Originally posted by Evensong:
Tut, tut Triple Tiara. Why sell yourself short? Did someone tell you you were a very naughty boy as a child?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I would say the main thing you are ignorant about is that the faith does not revolve around what you think and believe, and that it is not ultimately you standing alone before God. Basically, your faith requires a Copernican revolution.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And of what am I invincibly ignorant? That nearly all Poles, the French, Iberians, Italians, Irish, Walloons, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Romanians and half the Germans et al are not? What about the Orthodox? That's a LOT of lavatories I get to clean.
quote:Eh? Then why does the RCC put such an emphasis on dogma?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would say the main thing you are ignorant about is that the faith does not revolve around what you think and believe
quote:You are assuming the wrong emphasis in what I said there. Not: "The faith does not revolve around what you think and believe.", but rather "The faith does not revolve around what you think and believe." Clearer?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Eh? Then why does the RCC put such an emphasis on dogma?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would say the main thing you are ignorant about is that the faith does not revolve around what you think and believe
quote:Not really. Are you saying it doesn't matter what I (or any given individual) think and believe? In which case why bother having a profession of faith at baptism?
Originally posted by IngoB:
You are assuming the wrong emphasis in what I said there. Not: "The faith does not revolve around what you think and believe.", but rather "The faith does not revolve around what you think and believe." Clearer?
quote:The point is that you are making a given profession of faith, something provided to you as requiring your agreement. You are not simply being asked to say whatever you happen to believe in. Of course, you may well believe exactly what the profession of faith suggests, in which case the difference is subtle. When you don't, it's glaringly obvious. It is this difference - sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious - which is always there in the background for RCs and Orthodox, because it is a difference the Church has made, makes, and will make. For Protestants there are basically only some remnants left over from Church history. You may still say a particular, historic profession of faith. Or maybe not: in the end that's between you and God. For RCs and Orthodox that is not so. It's always between you, the Church, and God.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Are you saying it doesn't matter what I (or any given individual) think and believe? In which case why bother having a profession of faith at baptism?
quote:IngoB, thanks for your input. I always appreciate your thoughts.
Originally posted by IngoB:
.. that it is not ultimately you standing alone before God.
quote:I am 57 years old, and it has taken me until now to grasp this. With my "free thinking" Protestant background I always thought that is something isn't obvious to me, then no one can ask me to believe it. It's only now, that I've taken on the discipline of being Catholic that I realise that it isn't about what I believe. Within faith taditions such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, discipline is as important to belief as it is to any other aspect of spirituality, such as prayer, fasting or fulfilling one's obligation to partake of the Sacraments. I think this is one of the most important things that has been lost in the Protestant tradition.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point is that you are making a given profession of faith, something provided to you as requiring your agreement. You are not simply being asked to say whatever you happen to believe in.
quote:And I think that no longer having to believe whatever the church tells you to believe, and instead being free to work out your own faith in fear and trembling throughout your lifetime's walk with God, was one of the greatest steps forward Christianity has ever taken. It may not have been popular with the heirarchy, of course, but then encouraging people to think for themselves has never been popular with heirarchies.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think this is one of the most important things that has been lost in the Protestant tradition.
quote:Sorry, but it is about what we understand through our own study of God's word along with accountability to the church. Cults gain followers by insisting that it's followers accept what it teaches without question. I've never understood any church that is uncomfortable with those who ask questions or seek to verify what others are teaching them.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I am 57 years old, and it has taken me until now to grasp this. With my "free thinking" Protestant background I always thought that is something isn't obvious to me, then no one can ask me to believe it. It's only now, that I've taken on the discipline of being Catholic that I realise that it isn't about what I believe. Within faith taditions such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, discipline is as important to belief as it is to any other aspect of spirituality, such as prayer, fasting or fulfilling one's obligation to partake of the Sacraments. I think this is one of the most important things that has been lost in the Protestant tradition.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point is that you are making a given profession of faith, something provided to you as requiring your agreement. You are not simply being asked to say whatever you happen to believe in.
quote:Or in other words, it's all about me.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:And I think that no longer having to believe whatever the church tells you to believe, and instead being free to work out your own faith in fear and trembling throughout your lifetime's walk with God, was one of the greatest steps forward Christianity has ever taken. It may not have been popular with the heirarchy, of course, but then encouraging people to think for themselves has never been popular with heirarchies.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think this is one of the most important things that has been lost in the Protestant tradition.
quote:Not all, no. Just the bit that pertains to me.
Originally posted by CL:
Or in other words, it's all about me.
quote:No, it's about Truth.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Or in other words, it's all about me.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:And I think that no longer having to believe whatever the church tells you to believe, and instead being free to work out your own faith in fear and trembling throughout your lifetime's walk with God, was one of the greatest steps forward Christianity has ever taken. It may not have been popular with the heirarchy, of course, but then encouraging people to think for themselves has never been popular with heirarchies.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think this is one of the most important things that has been lost in the Protestant tradition.
quote:Truth and me are not mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Not all, no. Just the bit that pertains to me.
Originally posted by CL:
Or in other words, it's all about me.
quote:Yes, but whose truth? This is why there are thousands of denominations which could loosely be called Protestant, ranging from the theologically conservative to quite outlandish. If we are all free to interpret out own truth, we will all come up with something a bit different. The Bible is not always easy to interpret, and it certainly doesn't plainly interpret itself. I have come to believe that an authority, the magisterium, is necessary to give coherance to what we believe. A perpetuating schism is the only possible result of us all seeking our own truth from Scripture.
