prayers are in Latin.  But there are portions in the vernacular- like announcements of activities, the reading of some scriptures (technically part of the "mass" but also for instruction for the people) and of course there is a sermon, in the vernacular.  So with a Spanish etc congregation, the mass itself would still be in Latin but the scriptural readings and parts for instructing people would be in English.

 

Catholic jargon is as natural for Catholics as Mormon jargon is for Mormons - as we know but some might not, a "stake house" has nothing to do with eating meat, and a ward is not part of the looney bin (though some may disagree with that part)

[Bart Burk]

Let me translate this from Catholic to plain English for you.

 

In the "Latin Mass" all the important prayers are in Latin.  But there are portions in the vernacular- like announcements of activities, the reading of some scriptures (technically part of the "mass" but also for instruction for the people) and of course there is a sermon, in the vernacular.  So with a Spanish etc congregation, the mass itself would still be in Latin but the scriptural readings and parts for instructing people would be in English.

 

Catholic jargon is as natural for Catholics as Mormon jargon is for Mormons - as we know but some might not, a "stake house" has nothing to do with eating meat, and a ward is not part of the looney bin (though some may disagree with that part)

I've eaten a lot of meat at the local stake house.

[TOmNossor]

If Petrine succession is a false notion I don't see any viable alternative among any other Christian group. In that case I would just trust in Jesus, read my Bible and figure things will turn out all right. I might join some conservative Protestant church and declare the entire idea of authority an illusion.

But I believe in Petrine succession and don't see any good reason to doubt it. I have faith that if Jesus started a church He also has the power to keep it going in spite of the failure of humans.

By the way, I don't believe the Catholic Church ever infallibly taught that infants were going to wind up in hell. Nothing was changed when the Church declared we should have hope that God will deal mercifully with unbaptized infants who die. That's just common sense.

Petrine succession-

I think a conservative Protestant group might be tough as it is clear that doctrine developed under the authority (that also developed). How could authority be an illusion if the doctrine of the Trinity is deficient UNLESS it is the one developed in the first 4 councils?

It is also clear that you and I have judged the likelihood of the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS differently too.

Faith in Jesus to preserve the authority-

The Jews still have faith that the fellow that the Jewish authorities (valid authorities per Christian perspective) rejected was not the Messiah. Why did God start the Old Covenant and then present the new Covenant to a group of folks who were not the stewards of the Old Covenant. Instead they picked fishermen and .... The idea that there could not be an apostasy because God does not work that way IMO is not a strong position due to history AND trying to impute upon God how we would do things.

Fate of the unbaptized infant-

I think your position is difficult to embrace, but it is embraced by folks smarter than I am.

But ... my question to Saemo... If #2 and/or #3 occurs will that indicate that the Catholic authority is not what it claims?

Charity, TOm

Edited September 3, 2014 by TOmNossor

[Bart Burk]

Petrine succession-

I think a conservative Protestant group might be tough as it is clear that doctrine developed under the authority (that also developed). How could authority be an illusion if the doctrine of the Trinity is deficient UNLESS it is the one developed in the first 4 councils?

It is also clear that you and I have judged the likelihood of the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS differently too.

Faith in Jesus to preserve the authority-

The Jews still have faith that the fellow that the Jewish authorities (valid authorities per Christian perspective) rejected was not the Messiah. Why did God start the Old Covenant and then present the new Covenant to a group of folks who were not the stewards of the Old Covenant. Instead they picked fishermen and .... The idea that there could not be an apostasy because God does not work that way IMO is not a strong position due to history AND trying to impute upon God how we would do things.

Fate of the unbaptized infant-

I think your position is difficult to embrace, but it is embraced by folks smarter than I am.

But ... my question to Saemo... If #2 and/or #3 occurs will that indicate that the Catholic authority is not what it claims?

Charity, TOm

I believe only #3 has been infallibly declared.  I'm not sure about #2.  We could start an entire thread on why LDS claims of authority don't hold up, but it would be pointless.

[TOmNossor]

I believe only #3 has been infallibly declared.  I'm not sure about #2.  We could start an entire thread on why LDS claims of authority don't hold up, but it would be pointless.

 

 

LDS authority threads have been done a number of times as has the topic of Catholic succession in the Catholic Church.  I was really just speaking about my personal weighing of the evidence. (Most recently I have been punting this question and recommending three books

LDS - Nibley's Apostles and Bishops

Catholic - Father Sullivan's From Apostles to Bishop

Catholic - Robert Eno's Rise of the Papacy

So... PUNT!

 

This thread has become about some of the post Vatican II difficulties.  Some of these IMO weigh directly upon the claim that the Catholic Church has a divine authority that infallibly develops/defines sacred Tradition.  The Ultra-Trads IMO have pointed to post Vatican II novelties that should not exist within a church that is preserving sacred Tradition.

I see huge developments in the first 4 councils of the Catholic Church.  Cardinal Newman tells me that these developments were valid and there was "Early Anticipation" of them.

 

a. The Catholic Church teaches that one cannot marry a second time.  Secular divorce is not a declaration of nullity.

b. The Catholic Church teaches that those who are in their second marriage and are not living as "brother and sister" are committing mortal sin.

c. The Catholic Church teaches that those in mortal sin should not partake of the Eucharist.

 

There are some who are calling for a change.  This change may be a procedural change to annulments which may or may not be a valid development.  I said, "remove the restrictions on partaking of the Eucharist by those who are living as husband and wife, but did not receive an annulment from a previous marriage."

What of a,b,c do you think is not irreformable?

 

Charity, TOm

Edited September 3, 2014 by TOmNossor

[Bart Burk]

LDS authority threads have been done a number of times as has the topic of Catholic succession in the Catholic Church.  I was really just speaking about my personal weighing of the evidence. (Most recently I have been punting this question and recommending three books

LDS - Nibley's Apostles and Bishops

Catholic - Father Sullivan's From Apostles to Bishop

Catholic - Robert Eno's Rise of the Papacy

So... PUNT!

