God What Does He Want?

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 8 2004, 11:10 AM']

*sigh* here we go again...


Hartford, you must understand that you are not the authority on how one is to interpret Most Holy Tradition, and the writings of the Magisterium. In truth, I agree, it is very simple.

Trent was very clear: There is no Salvation Outside the Church.

But you are not looking at who this was being addressed to. The whole Council was set in the context of Jews and others who acknowledged the logic and truth of the Church, but still remained stubborn in their ways and refused to convert.

I will pray that your heart be humbled before the Spotless Bride of Christ, and that you will humbly submit both mind and will to the teachings of the Shepherds of the Church.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
If you could just point me to where Trent actually says that, all would be fine; however, you can't becaiuse it does not exist. Trent said "If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

[XIX]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 10 2004, 01:55 PM'] If you could just point me to where Trent actually says that, all would be fine; however, you can't becaiuse it does not exist. Trent said "If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." [/quote]
Rather, since you are the on asserting that the Pope is wrong, you show me where in Canon Law it says that the Pope cay teach heresy.

Except...the idea of a heretic pope is a heresy in and of itself.

[cmotherofpirl]

Baptism is necessary for salvation in the normal course of events.
However, God is not bound by the sacraments, we are.

[Tony]

St. Therese always was big on simplicity.. Epesically when it came to prayerlife and such, its the Carmelite way

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='Tony' date='Sep 10 2004, 03:58 PM'] St. Therese always was big on simplicity.. Epesically when it came to prayerlife and such, its the Carmelite way [/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]If you could just point me to where Trent actually says that, all would be fine; however, you can't becaiuse it does not exist. Trent said "If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." [/quote]

Of course Trent doesn't say it outright, just think about the context for a moment. Trent does, however, show us what was being intended in, twice, actually, once in Session 6, Chapter 4, then again in Session 7, Canon IV.

Let me use a household example:

I have two younger sisters, a mother and a father. We are sitting around the table eating dinner. One of my sisters wants dessert, but she has yet to eat her broccoli. She insists that she does not need to eat her broccoli in order to get her dessert. My mother tells her to eat the broccoli, she refuses. Finally, my father, who is tired of the squabbling, gets up and says, "Unless you finish your broccoli, you cannot have dessert!"

Being the Father, his word is binding on the family. However, a literal interpretation of his statement would lead one to conclude that absolutely no one within the family can have dessert at all unless they first eat broccoli, even if, on a given night, broccoli is not being served.

This however, is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually being said. My father was speaking specifically within a certain context on a specific matter: that is, if a child of his should assert that he/she will not eat their broccoli, when he/she knows the importance of doing so, then he/she will not get dessert.

In the same way, Trent was speaking to those people who acknowledged the Truth of the Church, but still refused baptism. It was certainly an unequivical statement, and always will be, but should only be taken in its proper context.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[MorphRC]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 11 2004, 02:11 AM'] God does not need worship, it is simply the proper response of a creature to its Creator. [/quote]
uh huh....

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 10 2004, 08:23 PM']
Of course Trent doesn't say it outright, just think about the context for a moment. Trent does, however, show us what was being intended in, twice, actually, once in Session 6, Chapter 4, then again in Session 7, Canon IV.

Let me use a household example:

I have two younger sisters, a mother and a father. We are sitting around the table eating dinner. One of my sisters wants dessert, but she has yet to eat her broccoli. She insists that she does not need to eat her broccoli in order to get her dessert. My mother tells her to eat the broccoli, she refuses. Finally, my father, who is tired of the squabbling, gets up and says, "Unless you finish your broccoli, you cannot have dessert!"

Being the Father, his word is binding on the family. However, a literal interpretation of his statement would lead one to conclude that absolutely no one within the family can have dessert at all unless they first eat broccoli, even if, on a given night, broccoli is not being served.

This however, is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually being said. My father was speaking specifically within a certain context on a specific matter: that is, if a child of his should assert that he/she will not eat their broccoli, when he/she knows the importance of doing so, then he/she will not get dessert.

