CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Catholic Theology Q & A
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 5th August 2012, 05:49 AM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

.....and I would like something good to come out of this discussion and that is to take Sacredcellos advice..... PRAY FOR OUR PRIEST...THEY NEED MASSIVE PRAYERS!
  #22  
Old 5th August 2012, 11:28 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGiftOfLife View Post
It is a direct disobedience to the bishop without PROPER EXPLANATION to the faithful and THAT IS SCANDALOUS!

Is disobedience to a bishop, or to the Pope, necessarily wrong? Is it necessarily a scandal?

The teaching of Christ is: No, it is not always or necessarily wrong or scandalous:
[Mark]
{9:37} John responded to him by saying, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name; he does not follow us, and so we prohibited him.”
{9:38} But Jesus said: “Do not prohibit him. For there is no one who can act with virtue in my name and soon speak evil about me.
{9:39} For whoever is not against you is for you.

The man was casting out demons; he must have been cooperating with the grace of God to do so. The Apostles objected, because he did not have their approval. But Jesus says that they should not stop him. When someone is doing good in Christ's name, acting with virtue in cooperation with grace, the Church should not stop him. Jesus is the head of the Church, and in this verse He orders the Church not to use its authority in that manner.

Jesus Himself has directly authorized the lay apostolate:

"The Church was founded for the purpose of spreading the kingdom of Christ throughout the earth for the glory of God the Father, to enable all men to share in His saving redemption, and that through them the whole world might enter into a relationship with Christ. All activity of the Mystical Body directed to the attainment of this goal is called the apostolate, which the Church carries on in various ways through all her members. For the Christian vocation by its very nature is also a vocation to the apostolate."

"In the Church there is a diversity of ministry but a oneness of mission. Christ conferred on the Apostles and their successors the duty of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling in His name and power. But the laity likewise share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore have their own share in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the world."

"The laity derive the right and duty to the apostolate from their union with Christ the head; incorporated into Christ's Mystical Body through Baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation, they are assigned to the apostolate by the Lord Himself." (Apostolate of the Laity, n. 2-3)

[Matthew]
{12:1} At that time, Jesus went out through the ripe grain on the Sabbath. And his disciples, being hungry, began to separate the grain and to eat.
{12:2} Then the Pharisees, seeing this, said to him, “Behold, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbaths.”
{12:3} But he said to them: “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him:
{12:4} how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?
{12:5} Or have you not read in the law, that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath, and they are without guilt?
{12:6} But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here.
{12:7} And if you knew what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would never have condemned the innocent.
{12:8} For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Jesus is teaching the whole Church in this passage of Scripture. It is not merely about the particular incident with David. He is applying that incident as a lesson for the Church. Breaking the rules, disobeying a rule or a ruling, is not necessarily sinful.

The Church's teaching on morality states that an act is only a sin if one or more fonts of morality are bad. Anything bad in the intention or moral object makes the act a sin; then, too, the act would be a sin if it can be reasonably anticipated to do more harm than good. Otherwise the act is not a sin; it is morally permissible, even if it is contrary to the decision of the Pope or the Bishop or Canon Law or the form of the Mass.

See my quote in my earlier post from then-Cardinal Ratzinger who says that the faithful can disagree with the Pope on a matter of life or death (death penalty, war) and still be considered worthy to receive Communion.

See this thread on faithful dissent. The faithful can sometimes dissent from a teaching of the Magisterium. So they can also disagree with lesser acts of the Church, such as rules and rulings.

This idea that any dissent or disobedience is sinful or unfaithful is not in accord with the teachings of Christ and of His Church. The Church herself does not teach such an idea, but rather the opposite: sometimes dissent from a teaching is licit; sometimes disobedience is moral.

Gift, feel free to comment again only if you have a theological explanation to accompany your assertion. Stating the same thing again and again, very emphatically does not make it true.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
  #23  
Old 5th August 2012, 08:28 PM
tapinu33 tapinu33 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: WA
Posts: 124
Default