 

This thread has become about some of the post Vatican II difficulties.  Some of these IMO weigh directly upon the claim that the Catholic Church has a divine authority that infallibly develops/defines sacred Tradition.  The Ultra-Trads IMO have pointed to post Vatican II novelties that should not exist within a church that is preserving sacred Tradition.

I see huge developments in the first 4 councils of the Catholic Church.  Cardinal Newman tells me that these developments were valid and there was "Early Anticipation" of them.

 

a. The Catholic Church teaches that one cannot marry a second time.  Secular divorce is not a declaration of nullity.

b. The Catholic Church teaches that those who are in their second marriage and are not living as "brother and sister" are committing mortal sin.

c. The Catholic Church teaches that those in mortal sin should not partake of the Eucharist.

 

There are some who are calling for a change.  This change may be a procedural change to annulments which may or may not be a valid development.  I said, "remove the restrictions on partaking of the Eucharist by those who are living as husband and wife, but did not receive an annulment from a previous marriage."

What of a,b,c do you think is not irreformable?

 

Charity, TOm

I really don't expect the Vatican to make any changes to the practice on remarried Catholics receiving the Eucharist, but I do think there is probably a way to thread the needle on this one.  After all the Vatican allows repentant murderers to partake of the Eucharist.  They can't bring the people they murdered back to life as restitution.  People can't unscramble scrambled eggs so forgiveness would seem to at least be possible for divorced and remarried Catholics.  

[3DOP]

Hey Tom, very good to see you.

 

In answer to your questions to me, I am probably less troubled than our mutual friend because I am a minimalist when it comes to infallibility. The reason trads go sedevacantist is for the same reason the conservative like Jimmy Akin turns somersaults to defend every novelty of the pope. Both will say that they know the pope can err, but they don't behave that way. The sedevacantist leaves because he treats fallible statements like they were infallible. Jimmy Akin reinterprets what has been said to make it sound orthodox because he treats fallible statements like they were infallible. You can believe in the papacy without believing every word that falls out of the mouth of a pope doing shotgun interviews on a plane.

 

Besides being a minimalist in the area of papal infallibility, that extends as well to ecumenical councils. The Council of Florence made a dogmatic mistake. No question about it. This error has to do with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The post Vatican II Church very much needs the Council to be in error, or else their ordinands did not become priests. I can document if necessary later. So it is not a big deal for me to question Vatican II, especially when the popes deny making dogmatic declarations at Vatican II. Infallibility has not been crystallized as to when it happens. When is a pope speaking ex cathedra? When is a Council exercising infallibility? These questions are unanswered. Later generations will learn a lot of lessons from the history of Vatican II.

 

As for Limbo. It makes the most sense. A "tectonic change" can't happen when it is just some committee the pope appoints to put forward a popular idea. It is a well-received opinion of an era when above all, the Church wants to be perceived as nice. I don't have any trust in that. It seems more driven by sentimentalism than any new insights into revelation. I don't have any obligation to follow that. Limbo has always been something you could disbelieve if you insisted. They have certainly done nothing to force me to disbelieve it. The Church would do a lot better to explain what Limbo is/was. It is a part of Hell, but it compares pretty well to some of the more carnal views of heaven that I have heard.

 

So anyway, I could not believe that a pope is unseated just because he always talks nonsense on the plane. If it was serious nonsense, heresy, even then it would be for a future generation to determine his status. I am going to believe the papacy is vacant because the pope is a politician who thinks youth unemployment is of supreme importance? No way. He can think that. He can say it. Just as long as he doesn't declare, define, and bind by virtue of his office as successor of Peter to confirm the brethren, that youth unemployment is important. THAT might be a problem. So for now, I will continue to not think one moment about youth unemployment, nor entertain any doubts about who is the pope.

 

Rory  

Edited September 3, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

I really don't expect the Vatican to make any changes to the practice on remarried Catholics receiving the Eucharist, but I do think there is probably a way to thread the needle on this one.  After all the Vatican allows repentant murderers to partake of the Eucharist.  They can't bring the people they murdered back to life as restitution.  People can't unscramble scrambled eggs so forgiveness would seem to at least be possible for divorced and remarried Catholics.  

 

By definition, you are comparing repentant murderers with unrepentant adulterers. 

 

The reason they are not allowed Communion is because by definition of the permanence of the marriage bond until death, they are adulterers. If the murderer intends to continue murdering, he too, will be admonished to refrain from receiving Communion. Bill Clinton received Communion. Anybody at all can go up and receive the Host. I wouldn't want anybody getting the idea that a priest waits for these people and then refuses them Communion. It would be impossible. Everybody who comes forward can receive. I haven't heard one word from any source except the German bishops who think this is a necessary pastoral change. I don't know what divorced and remarried Catholics think about it. Do they go to Mass? They thought so little of the Church's teaching on this subject that they got remarried outside the Church. It seems kind of probable that they don't believe in the Church anymore? Maybe? I am just having a hard time picturing these souls who reject the Church with regards to one Sacrament, but are supposedly hungering earnestly for another Sacrament.

 

If I took the position that the divorced and remarried take, I would find it much easier to think the Church was also wrong about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Which is easier to lose faith in? The Eucharist presents a much higher challenge to faith than Matrimony. How do you retain the Church's faith that the bread and wine become Jesus Christ, while rejecting what same the Church teaches about divorce and remarriage? I find it difficult to believe there are any large numbers of divorced and remarried Catholics out there, yearning for Holy Communion. It doesn't make sense.

Edited September 3, 2014 by 3DOP