In the same way, Trent was speaking to those people who acknowledged the Truth of the Church, but still refused baptism. It was certainly an unequivical statement, and always will be, but should only be taken in its proper context.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
Again, that is a very thoughtful and creative example/metaphor; however, the situation is not the same. The Father puts certain people certain places for certain reasons, since He is all knowing. Your father in the example could NOT do the same thing, that is, not serve brocolli and then punish his daughter for not eating it because she did nothign wrong, but everyone who is born is born into iniquity, as King David writes in the Psalms. For Original Sin alone God condemns man, and rightfully so. Therefore, knowing that this is the case (that one can be condemned for merely Original Sin), God puts each person in a place that he would deserve. If a person never receives Baptism, it is logical to conclude that he would have rejected it if he had the opportunity to receive it. Or, if one has an explicit desire for Baptism, he would not have made it to the end of life in a state of grace; therefore, he wouldn't have gone to Heaven even if he would have been baptized. That is what the footnotes say in my Bible, at least... (which is a very reasonable and logical explanation of the situation, knowing that Baptism is necessary)

[Guest JeffCR07]

I gladly and openly acknowledge the that metaphors are flawed as a description of the objective truth of the situation. They are very good at what they are intended to do, which is to highlight the flaws of a specific viewpoint. Your above response did not really take into account the point that I was trying to make, which is that much of Trent was focused specifically towards a certain group of people, namely, those who acknowledged the truth of the Church, but still, in their Pride, argued that they didn't need Baptism.

However, you have yet to really provide an adequate reply to my fundamental question, which deals with the issue of interpreting Holy Tradition. I maintain that Holy Tradition can - and should - only be interpreted with any degree of authority by the living Magisterium of the Church. You, however, seem to be saying that an individual interpretation of Holy Tradition - or a commentary in your Bible - is just as valid, or, following from your argument, even more valid.

Such a stance does not hold true to the calling of a member of the Church's laity.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 11 2004, 03:20 PM'] I gladly and openly acknowledge the that metaphors are flawed as a description of the objective truth of the situation. They are very good at what they are intended to do, which is to highlight the flaws of a specific viewpoint. Your above response did not really take into account the point that I was trying to make, which is that much of Trent was focused specifically towards a certain group of people, namely, those who acknowledged the truth of the Church, but still, in their Pride, argued that they didn't need Baptism.

However, you have yet to really provide an adequate reply to my fundamental question, which deals with the issue of interpreting Holy Tradition. I maintain that Holy Tradition can - and should - only be interpreted with any degree of authority by the living Magisterium of the Church. You, however, seem to be saying that an individual interpretation of Holy Tradition - or a commentary in your Bible - is just as valid, or, following from your argument, even more valid.

Such a stance does not hold true to the calling of a member of the Church's laity.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
I agree that the Magisterium is the interpreter of Sacred Tradition, but if it interprets it contrary to what the Traditon says, then you must reject the "interpretation" and cleave to the Tradition. For example, if the Pope says that Vat I means he is always infallible, that is an error, and you must accept Vat I, not the fallible interpretation thereof, or to make it liek this case, it would be like the Pope saying he is never inflalible, which is just as wrong, more so, even.

However, since this came up in a different discussion, I'd lik to know "the neo-conservatives" (since you're the expert according to what's pinned ) opinion of this: since only the Magisterium can interpret Her documents, especially Tradition, if She does not define a word in Canon Law, can laymen make their own interpretation of what is and is not concluded under that? The specific example is Code of Canon Law regarding the Sacraments. It says that one can attend a non-Catholic service and receive the Sacraments, in whose bodies these are valid, if one is encumbered by a "physical OR MORAL impossibility." Then, we have a letter from the hierarchy saying SSPX Masses fulfill Sunday obligation (and that once can even give them a small amount of money for the collection!!). So, considering that, someone cannot come along and define "moral impossibility." It seems to me that it depends who the person is. For me personally, hand Communion is a moral impossibility. For someone else, excessive EMs may be. For another person, facing the people, or the vernacular, or the Canon ("eucharistic prayer") read aloud are enough (these all would suffice for me...) So who are we to define something that the Church has not done Herself, especially when the Cardinal responsible for these issues put out a letter stating that the SSPX fulfills the obligation and they can even be given a small amount of money for the collection? (I go to an indult Mass, not SSPX, but this is a question of principle, since maybe in a very small circumstance I would have to chose between Novus Ordo and SSPX. Right now there is no doubt for me: SSPX)

[cmotherofpirl]

If these things are a "moral impossibility" to you, then how can you think your conscience has been formed according to the Church?

