quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (110) The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I suppose that if we ever all agree on anything, we are likely to be right.
That seems to be more toward the idea that the creeds are dogmatic and everything else not so much, in which case I could totally and unreservedly be Catholic... that there would be room for dissent even on a fairly accepted moral teaching...
In case I wasn't clear before, part of my problem comes from having a serious disagreement with a very authoritative teaching... just how authoritative and binding is a matter of deep concern for me.
I might not have been clear before... sounding like my worry was primarily about whether they would let me... my real worry was that I disagreed on a dogmatic moral teaching. Because if the chruch was teaching something "infallibly" and I believed that was wrong, well.. the implications of that are obviously that I was in the wrong church.
So if anybody has a different citation or interpretation regarding wiggle room here, I'd love to hear it. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last Pope, while I applaud a lot of what he did, made great strides in reversing the advances made at the Second Vatican Council. And One of these strides that I particularly abhore was (without invoking infallibility) to declare certain topics off limits even to discussion. Divorce, celibacy, birth control, sexual abuse by clerics for example. I (along with many other faithful Catholics) don't believe that he had that authority.
Most Catholics (by a huge margin) including most priests and Bishops disgree with the Vatican's position on birth control and divorce. The Vatican is not the Church, so "the Church" is not teaching at least those things infallibly.
I understand that struggle. I think it is the struggle of anyone who examines their own conscience and their faith. It is one of the first things we address with folks who are thinking about converting.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, for anyone who is interested, my cousin's book is finally out. It is called, Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes. Despite this title it is actually an academic treatise on the history of abuse, and canon law. I have read the first 30 pages or so (just got it last night) and it is deep but not difficult.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Do you know how many really good Catholics have disagreed with the Vatican? Been censured and silenced by the Vatican. Do you know how many of them became Cardinals. Saints? How many of their views are now considered doctrine?
Lots. And the Church is better for them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, can you provide a link to John Paul II's telling Catholics we can't discuss the issues you mention? It's the first I've heard of it, and it's such a major break with Catholic tradition (to forbid discussion) that I can't believe this could have slipped by without me ever seeing anything about it. So I'll need some evidence.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He said he wasn't going to change the church's position... that is to say, he refused to discuss it officially. He most certainly did not forbid people to talk about it...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And IIRC, his rationale for not changing the church's position was primarily that even to admit that the church's position on these topics might be changed would call into question the doctrinal authority of the papacy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never heard the church justify a position with "because if we reverse ourselves it calls into question our authority." Such a statement would *itself* call into question the same authority. Am I misunderstanding you?
I have heard what's close to the opposite justification: "because even the pope doesn't have the authority to overrule Christ." This is for not ordaining priestesses.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not the stated reason for the beliefs nor is it in defense of the beliefs per se... there are plenty of reasons for holding the positions... but I do recall JPII noting that certain positions could not be reversed without undermining the current understanding of church authority... and there's nothing wrong with noting that.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: kmbboots, can you provide a link to John Paul II's telling Catholics we can't discuss the issues you mention? It's the first I've heard of it, and it's such a major break with Catholic tradition (to forbid discussion) that I can't believe this could have slipped by without me ever seeing anything about it. So I'll need some evidence.
It is not at all a major break with Catholic tradition; sadly it is a return to Catholic tradition as it was prior to Vatican II. Check into the Anti-Modernist Oath.
In 1979, Pope John Paul II said, It is the right of the faithful not to be troubled by theories and hypotheses that they are not expert in judging."
The Vatican has tended towards the illusion of infallibility without actually declaring certain doctrines infallibly. As one example of this, here is a rebuttal of an article of Archbiship Bertone, Secretary for CDF, from 1996. I haven't been able to find the article itself online.
Finally, I, from personal knowledge, know that the Vatican tried many ways to keep Tom Doyle quiet on the subject of sexual abuse.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: It's not the stated reason for the beliefs nor is it in defense of the beliefs per se... there are plenty of reasons for holding the positions... but I do recall JPII noting that certain positions could not be reversed without undermining the current understanding of church authority... and there's nothing wrong with noting that.
As did Paul VI when the council gathered to study birth control returned an overwhelming majority in favor of, at least, examining the issue.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