Originally posted by Evensong:
No, it's about Truth.
quote:It would be lovely if this worked out in practice, but unfortunately, as Galileo might tell you if he were still around, the teaching of the magisterium doesn't necessarily guarantee coherence in matters of belief. Which is why blind obedience to it is not, to my mind, a good thing.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Yes, but whose truth? This is why there are thousands of denominations which could loosely be called Protestant, ranging from the theologically conservative to quite outlandish. If we are all free to interpret out own truth, we will all come up with something a bit different. The Bible is not always easy to interpret, and it certainly doesn't plainly interpret itself. I have come to believe that an authority, the magisterium, is necessary to give coherance to what we believe. A perpetuating schism is the only possible result of us all seeking our own truth from Scripture.
Originally posted by Evensong:
No, it's about Truth.
quote:Or truth, for that matter.
Originally posted by Fugue:
the teaching of the magisterium doesn't necessarily guarantee coherence in matters of belief.
quote:Truth doesn't belong to anyone.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Yes, but whose truth?
quote:Tut, tut Triple Tiara. Why sell yourself short? Did someone tell you you were a very naughty boy as a child?
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Instead I have to engage with the Faith of the Church, secure in the knowledge that greater minds and holier souls than mine have already wrestled with those questions and come to much more profound conclusions than I ever would.
quote:I quite agree.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As Pope Benedict has said, truth is not something one constructs, it is something one encounters.
quote:Cool. I just wish the church would have a bit more humility and openness to the possibility that it too may have errors that need to be corrected. That it too may need to be led back to Christ. That it too may be mired in ignorance, error and fantasy.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Of course, the Church would want me to correct my error if it came to light that I believed Jesus was an alien. After all, it's the business of the Church to lead people to the Truth, who is Christ, not leave them in ignorance, error and fantasy.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:The highlighted sentence to me exemplifies the problem, in that essentially saying it is ok to think for yourself and then you will see the truth of what you've already been told by the magisterium. But if you come to different conclusions to the magisterium, what then? Silence, lest your views mislead the faithful? Just leave and find another more congenial church in which to worship? Whilst this latter solution may make sense to many, it does not fully take into consideration the position of people (like me) who were baptised as infants into the Catholic Church, and who have grown up with it as a central part of their life and cultural identity. For such people, seeking to conform one's mind and heart with the official teaching may have been a sincere struggle over many years, even to the point of insanity.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As some have done in this thread, the Catholic position can be dismissed as mindlessly believing whatever you are fed. I see it very differently. I don't have to start from scratch and come up with answers. Instead I have to engage with the Faith of the Church, secure in the knowledge that greater minds and holier souls than mine have already wrestled with those questions and come to much more profound conclusions than I ever would. As Pope Benedict has said, truth is not something one constructs, it is something one encounters.
I don't know of any instruction ever that says Catholics should not think or ask questions. What is the case, however, is that Catholics cannot posit their own thoughts as Catholic thought if it veers from the magisterium...
quote:Let's face it, dissent from doctrinal teaching of the RCC is not usually focussed these days on the provenance of Jesus, but on ethical matters such as contraception, homosexuality, or the ordination of women and married men. You may consider the current magisterial teaching to be the last word on these matters, until the doctrinal position is reformulated in 500 years time (maybe, who knows?).
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I might believe that Jesus was an alien and that would be my business. But as soon as I started telling others that Jesus was an alien that would no longer be just my business as I would be misleading others.
quote:I'm interested in getting an answer to this one too - I've been digging around it for years. The assumption in some of the official documents I've read trying to address the issue is that a properly informed conscience cannot disagree with the magisterium, on anything. One should not go against one's conscience BUT if one bothered to inform one's conscience one would never go against the Church either.
Originally posted by Fugue:
The highlighted sentence to me exemplifies the problem, in that essentially saying it is ok to think for yourself and then you will see the truth of what you've already been told by the magisterium. But if you come to different conclusions to the magisterium, what then?
quote:Yes, I quite agree with Benedict's statement - but as men and women, the RC claims to have constructed it! An accumulation of the encounters of holier and more profound minds constructed over the millenia into doctrine and dogma. Where is the room for you to encounter truth if you are trapped within the constructs of others? It only works if you believe the construct is the truth!
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As Pope Benedict has said, truth is not something one constructs, it is something one encounters.
quote:This is one of my favorite quotations of Benedict. Another one is from, I think, Archbishop Burke:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As Pope Benedict has said, truth is not something one constructs, it is something one encounters.
quote:Marvin, I am not leaping to the defence of the me/church/God perspective. Nor am I defending hierarchies or intransigent dogma.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:And I think that no longer having to believe whatever the church tells you to believe, and instead being free to work out your own faith in fear and trembling throughout your lifetime's walk with God, was one of the greatest steps forward Christianity has ever taken. It may not have been popular with the heirarchy, of course, but then encouraging people to think for themselves has never been popular with heirarchies.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think this is one of the most important things that has been lost in the Protestant tradition.
quote:Cos they are the biggest kid on the block. If you share a garden with an elephant you have to pay attention to where its going to step next.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Interesting reading. But for a long time now I've been at a loss to explain why Christians of various reformed traditions care about what the Roman Catholic Church thinks.
quote:no, actually. I was too much of a goody two-shoes. I broke out and became a naughty boy in my thirties, and then got bored of that. It helps to concentrate the mind when you are put in charge and are the one people fight against, rather than being the gadfly. I still occasionally pick a fight, unwisely, with those above me.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Tut, tut Triple Tiara. Why sell yourself short? Did someone tell you you were a very naughty boy as a child?
quote:Interesting. You should pay attention sometime
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Cool. I just wish the church would have a bit more humility and openness to the possibility that it too may have errors that need to be corrected. That it too may need to be led back to Christ. That it too may be mired in ignorance, error and fantasy.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. There are often theological commissions to examine subjects. And back in the sixties we had a seismic shift in emphasis: you may hear Catholics keep harping on about Vatican II, precisely because quite a significant shift happened in its wake: ecumenical outlook, approach to religious freedom, relations with other religions to name a few. John Paul II had things to say about the Church getting it wrong on a number of matters, such as the case of Jan Hus for example. And certain quarters got their knickers in a twist just a year or two ago because Benedict XVI officially declared the idea of limbo to be no more than theological speculation and not in fact helpful. quote:It's called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was headed for about 25 years by Joseph Ratzinger.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Having said that, I'm sure there must be a mechanism the Catholic Church uses to monitor itself.
I suspect us Protestants just don't know what it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:Yes, I quite agree with Benedict's statement - but as men and women, the RC claims to have constructed it! An accumulation of the encounters of holier and more profound minds constructed over the millenia into doctrine and dogma. Where is the room for you to encounter truth if you are trapped within the constructs of others? It only works if you believe the construct is the truth!
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As Pope Benedict has said, truth is not something one constructs, it is something one encounters.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
That's odd. In fact the Catholic Church strongly believes in divine revelation, and says very strongly that it does not have the right to "construct" truth. "That which we have received, that we pass on to you" as St Paul said. You will see this in operation very iconically if you ever care to read Papal or Vatican documents. The groundwork is always laid by pointing to that which has been received. The phrase used by popes is usually the rather poetic "as my venerable predecessor of blessed memory, Pope whoever wrote in his Encyclical etc etc ..."quote:Join the Ordinariate
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Oh, most certainly. Accountability to others is very important, as is the ability to learn from their insights.
I'm just saying that that applies in all directions. No individual or organisation is unaccountable. No individual or organisation has nothing to learn from the others. No individual or organisation gets to command ultimate agreement in all things simply because of who or what it is.
. The Pope has created a space within the Catholic Church for Anglicans to share their treasures and insights (which are not contrary to the Faith the Church has received) with the rest of us. And, as it happens, the Ordinary is not a Bishop because he is married and the Catholic Church is mindful of the fact that the Eastern Churches do not ordain married men to the Episcopate. quote:I appreciate your acknowledgement and your sentiments, Triple Tiara.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Fugue, I am mindful of your post but am loathe to engage with it here because it seems to me to be tied up with personal story and experience. The hot issues you identify aren't exactly easy ones and each generates quite a lot of discussion coupled with emotion. Of course there is a division of opinion on those matters, ranging from those who try to dismiss others as mere dissenters to those who cry foul oppressors at the other end. So I will leave it at that.
quote:I'll quote myself because noone answered or maybe it was that I'm new and trying to break into territory already claimed by others here,
Originally posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing:
I would have thought with love, love your neighbour, love your enemy, love the Son, love your Father, it's all about me being all about you neighbour, you enemy, you Jesus, you Father.
quote:Onya mate. Keep em honest.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I still occasionally pick a fight, unwisely, with those above me.
quote:I don't really understand what you're saying here STAN.
Originally posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing:
quote:I'll quote myself because noone answered or maybe it was that I'm new and trying to break into territory already claimed by others here,
Originally posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing:
I would have thought with love, love your neighbour, love your enemy, love the Son, love your Father, it's all about me being all about you neighbour, you enemy, you Jesus, you Father.
It's not about truth, it's about Jesus. And Jesus was about Us. Jesus wasn't about "me" though. He was "you". Just as He sacrificed everything for me, he sacrificed even more for you. He didn't sacrifice Himself so I could claim to know Truth. He sacrificed himself so anyone could claim, were they a disciple of truth, to be able to share truth with YOU!
quote:If that were what I was saying I'd be no better than the church, would I?
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
But don't hold your breath if what you are actually saying is "the Catholic Church ought to agree with me".
quote:If it weren't for the unfortunate misogynistic implications of such a move it would actually be quite tempting. Finding a way to be in communion with the RCC (among others) without having to believe in every single dogma of that church is a significant part of my ecumenical journey.
Join the Ordinariate
quote:Of course it's not. But neither is it something that any given heirarchy can just declare to be true.
But doctrine is not a free-for-all decided by democratic vote, if that's what you are asking for.
quote:I have no idea what you have been reading there, and hence I have no idea how you jumped to these conclusions. They are, however, clearly wrong...
Originally posted by GreyFace:
The assumption in some of the official documents I've read trying to address the issue is that a properly informed conscience cannot disagree with the magisterium, on anything. One should not go against one's conscience BUT if one bothered to inform one's conscience one would never go against the Church either.
The only conclusion I can make from this is that anyone who's made a serious and sincere effort to understand the teaching yet come to a different conclusion, is either too stupid or too spiritually blind to understand ... There is no room for the Church being wrong, on anything.
quote:But this is just a metaphor. A good one, perhaps, but still just a metaphor. It's a good illustration of what you mean, but not a good argument for it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Church is our mother in the faith, and we obey her as one obeys a much beloved and respected parent.
quote:I feel that this is more than just a metaphor. There's something real and concrete about it. We're born into the Faith through the Church, by way of Baptism. We're nourished in the Faith through the Church, by way of the Sacraments. We're fed in the Faith through the Church, by way of the Holy Eucharist.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:But this is just a metaphor. A good one, perhaps, but still just a metaphor. It's a good illustration of what you mean, but not a good argument for it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Church is our mother in the faith, and we obey her as one obeys a much beloved and respected parent.
quote:As a Catholic, this is the quickest summary of the Faith I can think of.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What is The Faith ?
quote:I'm not entirely sure that I understand your problem here. Are you asking me to justify the similarity of the Church to a "much beloved and respected mother"? Once that likeness is established, and our love is taken as a given, then the behavioural consequences follow by analogy (and hence this becomes a "good argument" for the religious submission of the will in my book, though admittedly not everybody is as impressed by analogies as I am). Or are you asking me to justify that we ought to love the Church? Or what?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:But this is just a metaphor. A good one, perhaps, but still just a metaphor. It's a good illustration of what you mean, but not a good argument for it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Church is our mother in the faith, and we obey her as one obeys a much beloved and respected parent.
quote:Marvin, you've made 2 seriously wrong assumptions about the Ordinariate here. The first is that there is any misogyny. I can assure you that we love our women! We just obey the, so far, revealed doctrine of the Universal Church, that women aren't ordained to the priesthood. This isn't about misogyny, rights, or equality. It's about the received teaching of the Church.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If it weren't for the unfortunate misogynistic implications of such a move it would actually be quite tempting. Finding a way to be in communion with the RCC (among others) without having to believe in every single dogma of that church is a significant part of my ecumenical journey.
quote:It's that you seem to be basing your argument on a metaphor. The tenor and vehicle of a metaphor are not in fact the same thing. Metaphors break down. The Church is not in actual fact a mother, a person who gave birth to a human being. One may learn a lot from the comparison a metaphor makes, but it's not logical to build an argument upon one.
Originally posted by IngoB:
<cross post with Pancho, who partly addresses my first point>
quote:I'm not entirely sure that I understand your problem here. Are you asking me to justify the similarity of the Church to a "much beloved and respected mother"? Once that likeness is established, and our love is taken as a given, then the behavioural consequences follow by analogy (and hence this becomes a "good argument" for the religious submission of the will in my book, though admittedly not everybody is as impressed by analogies as I am). Or are you asking me to justify that we ought to love the Church? Or what?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:But this is just a metaphor. A good one, perhaps, but still just a metaphor. It's a good illustration of what you mean, but not a good argument for it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Church is our mother in the faith, and we obey her as one obeys a much beloved and respected parent.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Church is our mother in the faith, and we obey her as one obeys a much beloved and respected parent. Even if mum is wrong, it can be right to do what she says until one has gently convinced her to change her mind. The modus operandi is not in general the frontal confrontation, the bitter shouting match. And yes, it may require unreasonable sacrifices to stay in her good book, and on a purely objective level one may consider that unjust. But it is your mother in the faith we are talking about, there must not be a purely objective evaluation of your relationship with her. That's just plain wrong and ugly.
quote:And a further problem with the metaphor is that in real life, while of course our mother remains our mother, we still have to grow up and leave home and establish our own lives according to our conscience, sometimes at the cost of upsetting mother, unfortunately. This doesn't mean we stop loving our mother, of course. But the more mother tries to hold on and enforce her ways, the less likely one is going to be able to develop a properly adult relationship with her. I suspect in terms of Church and faith this might be experienced rather more by those who are born and raised Roman Catholic, and perhaps a little less by converts who may well have reached a stage in life when their assent to magisterial teaching can be made without compromise to their intellectual and psychological integrity.
Originally posted by RuthW:
It's that you seem to be basing your argument on a metaphor. The tenor and vehicle of a metaphor are not in fact the same thing. Metaphors break down. The Church is not in actual fact a mother, a person who gave birth to a human being. One may learn a lot from the comparison a metaphor makes, but it's not logical to build an argument upon one.
quote:Paul, I disagree. I accept that in the two valid for reasons for joining the Ordinariate (Scripture and Tradition) the only one that holds any water is Tradition. And I accept that you personally are not misogynistic.
The first is that there is any misogyny. I can assure you that we love our women! We just obey the, so far, revealed doctrine of the Universal Church, that women aren't ordained to the priesthood. This isn't about misogyny, rights, or equality. It's about the received teaching of the Church.
quote:Would it be fair to say that in any human relationship there's inevitably a certain amount of "I don't fully buy into this but I'll go along with it for the sake of the harmony of the group" ?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
What we may personally believe has already been discussed on this thread. Perhaps we all doubt. There is no incompatibility between doubt and faith. Obedience to the revealed teaching of the Church is far above anything I, as an individual, may think.
quote:Justice does not, has not and never will come into the equation with regards to WO. That is an inapplicable secular criterion based on nothing more than emotion. The ontological reality is that women cannot receive holy orders anymore than a man can bear a child.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
From Paul TH :
quote:Paul, I disagree. I accept that in the two valid for reasons for joining the Ordinariate (Scripture and Tradition) the only one that holds any water is Tradition. And I accept that you personally are not misogynistic.
The first is that there is any misogyny. I can assure you that we love our women! We just obey the, so far, revealed doctrine of the Universal Church, that women aren't ordained to the priesthood. This isn't about misogyny, rights, or equality. It's about the received teaching of the Church.
However there has always been a underbelly. No one is prepared to be labelled a women hater in this day and age and are very careful about what they say or do and would rightly cry for evidence but the “tainted alters” debacle and my personal experience at for instance St Stephens House clearly indicates that some male priest are not coming from a rational or loving place when it comes to women priests. This is all at best weak, but it is unhelpful to write “we love our women!” Some of you don’t.
Secondly and more strongly me this has always been a justice issue. You deny a women the opportunity to fulfil her calling for biological reasons. You can wrap it up in tradition but it only applies because she is a women and or no other reason. While misogyny is too strong a word to describe this you have to accept that it is a far stretch from “we love our women!” It is discriminatory in the same way that discrimination by race is. If you truly loved your women (in its self a patronising phrase) you would be at the forefront of the struggle in the church to ensure this 2000 years of patriarchal nonsense was overcome. Not fleeing into a bastion.
Sorry if I have drawn to close to a Dead Horse but I could not let it pass.
All the best, Pyx_e
quote:I'm still not too sure what sort of "argument" you believe I am making, and what problems you have with it. The use of metaphor is perfectly valid in debate in two distinct ways. Firstly, as a rhetorical device to engage the heart - this is usually effective for those who largely share a common perspective, it provides motivation. This was largely my intention: an appeal to those who would be moved due to prior commitment. Secondly, by directly providing or implying analogical content for reasoning with those who disagree. This I did not particularly intend, but the analogy motivated here is quite good and can be drawn our further. I tried to find out if you agree with the basic terms of the analogy, since you apparently wish to argue. Once the terms are agreed upon, one can. But you have not provided that information.
Originally posted by RuthW:
It's that you seem to be basing your argument on a metaphor.
quote:The comparisons a metaphor makes - and also those it motivates - are analogical in nature, and analogy is perfectly fine as an intellectual tool (namely as a form of inductive reasoning) and its workings of course can be checked logically. Though as usual induction provides fewer checkpoints to logic than deduction. Frankly, if you forbid analogy for reasonable discourse, then you forbid theology. In which case we might as well close shop, and all emigrate from Purgatory to All Saints, as far as religious topics are concerned...
Originally posted by RuthW:
One may learn a lot from the comparison a metaphor makes, but it's not logical to build an argument upon one.
quote:See? This is problem with authority. Equality and justice is dismissed as emotion when it does not suit.
Originally posted by CL:
Justice does not, has not and never will come into the equation with regards to WO. That is an inapplicable secular criterion based on nothing more than emotion. The ontological reality is that women cannot receive holy orders anymore than a man can bear a child.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:That's why it's a dead horse, and it is rather unfair of you to challenge where those who disagree may not properly respond. Suffice to say here that there simply is no Divine call to the priesthood for women.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Sorry if I have drawn to close to a Dead Horse but I could not let it pass.
quote:What has that got to do with the Ordinariate?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Finding a way to be in communion with the RCC (among others) without having to believe in every single dogma of that church is a significant part of my ecumenical journey.
Join the Ordinariate
quote:To Pyx_e and Evensong. This discussion is descending into dead horse territory, so I must choose my words carefully to avoid this. So I'm not talking about the rights or wrongs of women's ordination. Suffice it to say that the only undoubtedly Apostolic Churches in the world are the Catholic and the Orthodox. I am aware that to Protestants of non-sacramental beliefs, this doesn't matter, but to a sacramentalist it is of vital importance.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Ontological reality my ass.
quote:You forgot to say, ... according to the Catholic tradition.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Suffice to say here that there simply is no Divine call to the priesthood for women.
. I have had marvellous conversations with my father about precisely this subject and that has helped me to see me through their eyes, not just my own. As my father said to me: from the moment you were born we loved you and were concerned for your well-being. That hasn't stopped just because you are an adult living far away. I still wake up at night and hope you are safe and okay". quote:Hate to break it to you PaulTH but the Catholics are just the heretic branch of the Orthodox. You're no more apostolic than I am as an Anglican.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
To Pyx_e and Evensong. This discussion is descending into dead horse territory, so I must choose my words carefully to avoid this. So I'm not talking about the rights or wrongs of women's ordination. Suffice it to say that the only undoubtedly Apostolic Churches in the world are the Catholic and the Orthodox. I am aware that to Protestants of non-sacramental beliefs, this doesn't matter, but to a sacramentalist it is of vital importance.
quote:The only one that matters.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:You forgot to say, ... according to the Catholic tradition.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Suffice to say here that there simply is no Divine call to the priesthood for women.
quote:So St Peter wasn't an Apostle? So the Catholics and the Orthodox had a big bust up a thousand years ago. But they both trace their origins directly back to Apostles of Jesus Christ. Anglicanism traces its origins to Henry VIII's dynastic problems.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Hate to break it to you PaulTH but the Catholics are just the heretic branch of the Orthodox. You're no more apostolic than I am as an Anglican.
