My brain hurts from try to wrap itself around that, lol.
Jettison the law of non-contradiction and your head will feel better.
I can’t answer your question but I can say that my archbishop wants traditional latin masses in our churches but does not compel the pastors of each parish. My priest, who is retired, says the traditional mass in those few parishes where the pastors allow. All but two have refused with two other parishes already having their own. The rest of the week he says it in the little chapel of his retirement home.
Because many catholic schools provide terrible catechesis and the is nothing wrong with receiving 1st communion at any valid mass held in any location. Btw, that is a local RC Church. Stained glass is not a requisite.
Why? Don’t you expect to learn when the Pope teaches?
The passage #25 you quoted from Lumen Gentium requires religious assent of mind and will.
According to Lumen Gentium, when the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra, the Catholic needs to give their religious assent of mind and will, i.e. acknowledging that the Church has spoken. In plain-speak, authentic magisterium is not dogma, and thus a Catholic needs to give regard to it, but doesn’t need to follow it.
This is quite different from dogmas which are divinely revealed (public revelation) and infallible, and requires the assent of faith. In plain-speak a Catholic cannot deny or doubt or choose to believe parts of dogma.
Good suggestions. Both of these catechisms are available for free online, so the OP should have no problem accessing them.
Those smarter than me - and that includes most Cocker Spaniels - aren’t always certain that what is being taught is the same as what has long been taught. That’s why some (but no Cocker Spaniels) have submitted dubia. I am disinclined to shame those questioners for not knowing that right = right even if it looks like right =/= wrong, but it’s right. Right? Where’s the ibuprofen?
Isn’t that the point? Usually we do not know, so what do we do in those circumstances? Do we respect the Pope, and try to learn from him? Do we close our ears and refuse to listen? Or something else?
That is distinct from he problem of thinking new teaching is incompatible with prior teaching. This is a greater temptation to disobedience, but the answer is similar. Pray, consider again in light of the Lord. Seek a deeper understanding.
NB I did not mean to suggest @HomeschoolDad did not respect any papal teaching. I made a mistake with the note I sent to him, confusing 2 conversations I was having. My apologies.
Make that two.
The body of Bishops led by the Pope can teach infallibly when gathered together in an Ecumenical Council. But they can also teach infallibly while dispersed in time and place. The ordinary and universal Magisterium, despite the name, is an exercise of the infallible Sacred Magisterium, not the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. The name uses the word ‘ordinary’ because such infallible teachings begin to be taught, at first, under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. But when the Pope and the Bishops throughout the world have taught the same doctrine of faith and morals, definitively to be held by the faithful, over the course of some length of time. It is then, when that ordinary teaching has been taught universally by the Pope and the Bishops, that it no longer falls under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, but now falls under the infallible Sacred Magisterium. At that point, it is called a teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium.
Take the idea of Guardian Angels, for example. There has never been an Ex Cathedra statement regarding Guardian Angels at all or that each person has one. However, it is an official church teaching and must be believed under pain of heresy.
No offense taken. It takes a lot to get under my skin, and sometimes, not even then.
I value alternative points of view, and different angles I might not have considered, and am always glad to learn something new.
Are you saying that once the Pope and the Bishops teach universally that Catholics give respect to Pachamama, we Catholics have to give respect to Pachamama?
First, I want to clarify that this is IF. I’m not saying this is happening now, I’m not trying to be hostile to clergy.
IF they did that, that would be manifest heresy. According to canon and divine law, a heretic ceases to be a member of the church. A person who is not a member of the church cannot hold any office within the church. If a pope did this, he would immediately become an anti pope and would lose all power of the office.
Church Militant is not a reliable source of information on the SSPX. Instead check out www.sspx.org.
Quote from Pope St. Pius X:
‘Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.’
The magisterium is qualified to authoritatively interpret Tradition. Some people claim that any Catholic who is “informed” (follows your favorite websites) can interpret Tradition, authoritatively.
The current culture teaches that every layman (with website) is a bishop, or pope. Thus, every layman (,their website, really) can. authoritatively interpret if the current pope or bishop is within the bounds Tradition.
The websites are driving this movement. The reality is laity, clergy, theologians can and should interpret Tradition, but they do not take the authoritative role of bishops, or popes.
Sedevacantism is not an all-or-nothing, it’s a matter of degree. Within an organization that had an official position, there may be individuals who are more or less sede.
First of all, that’s not going to happen, but if it did, I am one Catholic who would not be “giving respect to Pachamama”.
This seems to be an excellent example of how we could “inculturate” the belief of the Amazon pagans. (I use “pagans” here as merely a descriptive term meaning “adherents of a nature-based or earth-based religion or philosophy”, making no judgements as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.)
The Church could say something like “We see that you venerate a goddess called Pachamama, and we respect your sincerity of belief. It’s a beautiful concept, and we can see the love that you put into creating these statues. We as Christians also venerate a mother-figure of sorts, and this is even better, because she is the mother of our Lord and Savior, the mother of God himself, you could say. She is not a goddess, we do not worship her. We only worship the Triune God. But we honor her, look to her as the model of the perfect Christian, and yes, we honor her fertility and her offering of her motherhood to God in perfect virginal chastity, to bring God and man together and reconcile man to God. You can pray to her, not that she can answer prayers herself — as we said, she’s not a goddess, she has no power in and of herself — but she takes those prayers to her Divine Son. We recognize that many people who have not yet found Christ, find the idea of a “divine-feminine” comforting and appealing, and we respect that. We believe that about Mary, enough can never be said — De Maria Numquam Satis. Would you like to know more about her?”
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.