Giftoflife.....please don't be angry, many of us here read the posts but don't always respond that doesn't mean we don't agree with you. I left the Church closest to my house and attend one 40 min drive away because I felt the priest was leading the flock astray with what seems to be trivial things but are in fact in my opinion HUGE!! One example is The priest would always say "sisters and brothers" instead of Brothers and sisters" no big deal to some but to me that was putting women at the head of men. The Liturgy should be said perfectly with reverence. Of course mistakes are made and we overlook that but repeating the wrong words maybe because the priest doesn't like it is wrong. These small irritations can have a huge impact. People think they are harmless. My eldest daughter liked the happy clappy Mass but mama here was always unhappy and upset with how the priest conducted Mass. Now my daughter has left the Church and joined some evangelical group. I pray for her to return but most Importantly I pray for that priest who is leading the flock astray. My daughter felt that I was over reacting and nit picking. If the priest had been faithful I believe this would not have happened. I have since learned the hard way. If you are not happy at the Church you are at change it but pray pray pray for the priests. No matter what they do we have to remember Jesus chose them to lead the flock. God Bless you giftoflife - we are all Friends in Christ here on this site.
__________________
I Wish You Heaven
  #24  
Old 5th August 2012, 11:23 PM
daytonafreak daytonafreak is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tapinu33 View Post
These small irritations can have a huge impact. People think they are harmless. My eldest daughter liked the happy clappy Mass but mama here was always unhappy and upset with how the priest conducted Mass. Now my daughter has left the Church and joined some evangelical group. I pray for her to return but most Importantly I pray for that priest who is leading the flock astray. My daughter felt that I was over reacting and nit picking. If the priest had been faithful I believe this would not have happened. I have since learned the hard way. If you are not happy at the Church you are at change it but pray pray pray for the priests. No matter what they do we have to remember Jesus chose them to lead the flock. God Bless you giftoflife - we are all Friends in Christ here on this site.

We recently received a new pastor at the parish I attend. In my opinion, he makes to many jokes during the homily and just before the closing blessing. and in some other areas he seems to me to be a little too eccentric. But on the other hand, he has instituted a Tuesday night Mass during the week so more people can attend a weekly mass and has also required the altar servers to kneel during the entire Eucharistic prayer. And when the bread and wine is consecrated the altar servers ring a bell like they do in Rome. So I guess sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.
  #25  
Old 6th August 2012, 05:58 AM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGiftOfLife View Post
if anyone here reading this who is understanding the distinctions I am making but sees where I am flawed in bringing my concepts across, please chime in!

GOL, you are not making sense to me and your reaction seems disproportionate , but I understand you want the liturgy to be carried out properly. I hope you find peace and communion when you attend Mass.
__________________
While awaiting these things, be diligent, so that you may be found to be immaculate and unassailable before him, in peace. 2 Peter 3:14
  #26  
Old 6th August 2012, 04:01 PM
Brother Brother is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,887
Default

Quote:
a final note, did not Abraham BLINDLY obey God when God asked him to murder his son?
If you can bring up David, i can bring this up to counter your argument.

This may cause confusion on some people, so I think it needs to be clarified.

IMHO, Abraham obeyed a direct command from God to him in particular. It was more like a test to his persona in particular than an order from God for him to sin (murder).

"God tested Abraham"- Gen. 22:1. Sin is just act apart from God's nature. Abraham believed so much in God's goodness and providence that somehow he knew that, at the end, he was not going to lose his son, Isaac.

{22:5} And he said to his servants: “Wait here with the donkey. I and the boy will hurry further ahead to that place. After we have worshipped, will return to you.”


{22:7} Isaac said to his father, “My father.” And he answered, “What do you want, son?” “Behold,” he said, “fire and wood. Where is the victim for the holocaust?”
{22:8} But Abraham said, “God himself will provide the victim for the holocaust, my son.” Thus they continued on together.

This is clearly a foreshadow of what God the Father was going to do with His most beloved Son for our redemption.

Now, we know that Abraham did obeyed - again, a test - for it was God who gave him that son, and God can also have taken the son away from him if He wished so for Isaac is God's first (and everything we have too - for He is the one Who has given us).

Regarding David's disobedience, it was a general law given by God to other persons (Aaron and the priests). Yes, he and his men were not supposed to enter there and eat the Bread of the presence - but it was not a direct command from God to him in particular, that was a general law; and besides, he was hungry - he and his men were in a real necessity. It was not like he blatantly entered there just to disobey, he and his men were really necessitated.

So, a disobedience to God Himself is a sin itself. However, disobedience to a rule that is more like a 'norm' that should be followed, or a discipline, is not always a sin. Jesus Christ Himself brought up David's example.
  #27  
Old 6th August 2012, 04:27 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother View Post
Regarding David's disobedience, it was a general law given by God to other persons (Aaron and the priests). Yes, he and his men were not supposed to enter there and eat the Bread of the presence - but it was not a direct command from God to him in particular, that was a general law; and besides, he was hungry - he and his men were in a real necessity. It was not like he blatantly entered there just to disobey, he and his men were really necessitated.

So, a disobedience to God Himself is a sin itself. However, disobedience to a rule that is more like a 'norm' that should be followed, or a discipline, is not always a sin. Jesus Christ Himself brought up David's example.

Good points. A general law (not the eternal moral law) may be good and moral to follow in most cases, but it cannot account for every particular circumstance. The rules and rulings of the temporal authority of the Church are norms, which are not binding under pain of sin in all cases.

It is always a sin to violate the eternal moral law. It is not always a sin to dissent from a non-infallible teaching. It is not always a sin to disagree with the Pope or a Bishop on a matter of prudential judgment. It is not always a sin to violate Canon Law, or to violate a norm of the GIRM (liturgical norms). It is not always a sin to disobey the Pope or a Bishop.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
  #28  
Old 6th August 2012, 06:13 PM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

Ron,

Over at CatholicCulture.org, they criticize you for not having published a catechism without ecclesiastical approval, referring to your book 'The Catechism of Catholic Ethics: A work of Roman Catholic moral theology'.

Quote:
Can. 827 §1 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 775 §2, the publication of catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical formation, as well as their translations, requires the approval of the local Ordinary. (Code of Canon Law)

Can. 775 §1. Having observed the prescripts issued by the Apostolic See, it is for the diocesan bishop to issue norms for catechetics, to make provision that suitable instruments of catechesis are available, even by preparing a catechism if it seems opportune, and to foster and coordinate catechetical endeavors.

§2. If it seems useful, it is for the conference of bishops to take care that catechisms are issued for its territory, with the previous approval of the Apostolic See.

§3. The conference of bishops can establish a catechetical office whose primary function is to assist individual dioceses in catechetical matters.

Is this an example of faithful disagreement ?
__________________
While awaiting these things, be diligent, so that you may be found to be immaculate and unassailable before him, in peace. 2 Peter 3:14
  #29  
Old 6th August 2012, 06:32 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontifex View Post
Ron,

Over at CatholicCulture.org, they criticize you for not having published a catechism without ecclesiastical approval, referring to your book 'The Catechism of Catholic Ethics: A work of Roman Catholic moral theology'.

Is this an example of faithful disagreement ?

The Canon on publishing Catechisms, as I understand it, only applies to a book that is used by the diocese in catechetical instruction. The mere fact that a book has the word 'Catechism' in the title does not cause it to fall under this Canon. The Canons in question clearly indicate that some books which teach on faith and morals, nevertheless do not fall under the Canon about Catechisms:

827 §2. Books which regard questions pertaining to sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, and religious or moral disciplines cannot be used as texts on which instruction is based in elementary, middle, or higher schools unless they have been published with the approval of competent ecclesiastical authority or have been approved by it subsequently.

§3. It is recommended that books dealing with the matters mentioned in §2, although not used as texts in instruction, as well as writings which especially concern religion or good morals are submitted to the judgment of the local ordinary.


An example of faithful disagreement, or more specifically faithful disobedience, would be my publication of a Bible translation without annotations and without Church approval. It is not necessarily a sin to violate Canon law.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
  #30  
Old 7th August 2012, 05:36 AM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 954
Default

Yesterday the priest said, "I believe" during the Creed, so I think it may have been a mistake that he made the week before, or maybe he changed his mind.

I know what you mean, tapinu33, and GiftofLife, about the little things. It's fine to say that that we can have faithful disagreement about small matters of liturgical norms, etc., but that we MUST obey the eternal moral law. However, the little things really do add up. Does anyone ever say to themselves, "I think I will go out and break God's laws today"?? Well, maybe some do. But, most get there by a series of steps that are say, venial, which leads to mortal. I think that is what GiftofLife is saying about obedience. Even if it is not technically a sin to disagree with the liturgical norms, it detracts from the good of the community to do so, though in this particular case being discussed, may be a non-issue.

Another example of faithful disagreement is Marian apparitions and, we know that the Divine Mercy message was condemned at one point, but now there is a Divine Mercy Sunday. So, one could have followed the Diary of St. Faustina during those years, and still have been a faithful Catholic?

Currently at our parish, there is a Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament from Monday - Friday for 24 hrs, and a Cenacle of Life, and Benediction, etc. This is all good, but many are also following the false apparition of the Holy Love Shrine. There is a First Friday Holy Hour prayer vigil with prayers from Fatima mixed in with these false messages. The bishop of Cleveland has written a decree against it in 2009, yet it seems to be ignored. Is this faithful disagreement? The one promoting these messages is one spearheading the regular praying of the rosary in church.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.