bishop consent, mortal sin, and the eucharist

[dairygirl4u2c]

hi ho

[Socrates]

If the bishop thinks he can "mend" Church doctrine, he is a heretic.

[Apotheoun]

A man is required to assent to the teaching of his bishop when his bishop teaches in line with the Church's Magisterium (i.e., the Pope and all the bishops), understood not simply synchronically, but diachronically. In the hypothetical case proposed in this poll the teaching is contrary to the constant doctrine of the Church and thus a man is not required to assent to it; in fact, in this hypothetical scenario a man would be required to resist the error proposed by his bishop because the error in question encourages an act of sacrilege.

God bless,
Todd

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well I ask because I know of a prestiguous one of high rank who says that it's okay. Would you recommend that the persons he tells that to contact his superior?


(or in a hypothetical sense, if the pope were to do that, you might want to refer to one down, ironically)

Edited February 2, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

The Pope wouldn't, though. Every time the Pope declares (explains) doctrine, it is done through the Holy Spirit, who is unerring, and would be in line with Church doctrine.



A question for you, dairygirl4u2c:


Why say 'hi-ho' when you have yet to prove a single point, or even come close to providing a valid point?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Feb 2 2005, 02:28 PM']Well I ask because I know of a prestiguous one of high rank who says that it's okay.[/quote]
Whoever he is, no matter how prestigious he may be, he is promoting error.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Feb 2 2005, 02:28 PM']Would you recommend that the persons he tells that to contact his superior?[/quote]
I would speak to the person and if necessary I would go to his superior so that the matter could be cleared up.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Feb 2 2005, 02:28 PM'](or in a hypothetical sense, if the pope were to do that, you might want to refer to one down, ironically)[/quote]
It is a dogma of divine and catholic faith that the Pope cannot teach error, thus the hypothetical situation does not apply in the case of the Pope. The Roman Pontiff, in the exercise of his Extraordinary Magisterium, and even in the exercise of his Ordinary Magisterium, cannot propose heresy as truth.

God bless,
Todd

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

Boy...you said that much better than I could, Todd.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Feb 2 2005, 02:46 PM'] Boy...you said that much better than I could, Todd. [/quote]
Thanks for the compliment, but you're doing a fine job yourself in explaining the doctrine of the Church in all of Dairygirl's polls. Keep up the good work.

God bless,
Todd

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

Thanks...believe it or not, it's the first time really defending our faith. I just hope I continue doing an acceptable job

[StColette]

[quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Feb 2 2005, 04:56 PM'] Thanks...believe it or not, it's the first time really defending our faith. I just hope I continue doing an acceptable job [/quote]
You're doing an awesome job Teresa

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The Pope wouldn't, though. Every time the Pope declares (explains) doctrine, it is done through the Holy Spirit, who is unerring, and would be in line with Church doctrine.[/quote]

Shouldn't you be saying that the pope could error, but that's only a private thing?


I could make a point out of all of this if you wanted. It'd go back to the development of doctrine thing.. "outside the Catholic Church" vs "not outside" then comparing it to this.


I only said hi-ho cause I'm asking random questions. I have no point to prove.

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

dairygirl:

It doesn't say there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, it says outside the Church. Capital C refers to the family of God... no one can have salvation if they do not have faith, through grace, in God.

Here's the skinny:


The Pope [b]can[/b] error, that is, in his personal life, he is not perfect, he's human. What he [b]cannot[/b] error on is doctrinal issues.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well if he kept it secret, then it wouldn't meet the criteria. he only has protection when hemakes a proclamation for all to hear.

but anyway, this isn't the point of the thread.

the point was really none. sort of to see what you'd say without the backing you to the wall. and then see what you say after i've back you to the wall with the bishop's position.

i'm not trying to prove anything per se really though as I said.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Church. Capital C refers to the family of God... no one can have salvation if they do not have faith, through grace, in God.[/quote]

I'd also challenge you to show the context of that when it was promulgated.

I have secondary evidence being the Traditionalists and many many conservative catholics don't agree with that Catholic as you describe it thing. But you're not an advanced apologetic and I'm feeling lazy.