You are putting your opinons of what is acceptable [ being a magisterium of one] over what the Church says is acceptable. That is certainly not giving assent and obedience to the Magisterium of the Church.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 11 2004, 03:20 PM'] I gladly and openly acknowledge the that metaphors are flawed as a description of the objective truth of the situation. They are very good at what they are intended to do, which is to highlight the flaws of a specific viewpoint. Your above response did not really take into account the point that I was trying to make, which is that much of Trent was focused specifically towards a certain group of people, namely, those who acknowledged the truth of the Church, but still, in their Pride, argued that they didn't need Baptism.

However, you have yet to really provide an adequate reply to my fundamental question, which deals with the issue of interpreting Holy Tradition. [b]I maintain that Holy Tradition can - and should - only be interpreted with any degree of authority by the living Magisterium of the Church.[/b] You, however, seem to be saying that an individual interpretation of Holy Tradition - or a commentary in your Bible - is just as valid, or, following from your argument, even more valid.

Such a stance does not hold true to the calling of a member of the Church's laity.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
Yes I agree.

It is Christ's Church, so therefore if you disobey His Church, you are disobeying Christ Himself.


In their Hearts
Jason

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 11 2004, 07:42 PM'] If these things are a "moral impossibility" to you, then how can you think your conscience has been formed according to the Church?

You are putting your opinons of what is acceptable [ being a magisterium of one] over what the Church says is acceptable. That is certainly not giving assent and obedience to the Magisterium of the Church. [/quote]
Too bad that's not what Canon Law says. That's your personal interpretation of it... (just using your own words here)

Jason, I agree 100%. I am the first one here to say non-Catholics will burn in Hell, according to the Council of Florence (into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels)

I even said that SSPX who are in schism go to Hell with the other non-Catholics!

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]So, considering that, someone cannot come along and define "moral impossibility." It seems to me that it depends who the person is. For me personally, hand Communion is a moral impossibility. For someone else, excessive EMs may be. For another person, facing the people, or the vernacular, or the Canon ("eucharistic prayer") read aloud are enough (these all would suffice for me...) So who are we to define something that the Church has not done Herself, especially when the Cardinal responsible for these issues put out a letter stating that the SSPX fulfills the obligation and they can even be given a small amount of money for the collection? (I go to an indult Mass, not SSPX, but this is a question of principle, since maybe in a very small circumstance I would have to chose between Novus Ordo and SSPX. Right now there is no doubt for me: SSPX)[/quote]

The examples that you have given above are, in their nature, disciplinary decisions made by the Magisterium. The decision as to whether or not a parishoner can receive in the hand is one that is made by the bishop in charge of the diocese. The issue of the orientation of the priest during mass, the reading of the Canon, etc, are all decisions to be made by Rome. None are matters of doctrine, and so obedience to the Magisterium is necessary.

Who do you trust? A priest or bishop in communion with the Holy Father.

With regards to the issue of attending schismatic services, it has been taught clearly by many priests and bishops in communion with the Holy Father that it is only permissible to attend a schismatic service if no other option is available. If you were to chose to attend an SSPX mass over the Ordo Missae, you would be in a state of mortal sin, for doing so clearly shows a preference to attend a schismatic mass over a valid one.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 08:06 PM']Too bad that's not what Canon Law says. That's your personal interpretation of it... (just using your own words here)

Jason, I agree 100%. [b]I am the first one here to say non-Catholics will burn in Hell, according to the Council of Florence (into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels)[/b]

I even said that SSPX who are in schism go to Hell with the other non-Catholics![/quote]
[b]Think here![/b]

What would a Saint say.

