Liberal Catholicism & the Falsification of the Magisterium

[KW]

A problem with some Catholics as they've allowed right-wing partisan [or left wing as the case may be] and secular propaganda to dictate what they claim, often falsely, what the Catholic Church supposedly teaches. A quick example deals with climate change that's an encyclical Pope Frances gave based on scientific research, which thus becomes a doctrine of the Church. And yet some claim that such proposals are just the result of "leftist" propaganda, which simply is not even close to being true, both from the Church's and also science's perspective.

Climate change is not Church doctrine.

Being good stewards of the earth is.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your statement is false.

The Church does not change doctrine once it has been formally defined.

I hear you, it is arguable that one Ex Cathedra statement may rescind another--my main "beef" is how Roman doctrine contradicts Jesus's doctrines as found in the NT.

 

[KW]

n

I hear you, it is arguable that one Ex Cathedra statement may rescind another--my main "beef" is how Roman doctrine contradicts Jesus's doctrines as found in the NT.

They don’t.
You will find that protestant churches do reject a number of the teachings of Jesus.

For example,

The literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the authority of the Church to forgive sins, the teaching authority of the church, etc.

 

[pearl]

A problem with some Catholics as they've allowed right-wing partisan [or left wing as the case may be] and secular propaganda to dictate what they claim, often falsely, what the Catholic Church supposedly teaches. A quick example deals with climate change that's an encyclical Pope Frances gave based on scientific research, which thus becomes a doctrine of the Church. And yet some claim that such proposals are just the result of "leftist" propaganda, which simply is not even close to being true, both from the Church's and also science's perspective.

It is through encyclicals that a 'teaching' is elevated to a doctrine. Maybe someday it will be understood that there is 'one' Church, not a before and after.

 

[KW]

It is through encyclicals that a 'teaching' is elevated to a doctrine. Maybe someday it will be understood that there is 'one' Church, not a before and after.

Actually, that's not accurate:

Papal encyclicals are generally fairly long documents containing a variety of points about one or more issues. Some or all of these points are often about things that are beyond the scope of papal infallibility, dealing with things other than faith or morals, or being directed to some segment of the church. Traditionally, encyclicals are circular letters addressed only to the bishops of the Church. They tend to be discussions of some pressing matter at hand.

The only two "ex cathedra" papal pronouncements made during the last two centuries were contained in "apostolic constitutions," documents similar to an encyclical but addressed to no one and designed to make statements of law or fact, rather than to discuss an issue as do encyclicals.

 

[pearl]

The only two "ex cathedra" papal pronouncements made during the last two centuries were contained in "apostolic constitutions," documents similar to an encyclical but addressed to no one and designed to make statements of law or fact, rather than to discuss an issue as do encyclicals.

You may be confusing doctrine with dogma.

 

[pearl]

Actually, that's not accurate:

How is Catholic doctrine taught by the pope? The most common way now is through papal encyclicals, apostolic letters, apostolic exhortations. This way of teaching could be termed "ordinary papal magisterium." Yet it is also possible that such teaching could originate from one of the curial congregations, depending on whether the pope would specifically decide to direct such a teaching to the universal church, technically called in forma speciali. Concerning the teaching about ordination, we see an instance where the pope uses ordinary papal magisterium to make explicit how the dispersed bishops were teaching this matter through the ordinary universal magisterium. The question arises as to whether this might now become the normal manner for expressing what is being taught infallibly through the ordinary universal magisterium.
On the Papacy and the Teaching Office of the Church (catholiceducation.org)

 

[KW]

You may be confusing doctrine with dogma.

No, encyclicals are not necessarily doctrine and are almost never dogma.

Doctrine may appear in an encyclical, but encyclicals are not automatically doctrine.

 

[BilliardsBall]

n


They don’t.
You will find that protestant churches do reject a number of the teachings of Jesus.

For example,

The literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the authority of the Church to forgive sins, the teaching authority of the church, etc.

The NT is filled with people accusing Jesus because no one has authority to forgive sin except God!

 

[KW]

The NT is filled with people accusing Jesus because no one has authority to forgive sin except God!

Do you believe Jesus is God?

 

[metis]

The NT is filled with people accusing Jesus because no one has authority to forgive sin except God!

We all can if done against us.

Also, Jesus gave this power of binding and loosening to the Apostles, so why would he want to let this die after they were gone?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you believe Jesus is God?

Yes, I agree with Rome here--Jesus is fully God!

 

[BilliardsBall]

We all can if done against us.

Also, Jesus gave this power of binding and loosening to the Apostles, so why would he want to let this die after they were gone?

Regarding the salvific nature of such forgiveness, only Christ's cross and resurrection can justify sinners, rather that sacramental labors/priestly forgiveness--this is clear in both Bible testaments.

I am aware of the Catholic apologetic for how forgiveness of sin works, however, the Bible disagrees with the concept of forgiveness via works. See Romans 4:1-4 for more.

 

[KW]

Yes, I agree with Rome here--Jesus is fully God!

Jesus gave the Church his authority to forgive sins.

See John 20:21-23

 

[KW]

Regarding the salvific nature of such forgiveness, only Christ's cross and resurrection can justify sinners, rather that sacramental labors/priestly forgiveness--this is clear in both Bible testaments.

I am aware of the Catholic apologetic for how forgiveness of sin works, however, the Bible disagrees with the concept of forgiveness via works. See Romans 4:1-4 for more.

That’s protestant theology.

That’s not what Jesus said.

What differentiates the sheep and goats in Matt 25?

 

[metis]

Regarding the salvific nature of such forgiveness, only Christ's cross and resurrection can justify sinners, rather that sacramental labors/priestly forgiveness--this is clear in both Bible testaments.

Both matter as the Gospel rather clearly states, however that doesn't mean nor imply that such priestly forgiveness is absolutely necessary. The Gospel states we should repent, and repenting is an action, thus not just a nice thought.

I am aware of the Catholic apologetic for how forgiveness of sin works, however, the Bible disagrees with the concept of forgiveness via works. See Romans 4:1-4 for more.

As found in the Sermon On the Mount and also in Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats, "works" that involve believing in and doing what Jesus taught us is essential, not optional.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Regarding the salvific nature of such forgiveness, only Christ's cross and resurrection can justify sinners, rather that sacramental labors/priestly forgiveness--this is clear in both Bible testaments.

Whoa there. The Tanakh says nothing like this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Both matter as the Gospel rather clearly states, however that doesn't mean nor imply that such priestly forgiveness is absolutely necessary. The Gospel states we should repent, and repenting is an action, thus not just a nice thought.

As found in the Sermon On the Mount and also in Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats, "works" that involve believing in and doing what Jesus taught us is essential, not optional.

Repent = metanoia = change of mind

I've changed my mind that works or sacraments save. Repentance leads to salvation = I changed my mind re: works then chose to TRUST JESUS per the Bible. Rome says THEY save.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Whoa there. The Tanakh says nothing like this.

Tanakh says THOSE WHO TRUST IN THE LORD are as Mount Zion.

Both testaments have clearly TRUST GOD for SALVATION.

 

[KW]

Repent = metanoia = change of mind

I've changed my mind that works or sacraments save. Repentance leads to salvation = I changed my mind re: works then chose to TRUST JESUS per the Bible. Rome says THEY save.

1 John9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

John 20
21Again Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” 22When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.”

James 2:24 As you can see, a man is justified by his deeds and not by faith alone.

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Matthew 6:15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours.

Gal 6
7Do not be deceived: God is not to be mocked. Whatever a man sows, he will reap in return. 8The one who sows to please his flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; but the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.