And no this does not mean that my laziness proves I'm avoiding.

Anyone here that wants to show me some context or reasons to back up their tsance that the "no salvation thing" was for those without God in a general sense can do it. And then I'll put the effort into responding.

I've tried so many times and everyone avoids the issue and makes simple statements.

Edited February 2, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Feb 2 2005, 05:17 PM'] well if he kept it secret, then it wouldn't meet the criteria. he only has protection when hemakes a proclamation for all to hear.

but anyway, this isn't the point of the thread.

the point was really none. sort of to see what you'd say without the backing you to the wall. and then see what you say after i've back you to the wall with the bishop's position.

i'm not trying to prove anything per se really though as I said. [/quote]
Any proclamation that the Pope makes concering doctrine it is made publicly, thus, a proclamation.


I may not be 'advanced' as you cal it, however, I do know my faith.

[Guest Aluigi]

Through a negative restrictin grace, God will not allow the Pope to bind the Church in error.

A person in mortal sin receiving the Eucharist desecrates it. We should suffer great anguish to know that some people cannot receive and thus do all the more to help them. Receiving the Eucharist while aware of mortal sin is eating and drinking condemnation unto oneself, as the Apostle St. Paul says.

Mortal sin, as I'm sure you are all aware, consists of grave matter, full consent, and full knowledge.

It is often more efficacious for a man to stay back and watch their brothers in Christ receiving what they have cut themselves off from. Pray a spiritual communion and God can help you if you are truly repentent, but you do not run the risk of desecrating the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.

[Guest Aluigi]

Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus!
That means that outside of the Church there is ABSOLUTELY NO salvation. All outside of the Catholic Church go to the fire prepared for the devil and his angels. This is Divinely Revealed irreversable Catholic Dogma. Don't believe it? Then be anathema.

People who are inculpably ignorant of not being in the Church (we cannot judge whether or not anyone is inculpably ignorant. for all we know, everyone in the world is culpably ignorant) but seek to follow God's will through the dictates of their God-given conscience (the natural law written on all men's hearts) then it is possible that God will save them through extraordinary means by counting them as imperfect members of the Church, united to the Church in desire and intention and all that causes their division is not their fault. Ss. Thomas Aquinas and Pius X will suffice to back me up on this as well as the Councils of Trent and Vatican II and the Baltimore Catechism and Catechism of the Catholic Church and establish it as a sound orthodox belief.

However, if you hold that the Church has reversed the Dogma that no one outside of the bulk of Peter is saved, you hold heresy. The Church cannot and does not change her teachings.

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote] How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?  Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, i sneccessary for salvation:  the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation;  he is present to us in his body which is the Church.  He himself explicitly asserted teh necessity of faith and of the Church which men enter thorugh Baptism as through a door.  Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse to either to enter it or to remain in it.

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God, witha sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation.

"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to eveangelize all men." [/quote]


CCC. pp.846-848

[Guest Aluigi]

Amen, and read in the light of 2000 years of Church Teaching that teaches exactly what I just said. Notice the through no fault ignorance (inculpable ignorance) and the God's will through the dictates of their own conscience, and the crucial "may" which shows that it is a possibility, reaffirming that this would be an extraordinary act of God's grace and mercy upon imperfect members of the Catholic Church on earth.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Ss. Thomas Aquinas and Pius X will suffice to back me up on this as well as the Councils of Trent and Vatican II and the Baltimore Catechism and Catechism of the Catholic Church and establish it as a sound orthodox belief.[/quote]

Notice the gap between Aquinas and Pius X.

Trent talks about baptism by desire only if you were going to become a Catholic strict sense of the word. We've had that discussion before. We came to the discussion that Trent is really unclear but I'd think leaning toward strict interpretation.

I wanted to move into what the Popes were saying during the "no salvation" and stuff but we didn't really go there. I also wanted to examine why people held to the "no salvation" in the stict sense, but you'll just say that's people being people ie unknownest. I think that indicates what was really taught.

Edited February 2, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c