quote:I never used the word ontological. You're confusing me with someone else. And I agree with you that it's traditional . But this is the tradition I've chosen, for my own reasons, to belong to. I grew up in the Baptist and Evangelical tradition, so it has been a long, sometimes painful transition. I don't accept that everyone who chooses to join the Catholic or Orthodox Churches does so for reasons of misogyny. I genuinely believe in the Apostolic Church as an essential of sacramental assurance.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But hey, if that's your new Creedo, go for it. Just don't tell me it's ontological.
quote:There's nothing patronising about loving people, and there are women for whom I have a great deal of love. But here, you seem to be saying that if I truly loved women, I wouldn't want to be Catholic. I realise that you feel very stongly about this, but it's a truly ridiculous assertion. I have, over a period of many years, developed a growing preference for Catholic theology over Protestant theology. I've also come to believe that the fragmented state of Christianity is an insult to Christ, who commanded that we all be one. I have, for some time, accepted, in principle, the primacy of the See of Peter, which is quite Scriptural.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
If you truly loved your women (in its self a patronising phrase) you would be at the forefront of the struggle in the church to ensure this 2000 years of patriarchal nonsense was overcome. Not fleeing into a bastion.
quote:total snip to avoid a long nested quote simply to add one smiley:
<snip>
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:More than a secular criterion.
Originally posted by CL:
Justice does not, has not and never will come into the equation with regards to WO. That is an inapplicable secular criterion based on nothing more than emotion. The ontological reality is that women cannot receive holy orders anymore than a man can bear a child.
quote:I'll see your Henry V111 with a bevy of bent popes. Then I'll raise you 100s of sexually frustrated priests.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Anglicanism traces its origins to Henry VIII's dynastic problems.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:There's nothing patronising about loving people, and there are women for whom I have a great deal of love. But here, you seem to be saying that if I truly loved women, I wouldn't want to be Catholic.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
If you truly loved your women (in its self a patronising phrase)[...]
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:In other words "we" are men and there are some extraneous women out there who "we" love. The church being essentially a body of men who might collectively love, or not, women, but among whom women are not counted. Not only very clearly patronising (and patriarchal) but far more sexist than the RCV dogma you are doing such a bad job of defending. Maybe you would sound more convincing if you talked as if you actually believed it rather than merely clinging to it as the biggest boat in the water after you jumped overboard from your previous one.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I can assure you that we love our women!
quote:You are far too clever to believe such transparently ahistorical bollocks so I assume you are just posting it here to get Protestants riled.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But they both trace their origins directly back to Apostles of Jesus Christ. Anglicanism traces its origins to Henry VIII's dynastic problems.
quote:I too am 57 and also a convert to the RCC. I agree.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I am 57 years old, and it has taken me until now to grasp this. With my "free thinking" Protestant background I always thought that is something isn't obvious to me, then no one can ask me to believe it. It's only now, that I've taken on the discipline of being Catholic that I realise that it isn't about what I believe. Within faith taditions such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, discipline is as important to belief as it is to any other aspect of spirituality, such as prayer, fasting or fulfilling one's obligation to partake of the Sacraments. I think this is one of the most important things that has been lost in the Protestant tradition.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point is that you are making a given profession of faith, something provided to you as requiring your agreement. You are not simply being asked to say whatever you happen to believe in.
quote:I'm curious about this "apostolic succession" claim. Serious question - how do the various churches claiming this unbroken connection to Jesus (or Peter?) settle the problem of corrupt Popes such as Alexander VI (who evidently bought the title)?
Originally posted by ken:
...And of course those churches are just as much the direct descendents of the Apostles as are the Catholic and Orthodox. Or the Presbyterians.
quote:But, in fact, it is about what you believe - otherwise you couldn't be a convert, could you? You believe that your belief is different, because you believe that accepting this idea of discipline makes it different. The actual beliefs you hold within that discipline are secondary to your belief that you should accept that discipline - and that's just as much of a belief as the belief of someone who rejects it.
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
quote:I too am 57 and also a convert to the RCC. I agree.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I am 57 years old, and it has taken me until now to grasp this. With my "free thinking" Protestant background I always thought that is something isn't obvious to me, then no one can ask me to believe it. It's only now, that I've taken on the discipline of being Catholic that I realise that it isn't about what I believe. Within faith taditions such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, discipline is as important to belief as it is to any other aspect of spirituality, such as prayer, fasting or fulfilling one's obligation to partake of the Sacraments. I think this is one of the most important things that has been lost in the Protestant tradition.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point is that you are making a given profession of faith, something provided to you as requiring your agreement. You are not simply being asked to say whatever you happen to believe in.
quote:There is no Divine guarantee about the qualities of any individual in the apostolic succession, nor against damage they may do to other individual believers and the Church, merely a corporate guarantee from God that the Church will somehow survive and not force falsehood on its faithful irrevocably. What is important for the sacramental life of the Church is that the worthiness of the minister of a sacrament plays no role at all for its efficacy (as the early Church worked out in late antiquity contra the Donatists).
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
I'm curious about this "apostolic succession" claim. Serious question - how do the various churches claiming this unbroken connection to Jesus (or Peter?) settle the problem of corrupt Popes such as Alexander VI (who evidently bought the title)?
quote:Are you saying the method of succession is not important but the connection to Jesus and Peter is simply in the title of Pope? That the structure of the Church is more important than the individuals holding positions within it or how they attain their rank?
Originally posted by IngoB:
]There is no Divine guarantee about the qualities of any individual in the apostolic succession...
quote:No no no. It was always about who had the biggest stick.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And for example: how was it worked out who had the proper succession back at times when there were two popes with quite a few bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and secular rulers supporting their claims? The one who eventually came out on top by having appointed the cardinals who decided his successor who was more unequivocally known as "the Pope"?
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:No, I was saying that there's no Divine guarantee that a bishop will be saintly, competent, charitable, intelligent, etc. There's only a Divine guarantee that if a bishop does certain things, then God will make certain things happen. Among them is that a bishop can ordain other bishops.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Are you saying the method of succession is not important but the connection to Jesus and Peter is simply in the title of Pope?
quote:That is true. I think the point you are missing is that the apostolic succession is ultimately not based on people, but on God. In fact, interestingly enough the religion I practiced previously, Zen Buddhism, also has a claim of unbroken succession to ancient times. But there it is a claim that enlightenment was passed "mind to mind" from one enlightened teacher to the other, originally from Shakyamuni Buddha to Mahakashyapa and then all the way to the enlightened Zen master in front of you. That is a claim based on people: all of these transmission must really be a "mind to mind" handing on of the enlightenment state (or at least there must have been a "enlightenment re-routing" past any failures), or the person in front of you may well be "fake" (at least there's no guarantee that they are enlightened). It doesn't work that way with bishops.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
That the structure of the Church is more important than the individuals holding positions within it or how they attain their rank?
quote:The pope is not a guarantor of the apostolic succession (but of - wait for it - Christian unity). As far as ordination is concerned, the pope is simply a bishop, just as St Peter was simply an apostle. There are however special powers of governance attached to the position of St Peter, as leader of the apostles. This is basically like saying that a board of directors has a CEO, and that if the old one leaves he will get replaced, because the board of directors needs someone to be CEO. Historically, the "CEO of the RCC" has become associated with the see of Rome, and he happens to be elected to this position by a select group of fellow "board members of the RCC" (the cardinals - originally, these were simply the priests of the dioceses of Rome).
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
It seems rather bizarre that an insurrectionist could take over the Holy See by force or intrigue, install himself as Pope and the succession would still be valid.
quote:Since the successor of St Peter is simply elected by the bishops from the faithful, it is rather difficult to imagine how the connection could be terminally severed (other than by killing all bishops). What is of course possible is that there is no successor of St Peter for a while (happens every time a pope dies) or that it is unclear who got validly elected to be that successor (has happened with the so-called anti-popes). In some sense the latter does not really matter in the long run, as long as the governing system snaps back to normality at some point. Again, imagine a board of directors infighting, with multiple CEOs being "elected" at the same time. Of course this is no good for the company while it lasts. But if this gets sorted out eventually, then in some sense the only importance of determining who was the "real CEO" is to determine which orders given then actually had governing power behind them. And largely that will be sorted out by the new, now undisputed CEO confirming particular actions, and not others.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
What example of corrupt succession would invalidate the connection to Peter?
quote:It was the (quite clear to me) implication of TT's post.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:What has that got to do with the Ordinariate?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Finding a way to be in communion with the RCC (among others) without having to believe in every single dogma of that church is a significant part of my ecumenical journey.
Join the Ordinariate
quote:Ah yes. Justification by works.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No, I was saying that there's no Divine guarantee that a bishop will be saintly, competent, charitable, intelligent, etc. There's only a Divine guarantee that if a bishop does certain things, then God will make certain things happen.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Are you saying the method of succession is not important but the connection to Jesus and Peter is simply in the title of Pope?
quote:In the most famous case the man with the biggest stick was King Sigismund of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, and quite a few other places.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:No no no. It was always about who had the biggest stick.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And for example: how was it worked out who had the proper succession back at times when there were two popes with quite a few bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and secular rulers supporting their claims? The one who eventually came out on top by having appointed the cardinals who decided his successor who was more unequivocally known as "the Pope"?
quote:Uhh, what?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Ah yes. Justification by works. That was the trouble in the Reformation if I recall....
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I was talking about sacramental functions, like consecrating the host so that it becomes the body of Christ. It's not something a human can do by his own power, obviously it requires God to act. And God precisely does not act because the human in question is particularly virtuous, very saintly or has done impressive works. God acts here because He has promised to do so under specific conditions, which happen to be fulfilled. It's very roughly as if God had issued a supply of cheques for specific supernatural acts to the apostles. The apostles were able to pass these on to whom they deemed worthy (that's ordination), and those who got cheques could pass them on further (that's the apostolic succession). Obviously, you can end up with the wrong sort of people getting hold of some cheques, and that has happened, is happening and will happen again. But to some extent that is our problem, really. God has not promised to monitor where every cheque may end up. He has promised to cash in the cheques as they are presented to Him, and that's what He does. (My analogy stinks in all sorts of ways, but given that the misunderstanding here is apparently total, it may at least be clear enough to restore some mutual comprehension...)quote:If bishops guarantee salvation at all, then only in a corporate sense, by keeping the "salvation service" Christ Himself has instituted for His faithful running in a concrete and practical manner here and now.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus didn't speak about a Bishop doing certain things to guarantee salvation.
quote:Getting a bit deep here...