I think he or she would not judge the soul, for that is God's duty alone.

I think a saint would pray for such a soul, do penance of some kind.

Instead of the chosen statement.

That's the way I feel.


God Bless
Jason

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 12 2004, 12:02 AM'] With regards to the issue of attending schismatic services, it has been taught clearly by many priests and bishops in communion with the Holy Father that it is only permissible to attend a schismatic service if no other option is available. [/quote]
Jeff, that's not what Canon Law says. It says: "physical or moral impossibility."

Answer me this: If it is NOT defined by the hierarchy or the Church what this term actually means "moral impossibility", then, according to your thinking, NO ONE can interpret what it means, yourself included.

That is what you say about EENS: "you aren't the Magisterium, etc." Neither is anyone else here. If the term isn't defined, then it isn't defined, and no one here can give it a definition, simple as that.

Jason, "I think he or she would not judge the soul, for that is God's duty alone.

I think a saint would pray for such a soul, do penance of some kind.

Instead of the chosen statement."

It seems you haven't read the Church Fathers. They condemned non-Catholics just as much or more than I do. They would not omit the statement. They would probably pray IN ADDITION to making the statement.

[Azriel]

[quote name='Jason' date='Sep 12 2004, 04:41 PM'] [b]Think here![/b]

What would a Saint say.

I think he or she would not judge the soul, for that is God's duty alone.

I think a saint would pray for such a soul, do penance of some kind.

Instead of the chosen statement.

That's the way I feel.


God Bless
Jason [/quote]

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Sep 13 2004, 11:07 AM'] [/quote]
"It seems you haven't read the Church Fathers. They condemned non-Catholics just as much or more than I do. They would not omit the statement. They would probably pray IN ADDITION to making the statement."

[Donna]

Cavour was a fallen away Catholic who (not single-handedly, but a main character) instigated the theft of the Papal States from Bl. Pope Pius IX. That man by intrigue and worse seriously harrassed Bl. Pio Nono for years.

When Cavour died, Pius exclaimed (paraphrase): [i]O God, have mercy on his soul![/i]

And straightaway said Mass for him.

But Cavour's [i]errors [/i]he condemned, condemned! In his [i]Syllabus of Errors.[/i]

I would think, the simpler the soul, the more clear the condemnation AND praying/sacrificing like mad for the wayward to come back to the truth.

Also, I believe it was the Tenth Pope Pius who said of the fallen away (esp. religious): [b]if they take one step toward you, take two toward them[/b]. SPX never had any $, he always gave it away...was much loved; but very stern, too, including condemnations.

But he began it at his own house: he first reformed himself, and secondly, kept a very close watch on his bishops, clergy, and seminaries.

Like a beloved Dad who you want to please and who knows when you're false (for which he will give consequences in the temporal realm; he will not endanger the rest of his children by the few sons who will do damage).

That's a big part of condemnations: to warn [b]the faithful [/b] out of love, of the erring who will do damage.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Jeff, that's not what Canon Law says. It says: "physical or moral impossibility."

Answer me this: If it is NOT defined by the hierarchy or the Church what this term actually means "moral impossibility", then, according to your thinking, NO ONE can interpret what it means, yourself included.

That is what you say about EENS: "you aren't the Magisterium, etc." Neither is anyone else here. If the term isn't defined, then it isn't defined, and no one here can give it a definition, simple as that.[/quote]

Hartford, God bless,

Your question has the appearance of presenting a legitimate concern, but in actuality, it does not. The mistake you have made is to look at the Magisterium simply as a series of statements or documents from Rome, and nothing else, when it is, in fact, a living, dynamic unity. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, which means that it is the Truth of the Ages, the Fullness of the Truth, promulgated to us through the Living Magisterium.

If any member of the laity fears because they don't know the "proper interpretation" of a Magisterial document, they should simply go to a priest or bishop that they know is in perfect communion with the Holy Father. That is what priests are here for: to shepard us and lead us, not just when we understand everything, but [i]especially[/i] when we do not. They lead us to the Truth when we feel like we are blind and stumbling around in the dark.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff