Emerald's Questionsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Hi Emerald,Instead of diverting the other thread, I figured I'd answer your many questions on a new thread. Enjoy and God bless you!
Mateo
--------------------
"What if a pope were to preach a heresy? Can it happen?"
No.
"Has it happened?"
Something close occurred with Pope Honorius.
"If it happens, what are the faithful to do?"
The faithful believe this hypothetical cannot happen.
"If he does, does he still remain pope?"
The faithful believe this hypothetical cannot happen.
"Could being loyal to the pope include a denial of a known doctrine?"
The faithful believe this hypothetical cannot happen.
"Has it ever been so bad that Catholicism was in dire straits?"
Yes. The day of the Crucifixion. Also, the Arian heresy (which I believe was the precursor to Islam), the Great Schism. Also, the Protestant Reformation. Well, aside from 2000 years full of various heresies/schisms, I suppose the rest of Christianity's history isn't so bad.
"Could it ever get so bad, beyond our worst imaginings?"
I suppose it depends on what your expectations/imaginings are.
"If so, would the gates of Hell prevail against it?"
No. Our Lord promised that it would not.
"Why do people think something is wrong in the Church?"
Because they expect perfection from individuals.
"Why do people think nothing is wrong in the Church?"
Because they don't expect perfection from individuals.
"How powerful is Satan?"
More powerful than we think.
"How powerful is God?"
He is all powerful.
"When does a pope speak Ex Cathedra?"
Good question.
"When was the last time a pope spoke Ex Cathedra?"
Another good question.
"Is or is not an Ex Cathedra statement a statement of new doctrine?"
You're on a roll.
"How was assent determined before Ex Cathedra was itself defined?"
I feel like Westley listening to Vizzinni in the Princess Bride. "Truly You Have A Dizzying Intellect!"
"Give an example of something a pope can say that is not binding"
"Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are delicious."
"Give an example of something a pope says that is binding"
"You must attend Mass each Sunday."
"State the principle that differentiates between binding and nonbinding"
Well, one involves our Sunday obligation. And the Other involves PB&J.
"What does ordinary refer to in the ordinary magisterium?"
Ordinary = Standard.
"Does a dogmatic definition really need interpretation?"
If there is a disparity in interpretations, yes.
"What does modernism mean?"
"Is there really evolution of dogma? Prove it."
There is certainly an evolution of our understanding of dogma. For example, pre-New Testament, the Dogma of the Trinity was not known by the faithful (the Jewish people). Later, the Dogma was known.
"What is the action of the Holy Spirit in relation to the magisterium?"
The Holy Spririt protects the Magisterium from error in faith and morals.
"How do when know when how it is the Holy Spirit works?"
Well, if you attended charismatic masses, you would know. Just kidding!
"What is man's condition?"
Fallen.
"Can a man save himself?"
He can give himself to God, but it is God who saves.
"How can he be saved?"
Read the book The Dogma of Hell (plus "How To Avoid Hell" by Thomas A. Nelson)
"Where can salvation be found?"
In Our Lord Jesus Christ.
"Does God owe man anything?"
No
"Does man owe God anything?"
Yes
"Can a man's goodness save him?"
No
"Does God care about modern progress?"
Yes
"Is modern progress bringing man close to God"
Some progress may bring man closer to God.
"What is the mystical body of Christ?"
The Church
"What is my job in the mystical body of Christ?"
Imitate Christ. Give your life to God.
"What can I do for the Church that's not going to really help?"
Sin
"What can I do for the Church that really will help?"
Practice virtue.
"Are we really going to die?"
No. We are all assured that we will spend eternity somewhere. The question is: where?
God bless!
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2003
Jmj
Hi, Mateo.I enjoyed your answers to Emerald's questions -- many informative, some humorous.
I have not had a chance to visit the forum much this week, so I didn't see the thread where Emerald left the questions. I can't help but wonder why he asked them.
Does he really not know some of the answers (which would help to explain why he is a bit of a protestant right now)?
Or does he think he knows all the answers, but wants to find out if we have different answers (so that he can feel justified in calling orthodox Catholics "liberals" or "modernists")?
We shall see (maybe).Mateo, I found it quite remarkable that Emerald had the chutzpah to post almost 40 questions for someone to answer, when he still owes me the answers to 13 much simpler-to-answer questions. I left them for him on New Year's Day, 2003, and I am still waiting. I decided to copy them here, just so that you can see them -- not to hijack your thread and get his answers here. I'd like for him [Hi, Emerald!] to answer them on the original thread.
(1) A baby girl is born in Belgium and is baptized in a Catholic church. On the way home, there is an auto accident and the baby is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(2) A baby girl is born in Serbia and is baptized in an Eastern Orthodox church. On the way home, there is an auto accident and the baby is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(3) A baby girl is born in Sweden and is baptized in a Lutheran Church. On the way home, there is an auto accident and the baby is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(4) A baby girl is born in northern Sudan to Moslem parents. Within the first month of life, without being baptized, she dies in an accident. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(5) The baby in #1 [Catholic] survives the accident and grows to age 14. She is in the state of sanctifying grace when another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(6) The baby in #2 [Orthodox] survives the accident and grows to age 14. She is in the state of sanctifying grace when another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(7) The baby in #2 survives the accident, grows to age 14, hears about how Catholics are obedient to the pope as vicar of Christ and chief pastor of Christendom, while she and her fellow Orthodox do not recognize him as such. What she hears, though, does not convince her that she should become a Catholic. She is in the state of sanctifying grace when another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(8) The baby in #3 [Lutheran] survives the accident, grows to age 14, but has not yet heard/read the teachings of Catholicism. She is in the state of sanctifying grace when another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(9) The baby in #3 survives the accident, grows to age 14, hears about how some Catholic beliefs differ from the Lutheran beliefs she has learned, but what she hears does not convince her that she believes anything wrong. She is in the state of sanctifying grace when another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(10) The baby in #4 [Moslem] survives the accident, grows to age 14, but has not yet heard/read the teachings of Catholicism. She has not committed any mortal sins, but has tried to follow her conscience and to do what her parents and teachers have told her is right. Another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(11) The baby in #4 survives the accident, grows to age 14, hears about the fact that many Catholic beliefs differ from the Moslem beliefs she has learned, but what she hears does not convince her that she believes anything wrong. She has not committed any mortal sins, but has tried to follow her conscience and to do what her parents and teachers have told her is right. Another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(12) [This is a new child, not mentioned before.] A baby was born in 1949 into a family of committed Marxist atheists in Siberia. She never received Christian Baptism with water. She grew to age 14, but never heard/read the teachings of Catholicism. She did not commit any mortal sins, but tried to follow her conscience and to do what her parents and teachers told her was right. An accident occurred, and she was killed. Did her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(13) The child in #12 [atheist] grew to age 14 and then heard that some people have religious beliefs. Some Moslem and Catholic friends then told her about their beliefs, but she was not convinced to believe anything that they told her, so she became neither Moslem nor Catholic. She did not commit any mortal sins, but tried to follow her conscience and to do what her parents and teachers told her was right. An accident occurred, and she was killed. Did her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.
JmjMateo, you were a bit "cagey" in response to a few of Emerald's questions. May I take a shot at them?
----- "When does a pope speak Ex Cathedra?"
The answer is embedded [and underlined by me] in this extract from the (~1913) "Catholic Encyclopedia" article on infallibility:
The First Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent."----- "When was the last time a pope spoke Ex Cathedra?"
There is not complete agreement on this. Some people believe that every canonization of a saint is an infallible, "ex cathedra" pronouncement. Others argue that canonizations are infallible, but not "ex cathedra," because they don't see a canonization as a "defin[ition of] ... a doctrine of faith or morals." Most of this latter group refer to the proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption of the BVM (in 1950) as the last "ex cathedra" pronouncement.----- "Is or is not an Ex Cathedra statement a statement of new doctrine?"
If one includes canonizations as "ex cathedra" pronouncements, then 'yes.' If one does not include them, then 'no.' In the latter case, an "ex cathedra" pronouncement is a formal definition of a doctrine that has long (if not always) been believed by at least some in the Church.God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.
Rats! The italics were supposed to end with the words, "... Church's consent."
My HTML skills are far from infallible.
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.
I was amazed at the level of intellect you have, Mateo. I think this is one of those few times that you have answered in a civilized way in a way that is excellent. Not that I agree with everything you said, but about 93%. I hope you continue in the same mood.As for John, even though he is not interested in hearing my response to what was asked of Emerald. I don't know if John is interested in the answer, in finding something to argue about, or in promoting his own ultraconservative agenda. Anyway, John, in mi case here are my answers, even if you don't like them. In the first 11 cases the answer for me is a simple yes. For # 12 there is a possible yes. A child has no faith at birth, so God is more tolerant. For #13 more needs to be said. Did she choose not to believe because she found the religious people she met were hypocrites, then yes. Shwe found them to be just people and still didn't convert, I leave that question to God.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 02, 2003.
At 6:00 pm today I can sense your presence at the other end, John.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 02, 2003.
Good post Mateo..infomative.Thanks Emerald for the questions.
Hey I saw a book by a Fr. Mateo, I suppose no relation to you....
-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 02, 2003.
John, you know that the standard accusation against those who hold that there is no salvation outside the Church, in other words, one of the defined doctrines of the Catholic Church, is that they are "playing God", "condemning people to Hell", and being "judgemental".I have always stated that just because I hold the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church does not at all equate to any of the accusations above, but that it only means I wish to adhere to the way of salvation which Christ has provided for us in the Catholic Church.
But your questions are aimed at trying to make me judge particular cases, and you have loaded the questions in such a way as to make me do the very thing you claim I am guilty of; the accusations I say that I am not guilty of. To answer them is possible, but I will not do it because I know your intentions, and it would be self- fulfilling but without serving the truth.
My suggestion to you is to answer them yourself based upon Catholic the deposit of the Faith... based on doctrine, and prove to me your position... which I can only gather, is that there is in fact salvation outside the Church.
Do you intend to prove to me that there is, in fact, salvation outside the Church? Would this be the glaring reality achieved by answering these questions? I personally think so; correct me if I am wrong.
Mateo; this is unreal. Someone actually answers... lol!
This will be fun.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.
Emerald for the hundredth time... what dont you understand?PJPII
"The Council speaks of membership in the Church for Christians and of being related to the Church for non-Christian believers in God, for people of goodwill (cf. Lumen Gentium 15-16). Both these dimensions are important for salvation, and each one possesses varying levels. People are saved through the Church, they are saved in the Church, but they always are saved by the grace of Christ. Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church. Paul VI expressed this same teaching in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, when he spoke of the various circles of the dialogue of salvation (cf. Ecclesiam Suam 101-117), which are the same as those indicated by the Council as the spheres of membership in and of relation to the Church. This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
It would be difficult to deny that this doctrine is extremely open. It cannot be accused of an ecclesiological exclusivism. Those who rebel against claims allegedly made by the Catholic Church probably do not have an adequate understanding of this teaching."
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.
That last sentence... sorry, kiwi, was that a quote? I'm not sure if it is you talking, or a quote. This one:It would be difficult to deny that this doctrine is extremely open. It cannot be accused of an ecclesiological exclusivism. Those who rebel against claims allegedly made by the Catholic Church probably do not have an adequate understanding of this teaching."
You've got the " there and I'm confused.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.
At any rate, this is falling right in order. The first question was:"What if a pope were to preach a heresy? Can it happen?"
Mateo says no, but if you dig around a little, you'll find that it is in fact possible, even if it is rare.
I think it's happening in the quote you posted above. It is possible, and there were some popes that didn't just come close but actually did hold heresy. No pope has ever made a heresy a matter of doctrinal assent, nor will one ever; the Holy Spirit would prevent as much.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 02, 2003.
Hello all,Here are some comments. John, thank you for the serious answers regarding Ex Cathedra stuff. As the product of public school education, that stuff isn't my forte.
Mike writes:
"Hey I saw a book by a Fr. Mateo, I suppose no relation to you...."
I wish! God's plan for me is to be the other kind of "father," if you know what I mean. :-)
Emerald writes:
"To answer them is possible, but I will not do it because I know your intentions, and it would be self- fulfilling but without serving the truth."
Emerald, when you have asked questions recently, some (many?) of them were questions that you wanted others to answer in order for you to make a point. In other words, they weren't really, "Hey I don't know the answer," as much as they were, "Let me make my point after I've seen your answers." John is using the same method as you, right?
Emerald writes:
"Mateo; this is unreal. Someone actually answers...lol!"
Actually, one of my answers has spurred a thought in my mind that I'd like you (and maybe the SSPX crowd) to think about.
In one of my answers, I wrote that the Pope can declare that all Catholics must fulfill the Sunday Obligation for Mass. Now, this is not a doctrinal position of the Church. This is a Tradition (big 'T'?) of the Church.
OK, so let's say that we've got a single bishop and some followers who are faithful to all doctrines of the Church. Let's say that this group believes that Catholics should attend Mass on Saturday. They celebrate Mass on Saturdays because it is the Sabbath, and they insult all those who go to Mass on Sunday. They believe that Saturday is Biblically correct and that Saturday as the Sabbath is really a dogma. It's even one of the Ten Commandments...it must be dogma! OK, so the overwhelming majority of Catholics are (according to this bishop and his followers) in serious error regarding what they believe to be Catholic dogma.
The Magesterium and local bishops forbid them from teaching and celebrating a "Saturday obligation Mass." Their priests are ordained, so it is valid, even if it is illicit. They argue that the Church allows Mass on Saturdays (heck, almost every day one can celebrate Mass).
Do you see a parallel situation with the SSPX? In my view, such a group would certainly be schismatic.
God bless you,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2003.
Emerald, when you have asked questions recently, some (many?) of them were questions that you wanted others to answer in order for you to make a point. In other words, they weren't really, "Hey I don't know the answer," as much as they were, "Let me make my point after I've seen your answers." John is using the same method as you, right?Yeah, that's fair enough. Let me point out a couple things though.
I asked the whole forum and got nothing for a while now. He asked one person. I can answer those questions, but they are loaded hypotheticals and are aimed at trapping me. My question is not a hypothetical and was addressed to the entire forum; and still it has stood unanswered by anyone at all.
What's more, it isn't a trap. If people ask the question and get it answered, it could do no harm at all in that their knowledge and understanding of the Faith would increase. It would, however, make them more traditional if they take what they find out to be the case, to heart. Because that's where the truth is.
But as it stands, no one explains what it means to give true and loyal assent to the Holy Father and the magisterium. But they should be able to... why? Because they are using their little-understood concepts of what it means to be loyal to the Holy Father and the magisterium to level serious accusations against others of being schismatics and heretics.
Think about it. Serious accusations of schism and heresy leveled upon people based upon a not-well-understood concept of what it means to be loyal to the Holy Father and the magisterium. So well NOT understood that nobody wants to define it. The fact is, the common understanding is seriously flawed.
If one is going to bring someone up on charges, it would be helpful to understand the charges themselves.
That's why I want to push the line of questioning; to show how they don't have a case for the accusations. There's no shame in not understanding something, but if one doesn't, one ought not be leveling serious charges upon individuals.
This little Pope/Iraq slip up just made it all a little more timely and a little easier. A clear example of an incoherent understanding of loyalty to the Holy Father. Very inopportune for those wielding this glorious degree of assent and loyalty they supposedly possess.
Look, if it makes anyone feel any better, I'd be happy to answer John's questions... if that's the only obstacle to the progress of the present conversation. Is this going to be a prerequisite? Let me know.
In the mean time, rest assured that I believe it is required to submit to the Roman Pontiff, and to the magisterium. It has reasons, and principles and authority behind it. But people are using it to mean something it is not, and are willing to accept all manner of deviation and innovation in the place of the doctrines of the Faith based upon an invalid concept of it loyalty and assent.
I've been caustic to people in this forum, but always to the issue and not usually to the people themselves. Maybe a couple times here and there I've slipped up, but hello, it is the issue I have consistantly targeted and not the individual. As far as labels, I think I called John and Gene liberals once. Seeing as how nobody can even define what a liberal is, that aint so bad.
But calling individuals schismatics, heretics; claiming that they are out to destroy the Church even, as individuals...! I'm sorry, but that's something no one should mess with. If it takes some caustic arrogant SOB to defend them, I'm all over it.
It isn't about all this intellectual garbage anyways, as anybody who takes their Faith seriously will eventually end up a traditionalists anyway. You can't go down the other road very far before you realize it isn't the place where you belong. It's that ascetic recognition that got me traditional and serious about my Faith. Back when I believed all this other nonsense is when I didn't care much about it.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 03, 2003.
Emerald writes: "But calling individuals schismatics, heretics; claiming that they are out to destroy the Church even, as individuals...! I'm sorry, but that's something no one should mess with. If it takes some caustic arrogant SOB to defend them, I'm all over it."Well, I want to use a parallel. Is this the difference between calling a person a sinner and saying an action is a sin? If a person has committed a sin, they are a sinner. I believe those who have received sensitivity training would not use the label "sinner;" but instead merely identify that a particular action was a sin.
Similarly, I've listed actions and statements that I believe are prima facie schismatic. So would it be better if I stopped labeling people "schismatic" because of their actions and statements, and simply said their actions and statements are schismatic?
Well, I haven't received formal sensitivity training, but I'll try my best!
Emerald writes: "It isn't about all this intellectual garbage anyways, as anybody who takes their Faith seriously will eventually end up a traditionalists anyway."
I pray you're right. My personal qualms against SSPX et al isn't their ideals. It's their tactics; they are 100% in opposition of their goals.
God bless you,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 03, 2003.
It's somewhat nebulous, but so far, we are in agreement on about 23 things, no on 8 things with 3 question marks. Or something like that.But here's the interesting items that stand out: modern progress and it's relationship to salvation, and the principle behind the promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 03, 2003.
the Pope can declare that all Catholics must fulfill the Sunday Obligation for Mass. Now, this is not a doctrinal position of the Church. This is a Tradition (big 'T'?) of the Church.Keeping holy the Sabbath Day is a Divine law, which trancends Church law.
-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 03, 2003.
Jake writes: "Keeping holy the Sabbath Day is a Divine law, which trancends Church law."I don't know what this means. The "Sabbath" is Saturday. Ask anyone faithful to Judaism. The Church has an obligation to worship God on Sunday. So what is your point?
God bless,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 03, 2003.
The "Sabbath" is Saturday...The Church has an obligation to worship God on Sunday. So what is your point?The Baltimore Catechism says:
Q. 1242 What is the third Commandment? A. The third Commandment is: Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
Q. 1243. What are we commanded by the third Commandment? A. By the third Commandment we are commanded to keep holy the Lord's day and the holydays of obligation, on which we are to give our time to the service and worship of God.
days of obligation are special feasts of the Church on which we are bound, under pain of mortal sin, to hear Mass and to keep from servile or bodily labors when it can be done without great loss or inconvenience. Whoever, on account of their circumstances, cannot give up work on holydays of obligation should make every effort to hear Mass and should also explain in confession the necessity of working on holydays.
Q. 1245. How are we to worship God on Sundays and holydays of obligation?
A. We are to worship God on Sundays and holydays of obligation by hearing Mass, by prayer, and by other good works.
Q. 1250. Why does the Church command us to keep the Sunday holy instead of the Sabbath (Saturday)?
A. The Church commands us to keep the Sunday holy instead of the Sabbath because on Sunday Christ rose from the dead, and on Sunday He sent the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles.
Q. 1251. Do we keep Sunday instead of Saturday holy for any other reason?
A. We keep Sunday instead of Saturday holy also to teach that the Old Law is not now binding upon us, but that we must keep the New Law, which takes its place.
I guess that was my point.
-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 03, 2003.
Again, we are not requires to assent to HTML.
-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 03, 2003.
Again, we are not requires to assent to HTML....nor to good spelling or punctuation.
-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 03, 2003.
first let me take a stab at the original questions from a perspective of a jesuit catholic, then later i will give answers to the thirteen on the baptism/belief and heaven issue:"What if a pope were to preach a heresy? Can it happen?" It can indeed happen. when the papacy is inhereted by one who is not true to the true tenets of the church it is possible for the pope to not listen to the word of God, and therefore speak falsely
"Has it happened?" yes, the persecution of witches, crusades, and such are matters of a pope not speaking infallably, which is why JP II, a true and good pope, has recognized these errors in judgement and appologized for them
"If it happens, what are the faithful to do?" pray, God answers us though we may not hear words, and we know in our heart what is right. thankfully this is not an issue with JP II, the man will be a saint, im sure
"If he does, does he still remain pope?" nothing can remove the pope except for death, there is no retirement or impeachment process. Although there are a couple of cases where a pope appointed died withing weeks, and once several days of their appointment.
"Could being loyal to the pope include a denial of a known doctrine?" It should be obvious if a pope is speaking heresy.
"Has it ever been so bad that Catholicism was in dire straits?" not really, in a religion of one billion people, the church has never been in that DIRE of straights. As reasonable people, we understand that some people are evil, but the church is not based on individuals, it is a whole body of Christ, and as such, our faith is in God, not the Pope. The closest thing i can see to dire straights would have been the crusades or the inquisitions, but the church wasnt in dire straits in either case, it was just wrong
"Could it ever get so bad, beyond our worst imaginings?" That depends on what your imaginings are, but im sure its a possibility if you picture the end of the world as a bunch of fluffy bunnies hopping in circles, cus we know thats not how its headed
"If so, would the gates of Hell prevail against it?" Nope, in the end, Jesus returns with an army and hell is destroyed, its inhabitants sent to the lake of fire
"Why do people think something is wrong in the Church?" they confuse the church with the people that make it up.
"Why do people think nothing is wrong in the Church?" Because they realize that God is in the Church, regardless of the individuals in it.
"How powerful is Satan?" I certainly wouldnt want to take him on in the ring
"How powerful is God?" all powerful
"When does a pope speak Ex Cathedra?" a (good) Pope speaks EC when he is inspired by the Holy Spirit and makes interpretations of dogma
"When was the last time a pope spoke Ex Cathedra?" JP II does it all the time, an example is the proclamation that abortion is fundamentally wrong, as well as the death penalty
"Is or is not an Ex Cathedra statement a statement of new doctrine?" Could be, depends on the circumstance as to whether or not it is a new element of doctrine to meet a changing world, or if it is an interpretation of former doctrine that is confusing.
"How was assent determined before Ex Cathedra was itself defined?" dunno
"Give an example of something a pope can say that is not binding" you should try some of this cheese.
"Give an example of something a pope says that is binding" The use of abortion is contrary to Gods command that we shall not kill, and is worsened by the fact that it kills innocent children therefore it is fundamentally wrong.
"State the principle that differentiates between binding and nonbinding" one is a definition of liturgical doctrine, the other isnt... DUH
"What does ordinary refer to in the ordinary magisterium?" normal, standard, not unordinary
"Does a dogmatic definition really need interpretation?" yes, in a world where everyone has there own interpretation, it is important that we note that in the Catholic Church one must change to meet the commands of a centralized church, in this way the religion changes a person to the will of God
"What does modernism mean?" see the previous answer
"Is there really evolution of dogma? Prove it." yes, the world comes up with new things all the time, certainly dogma must evolve to meet this fact. doesnt the cloning issue need some dogmatic interpretation?
"What is the action of the Holy Spirit in relation to the magisterium?" the Holy Spirit speaks through a true magisterium and influences their decisions to Gods will
"How do when know when how it is the Holy Spirit works?" you cant, faith in God to make sure it goes right, i guess
"What is man's condition?" a sinner, fallen from Gods grace
"Can a man save himself?" no,we are saved by God because of our faith, and we live a life of good works according to that faith
"How can he be saved?" see above
"Where can salvation be found?" God, through the death and resurection of Jesus
"Does God owe man anything?" last time i checked, he created us, i think we owe him
"Does man owe God anything?" see above
"Can a man's goodness save him?" no way, inherently man is disobedient to God, as shown by the garden of eden event. only our faith can save us and a whole hearted attempt at rightousness gives that faith meaning.
"Does God care about modern progress?" im sure God does
"Is modern progress bringing man close to God" some, but probably not most. If we are moving down the path to armageddon, then in the long run, no
"What is the mystical body of Christ?" The Church
"What is my job in the mystical body of Christ?" Live a Christlike life, avoid sin and the snares of the Devil, follow the deepest inclination of your heart, there are alot of roles in the church
"What can I do for the Church that's not going to really help?" bring snacks to mass, its nice, but it doesnt really fundamentally help
"What can I do for the Church that really will help?" Whatever role you play in the church, play it well
"Are we really going to die?" possibly, depending on your interpretation of the Bible. Man may die if they are not baptised, under Jesus' saying unless a man is baptised he shall not live forever
TAAAADDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa
-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 03, 2003.
Paul,There are always exceptions to the rule. The crucified man next to Jesus wasn't baptized by him, yet, Jesus promised him salvation.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 03, 2003.
Hey, Emerald. Before you answer these questions yourself (if, in fact, you were planning on it) I would like to take a stab at it. Since I know that you are even better at understanding this than I am, I would like to see how close I can get to the truth. Then you can correct me if I'm wrong. Kinda' like a test. :)But I won't have time until tonite, so give me until then. Thanks.
-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.
lol... this is fun. Isabel, you're gonna get me in trouble! I don't know the whole truth, but I know nothing but the truth (by definition). I figure you've done a better job expressing yourself anyways. Give it a shot though, I hope everyone does. I'll do it to eventually, but you've got plenty of time. I aint going nowhere and I'm too tired lately anyways.Really, I just whipped up the list off the top of my head, and there is a purpose to it but it isn't a trap, really. I'll post some of my own answers, right or wrong, eventually. It might be good to figure how traditionalists think and others as well, in order to find likenesses and differences.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 03, 2003.
Emerald,Whew! What a day. The kids are finally in bed. A little later than hoped for. So, now I will try and tackle your questions.
"What if a pope were to preach a heresy? Can it happen?"
What if.....yes it can happen.
"Has it happened?"
Yes. The first that comes to mind is Pope Honorius.
"If it happens, what are the faithful to do?"
Good question. I would say that the faithful are to study the history, documents and doctrinal statements, and faith taught by the Church since its inception as best they can (for a clearer understanding), and to pray to the Holy Ghost, while doing this, for guidance. They should adhere to the traditions of the Church. They should pray and offer sacrifices for the Pope and all those who would be influenced by the heresy. They should make known, as best they can, how the heresy contradicts prior Church teaching.
"If he does, does he still remain pope?"
Yes. If he was validly elected, then he cannot be overthrown. He remains in the Chair of Peter until his death or a voluntary resignation.
"Could being loyal to the pope include a denial of a known doctrine?"
No, because if you deny a known doctrine you are not loyal to the Pope. Loyalty cannot be contradictory with the Truth. Those who would choose to follow a Pope into heresy are aiding him in his error. Those who refuse to follow the heresy, would be the ones to remain loyal. We must remain loyal to 'Peter', and the only way of doing this is by remaining loyal to the truth.
"Has it ever been so bad that Catholicism was in dire straits?"
That depends on what exactly you mean by that. If, by dire straits, you mean that Catholicism was in danger of becoming 'extinct', then no, because we have the promise it will remain until the end of time. If, by dire straits, you mean that Catholicism, in its 'true form', was barely visible on this earth, then I would have to say yes, (and actually agree with Mateo :) ) that the Arian heresy would have been one of those times. And, if by dire straits, you mean something similar to what was ocurring in pagan Rome in the early Church, I would say definitely not! Those were most definitely glorious times, when so many valiantly died to defend Christ and His Church. To give of themselves for Christ!
"Could it ever get so bad, beyond our worst imaginings?"
I believe so. I don't think any of us can imagine what the evil of satan can accomplish. This, of course, going hand in hand with what God will allow to test the faithfulness of the Mystical Body of Christ.
"If so, would the gates of Hell prevail against it?"
No. God has promised as much. We just do not know in what capacity it will survive.
"Why do people think something is wrong in the Church?"
(There can never be anything wrong *with* the Church, but there can always be wrong *in* the Church.) Some people see a departure from the Deposit of Faith left to us by many of the heirarchy.
"Why do people think nothing is wrong in the Church?"
They fail to comprehend the true understanding of the protection of the Holy Ghost.
"How powerful is Satan?"
Only as powerful as God allows. But He *allows* more than He *wills*.
"How powerful is God?"
All-powerful, so powerful that the human mind cannot comprehend Him.
"When does a pope speak Ex Cathedra?"
When he defines a doctrine absolutely and finally; When he treats of faith or morals; When he clearly shows his intention of binding the universal Church. All these conditions *must* be present. Infallibility has nothing to do with the personal actions of Popes, their disciplinary decisions or even unofficial comments or personal opinions expressed by them, even on faith and morals.
"When was the last time a pope spoke Ex Cathedra?"
I think the last dogma defined was the Assumption in 1952. But canonizations are also considered infallible. (Quick thought: I know there are 'guidelines' to canonizations.....*must* these guidelines be followed for the canonization to be infallible? I honestly do not know the answer to this, and was wondering if you do.)
"Is or is not an Ex Cathedra statement a statement of new doctrine?"
No. Doctrine is never new. Declaring doctrine is just a defining statement saying what always was must be believed by all, to end all question over the matter.
"How was assent determined before Ex Cathedra was itself defined?"
This I do not know for sure, but I would say that it was generally believed that doctrine defined (even before the dogma of infallibility) was absolute truth, such as at the Council of Trent. And anything that departed from that doctrine did not require assent. ???
"Give an example of something a pope can say that is not binding"
Those of goodwill, even if they not be of the Catholic Church, can still be saved. (Because it has never been declared dogma, while the opposite has.)
"Give an example of something a pope says that is binding"
No one outside the Catholic Church can be saved. (Because this has been declared dogma.)
"State the principle that differentiates between binding and nonbinding"
Anything that has been declared dogmas of our faith, as well as laws of the Church, are binding. Anything else requires our assent, providing it does not contradict with dogmatic statements. If it does so, then one must adhere to doctrine. (No dogmatic statement has ever been made that even *appears* to contradict another dogmatic statement.) Personal opinions of the Pope are not binding, because they are not protected by the Holy Ghost.
"What does ordinary refer to in the ordinary magisterium?"
Ordinary = Standard.
"Does a dogmatic definition really need interpretation?"
No. A *definition* needs no interpretation. It is an explantion in itself. That is what definition is. Dogmatic definitions are intended to end all questioning over the matter.
"What does modernism mean?"
It is the introducing of the ways of man taking precedence over the ways of God.
As explained by Merriam-Webster:
(1) : a practice, usage, or expression peculiar to modern times (2) often capitalized : a tendency in theology to accommodate traditional religious teaching to contemporary thought and especially to devalue supernatural elements. (3) : modern artistic or literary philosophy and practice; especially : a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression.
For an even better explantion.
"Is there really evolution of dogma? Prove it."
No. Doctrine never changes. We must understand doctrinal statements to mean what they say.
"What is the action of the Holy Spirit in relation to the magisterium?"
The Holy Ghost protects the Church from defining error. It does not protect every action, speach, or writing of the Pope, but protects the Pope from defining something that is not true. (See Ex Cathedra statements above.) The Holy Ghost will guide each individual only insofar as they are open to his guidance.
"How do when know when how it is the Holy Spirit works?"
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (St. John 16, 13).
Also, because of this infallible statement: "...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable."
Also because of the events of Pentecost.
"What is man's condition?"
Fallen, therefore distorted nature.
"Can a man save himself?"
No.
"How can he be saved?"
By the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary and by the graces and sacraments given to us from God, if we should follow the straight and narrow path of salvation.
"Where can salvation be found?"
In the Catholic Church.
"Does God owe man anything?"
No.
"Does man owe God anything?"
Everything that we have to give, including ourselves.
"Can a man's goodness save him?"
No. Only by the sacrifice of God, sacraments and grace can we be saved.
"Does God care about modern progress?"
No. His laws remain eternal. Modern progress has nothing to do with the salvation of one's soul, and that is God's ultimate desire for us.
"Is modern progress bringing man close to God"
No. Modern progress tends to lead man away from God, because of the humanism involved in it. Because of the materialism involved in it.
"What is the mystical body of Christ?"
The Church Triumphant, The Church Militant and The Church Suffering
"What is my job in the mystical body of Christ?"
Well, first I don't consider it a job. To be in the Mystical Body of Christ is a blessing. And when He gives that blessing this is what He expects in return: To keep the Deposit of Faith undefiled, to imitate Christ and His Blessed Mother, to give all of ourselves to Christ and accept His Divine Will, to pray and frequently receive the sacraments instituted by Him, to obey the 10 Commandments and the laws of the Church, to pray for the suffering souls in purgatory, praying for the Magisterium and Holy Father, to perform corporal and spiritual works of mercy, and by all this, hopefully reaching the level of holiness and/or sanctity needed to save my soul and those souls left in my charge.
"What can I do for the Church that's not going to really help?"
Ah! That is a contradiction. lol. :) You cannot 'do for the Church' if it is not going to help the Church. But in the essence of your question, I would say departing from the Deposit of Faith, or defending those that do.
"What can I do for the Church that really will help?"
Refer to 'job in the Mystical Body of Christ' question.
"Are we really going to die?"
Our body will die, only for a short while. Our soul will never die, and on the last day our bodies will rise and reunite with our souls to reside for all eternity in the place the justice and mercy of God demands.
Well, how did I do? Good questions! Did I pass or fail? (According to Emerald.)
-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.
"What does ordinary refer to in the ordinary magisterium?"Ordinary = Standard.
Ooops! Looks like I missed that one. That is Mateo's answer.
My answer:
Ordinary refers to the day-to-day teaching excersize of the bishops in their diocese, the cardinals teachings and the greater part of the Pope's teachings when they are *teaching* as individuals (not necessarily with the consensus of all the magisterium).
-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.
Isabel, I was touched and humbled by many of your answers. How I wish I could be so eloquent, not to mention so well informed. My answers to Emerald's thought-provoking questions will look like "Aw shuckins, I guess so ahuh ahuh," by comparison. Here goes anyhow:"What if a pope were to preach a heresy? Can it happen?"
Yes.
"Has it happened?"
Yes. As with Isabel, Pope Honorius comes to my mind first.
"If it happens, what are the faithful to do?"
They must cling to what the Church was from Pentecost. They must resist the heresy and publicly rebuke the heretic. They must pray to the Holy Ghost for guidence. They must turn away from anything which had not been previously revealed.
"If he does, does he still remain pope?"
Yes, since he can't be "fired."
"Could being loyal to the pope include a denial of a known doctrine?"
Do you mean "could I be loyal to the Pope but deny the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady"? No, I don't see how I could be loyal to the Pope while denying a doctrine.
"Has it ever been so bad that Catholicism was in dire straits?"
The time of St. Catherine of Siena comes to mind. The Protestant Reformation, also.
I think it could be argued that Catholicism is in pretty bad shape these days.
"Could it ever get so bad, beyond our worst imaginings?"
I think so. Every day I become more and more shocked by the goings-on in parishes all over the world, by students from Catholic High Schools and Colleges who don't know the very basic tenents of their Faith, by sexual scandals, by actions, bad example, words, statements, documents, writings of some members of the Hierarchy, by Her blindly obedient children who don't think these things are a big deal, etc., etc.
"If so, would the gates of Hell prevail against it?"
No. Our Lord promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. How thriving or how small She will be is up to Him.
"Why do people think something is wrong in the Church?"
Because they have studied their Faith and Her Traditions and can recognize when something doesn't jibe well with it.
"Why do people think nothing is wrong in the Church?"
Because the Church has become what they want: Ambiguous, indifferent, people-pleasing, and not demanding that they change their lives to conform to Her.
"How powerful is Satan?"
He is a fallen Angel. He was thrown out of Heaven but his Angelic powers were not taken from him. He has preternatural, ancient knowledge and abilities, but he is still subject to God. God still rules him. Satan can do whatever God allows him to do.
"How powerful is God?"
All-powerful. There is nothing He can't do.
"When does a pope speak Ex Cathedra?"
I can only answer this by giving an example. We as Catholics *always* believed in the Assumption of the Blessed Mother. However it wasn't until 1952 (3?) that the Pope spoke Ex Cathedra binding it as doctrine. It wasn't as if we didn't *have to* believe it prior, just that the Pope made it official. He made it *crystal clear* that belief in the Assumption was obligatory.
He didn't create a new Doctrine with the Assumption, he just made an official declaration of an obligatory belief we always held.
All Ex Cathedra declarations are guided and commanded by the Holy Ghost.
"When was the last time a pope spoke Ex Cathedra?"
1952 with the Assumption of the Blessed Mother.
"Is or is not an Ex Cathedra statement a statement of new doctrine?"
An Ex Cathedra statement is an official declaration of a belief we've always held. It is not a new doctrine. The pope cannot create doctrine. Ex Cathedra statements are not new revelations.
"How was assent determined before Ex Cathedra was itself defined?"
I don't think I understand the question well enough to provide the appropriate answer.
"Give an example of something a pope can say that is not binding"
"Catholics ladies must not smoke cigars."
"Give an example of something a pope says that is binding"
"Let me be clear. The Catholic Church believes that the three persons of the Most Holy Trinity are Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
"State the principle that differentiates between binding and nonbinding"
A binding statement will reinforce an article of Faith, a Divine Law, a Doctrine. A non-binding statement would be a non-infallible Papal teaching such as "the death penalty is almost always wrong."
"What does ordinary refer to in the ordinary magisterium?" In the Ordinary Magisterium the Pope *can* excercise his powers of infallibility, but it also shares the non-infallible teachings.
"Does a dogmatic definition really need interpretation?"
No.
"What does modernism mean?"
The embracing of all things having to do with this world, e.g. Philosophies (ever changing), lifestyles (ever changing), worldly desires such as power and wealth and success.
"Is there really evolution of dogma? Prove it."
If evolution can be defined as a gradual change, no, a dogma cannot evolve. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.
You cannot take, for instance the Dogma of Our Lord being born to a Virgin and add something on to it. To do that would change the Dogma of the Virgin Birth and we are not permitted to do that. Not even the Pope has that ability.
"What is the action of the Holy Spirit in relation to the magisterium?"
To guide the Pope in all matters of Doctrine and Morals, to prevent him from *infallibly* preaching a heresy. To protect Holy Mother Church from the gates of Hell.
"How do when know when how it is the Holy Spirit works?"
Well it sure as heck has nothing to do with speaking "in tongues."
"What is man's condition?"
Fallen. Sinful by nature. Man leans *toward* sin.
"Can a man save himself?"
If he knows, loves, obeys, and serves God in His Church, man can help himself to save his own soul. However he is powerless to do this without God and His Church.
"How can he be saved?"
By knowing, loving, obeying, and serving God in His Church.
"Where can salvation be found?"
In the Catholic Church.
"Does God owe man anything?"
Not a thing.
"Does man owe God anything?"
Man owes God *everything*. Particularly his soul.
"Can a man's goodness save him?"
No. Goodness alone will not save him.
"Does God care about modern progress?"
No. God is only concerned with man doing what He has instructed him to do to save his soul.
"Is modern progress bringing man close to God"
No. In fact, I would say it is taking man farther *away* from God.
"What is the mystical body of Christ?"
The members of Christ's Church here on earth, in Purgatory and in Heaven.
"What is my job in the mystical body of Christ?"
First and foremost to save my soul, secondly to teach my family to save their souls, thirdly to teach all others to save their souls.
"What can I do for the Church that's not going to really help?"
Remain silent and/or complacent while Her enemies from within try to destroy Her. To *deny* that She has enemies within Her.
"What can I do for the Church that really will help?"
Pray for the Pope. Talk to others about what I have learned. Point out errors charitably. Speak up when actions are committed or words are spoken which could endanger someone's faith. Most importantly, serve Our Lord the best way I can.
"Are we really going to die?"
Our bodies, yes. Our souls, never.
-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 04, 2003.
Wow! Thank you Regina! I am shocked, honored, flattered and in awe to have received such a compliment from you! I will try not to let it go to my head. :)Your answers are thought provoking, as well. Some of them made me go, "Ah, that's what I should have said!" :)
-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.
LIFO (last in, first out)"Are we really going to die?"
Everybody knows it is certain, but does it seem like they really believe it? Probably not; the reason I figure it that way is that I have to remind myself. I can't be that much different from the next guy, so I believe it is safe to say that while we know we are going to die, we do not allow our consciousness to reflect on it. In fact, we typically shun thoughts of death, either by choice of an active denial, or by justifiable distraction. I think the latter is more common.
The distractions that keep us from reflecting on the eternal things we can't always help; things have to be done and we can't help but put our minds to work. Somehow, someway though, we have to do it. It is absolutely necessary to set time aside to reflect on the eternal. I believe this might be at the heart of the command for a workless Sunday. Generally speaking, I would wager that if we do not set aside time to contemplate the afterlife, we won't ever see it.
To reflect on death is essential to Catholicism, because the essential principle of Catholicism is to accept one kind of death in order to avoid another, and to forsake one kind of life in order to regain another.
When I have reflected on death, a couple concepts flush themselves into recognition very quickly, and it's probably going to be the same thoughts as everyone else has, too, if they take the time to do it.
One is the recognition of futility; that no matter how painful an experience may be in life, it counts as nothing, since it passes and is forgotten. Likewise, no matter how seemingly fullfilling any experience may be, it counts as nothing, since it passes and is forgotten. So therefore, despite any condition of good or ill in this life, truth does not exist in these conditions, as truth is immutable and conditions pass away into nothingness.
So our quality of life, in the light of death, is meaningless.
Another concept that becomes readily apparent on reflecting about death is permanence. In life, if things are fleeting and passing, then in death things are in permanence and cannot be changed. This may be a comforting thought or it may be a devasting one, as the case may be. But there is something more than just the permanent state or destination of the soul to think about here... you can go further. What seems clearer when you give it more thought, is that the rules that determine the fate of the soul are etched in stone. The rules are immutable and without grey area. Unlike in this life when we see through a glass darkly, the actual truth of our reality is one of exacting principles; matters of black and white contrast in the eye of God. In His mind, all things fall into place in perfect synchronicity and precision. Murkiness and blurred distinctions exist only in the failed mind of the human, but to God, the rules of existence and principle are as immutable as He is Himself.
As I write this, I still find it hard to imagine actually dying, and it still seems an operative impossibility. Statically, I won't die tonight, but statistically the odds of me not dying at all are absolutely none. With each passing second we are closer. All decisions that are made are made in the present; if we do not act for the good now then it is already too late.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 09, 2003.
All decisions that are made are made in the present; if we do not act for the good now then it is already too late.It really makes you wonder why Catholics are whipped up into such a frenzy over so much nonsense. The Church has taught us what our priorities should be, but people still lust after their transient spiritual "highs" from whatever source promises them (the Charismatic movement comes to mind as an example of what I mean).
This, friends, is no time to be fooling around. You have to wonder how many people the good God has on Earth to make satisfaction to Him for all the wickedness, filth, and corruption He sees. He can and does (and will, to be sure)punish the wicked; but I think He needs some of His own to take up some of the slack. He calls us all to suffer, and gives us plenty of fair warning that our Earthly exile will be anything but pleasant. This is no time for holy rolling and babbling in gibberish. It's time for humility, fasting, and penance. Until we can understand that, we're not doing anything to help Christ the King establish His social reign;and if we're not doing that, God help us.
-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 12, 2003.
So true, so scarry. It should be scarry, too. People hate to look at reality as a precipice, but guess what...It is a frightening reflection, but then again, the remedy was purchased at a great price; all we need to do is bow down and worship it and to receive it in a state of grace. That's where Fear not, I am with you always kicks in. Make no mistake though, anyone who reads those four last things can't help but see predicament written all over them.
This, friends, is no time to be fooling around.
Death to self by choice, or death of self by default.
Everybody says the same thing above to this question, that the body dies but the soul lives for ever, somewhere. I think that's right, but there seems to be sort of distinction, in that the soul in hell doesn't so much live forever but dies forever. So in a way, my visualization of it is that damned soul does not "live" in hell so much as it forever dies in hell.
There isn't one thing there to comfort it. Right now, there are any number of ways in life to mitigate defeat, pain or loss. Some are justifiable, others not, but they are available.
Does this all sound accurate?
The question is, how did that soul get there; why, and why is it completely justified in light of the infinite goodness and mercy of God?
It seems the failure must lie in not dying to self in the present.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 12, 2003.
The question is, how did that soul get there; why, and why is it completely justified in light of the infinite goodness and mercy of God?Dude. I've got to get you to go on a traditional retreat, which will segue me brilliantly into my next link. The retreat is silent, meaning you don't speak for a week, unless it's one-on-one with a priest, and even then only at the appropriate times. Anyway, during meals, they either had someone read, or they played tapes. One of the tapes was that story I linked to, told from the point of view of Annette, the girl in Hell. I remember distinctly most of the retreatants did not finish their meal, and headed straight for the chapel afterwards. Powerful stuff.
-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 12, 2003.