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Uhh, what?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Ah yes. Justification by works. That was the trouble in the Reformation if I recall....
quote:I can't. That is, I can see what you're getting at but I disagree. I think St Paul was saying that Gentiles don't need to put themselves under the Law of Moses and become Jews, in order to be Christians, and indeed that they should not do so. He wasn't (again, in my opinion) ruling out any action on the part of Christians to take hold of God's gifts.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But can you not see how sacramental ministry being effective under only certain conditions is much like Paul arguing against circumcision being necessary to effect the Grace of Christ?
quote:It's an authority issue. Acts 19 hints that outside the authority of the Church we have no guarantees, although God can and does do what he wants, wherever he wants. Apostolic succession is then a means if identifying where the authority of the Church is in place. People will disagree over the definition, but that's what's going on.
I fail to see how apostolic succession can guarantee Grace.
quote:Catholic-minded Anglicans say yes, Roman Catholics say no or at least, not sure enough to say yes. The arguments against though, are either that there was an actual break in the succession (that is Bishops were appointed who weren't properly ordained by Bishops) or that the intent to consecrate Bishops of the Church became defective (that is, a Bishop laying on hands and praying "Hocus Pocus" whilst trying to turn his victim into a frog, is unlikely to motivate the Holy Spirit to elevate the recipient to the purple). For what it's worth, the closest I've seen to a definitive answer from the Orthodox is that the succession is intact but does no good because we're not Orthodox.
Even if you think it does somehow, would not those bishops in the Anglican church of Henry the 8th have had their apostolic succession assured by the laying on of hands by the Catholic bishops? Would not those Anglican bishops that had rejected the Sea of Rome still have that succession intact?
quote:Firstly, the claim is not that we know that only a male priest standing in the apostolic succession can for example make God turn a piece of bread into the body of Christ. It is certainly within the power of God to do the same when some woman of Anglican orders goes through similar motions. And the question whether God actually does so or not can only be answered by second-guessing Him, which tends to be a bad idea. Rather, the claim is that only for a male priest standing in the apostolic succession we know that he can for example make God turn a piece of bread into the body of Christ. Since however it is idolatry to pray to a piece of bread, the risk of wrongly second-guessing God simply cannot be taken. (Furthermore, I would second-guess anyhow that the mentioned Anglican attempt will fail, for a variety of reasons. However, I happily admit that I could be wrong there.)
Originally posted by Evensong:
But can you not see how sacramental ministry being effective under only certain conditions is much like Paul arguing against circumcision being necessary to effect the Grace of Christ?
quote:If you ask in your local RC parish, and knock about in their RCIA, then I'm confident that you will be received into the RCC. Whereupon you can for example ask your local RC priest for the sacrament of reconciliation, then knock your knees together in the confessional and I'm confident that you will eventually receive forgiveness of your sins. Of course, you may well favour a more abstract conception of "ask, knock, receive", because it is just much more convenient to ask yourself whether you are OK with God, knock down opposing thoughts, and thereby receive reassurance for getting on with life. I'm not saying that that does not work. Of course it might, God is merciful. Am I confident (Latin root: "with+faith") of that though? Nope...
Originally posted by Evensong:
What of ask, knock, receive?
quote:It guarantees access to those channels of grace commonly called sacraments.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I fail to see how apostolic succession can guarantee Grace.
quote:That's a technical and historical question, not one of principle. It appears that the apostolic succession has been broken among Anglicans. But I'm no expert in history or liturgy, I cannot judge that myself. I can just trust the judgement of others in this matter (in this case, of a pope being quite - though perhaps not infallibly - definite about it...). However, it is of course possible for an apostolic succession to exist outside of the communion with the successor of St Peter, e.g., the Orthodox one.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Even if you think it does somehow, would not those bishops in the Anglican church of Henry the 8th have had their apostolic succession assured by the laying on of hands by the Catholic bishops? Would not those Anglican bishops that had rejected the Sea of Rome still have that succession intact?
quote:Are you looking for an answer like this one? As far as I am concerned, the apostolic succession and the sacramental system make perfect sense. That's exactly what is needed to have a chance in hell to get people to heaven throughout history. The Protestant ansatz seems to me about as absurd as trying to replace schools and universities with internet access and Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is brilliant in its own way, of course, just not in the way needed.)
Originally posted by Evensong:
Besides the question of how succession intimates Grace during the Eucharist, on what basis is apostolic succession considered true?
quote:As true as this is, perhaps we should be careful about stating it too derisively. In their heart of hearts, a lot of Protestants are weighed down by their accumulated sin and unstable in excusing themselves of it.
quote:If you ask in your local RC parish, and knock about in their RCIA, then I'm confident that you will be received into the RCC. Whereupon you can for example ask your local RC priest for the sacrament of reconciliation, then knock your knees together in the confessional and I'm confident that you will eventually receive forgiveness of your sins. Of course, you may well favour a more abstract conception of "ask, knock, receive", because it is just much more convenient to ask yourself whether you are OK with God, knock down opposing thoughts, and thereby receive reassurance for getting on with life. I'm not saying that that does not work. Of course it might, God is merciful. Am I confident (Latin root: "with+faith") of that though? Nope...
Originally posted by Evensong:
What of ask, knock, receive?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I was talking about sacramental functions, like consecrating the host so that it becomes the body of Christ. It's not something a human can do by his own power, obviously it requires God to act.
quote:Its make-your-mind-up time! Which is it?
And then he posted:
Rather, the claim is that only for a male priest standing in the apostolic succession we know that he can for example make God turn a piece of bread into the body of Christ.
quote:
Also originally posted by IngoB:
It appears that the apostolic succession has been broken among Anglicans. But I'm no expert in history or liturgy, I cannot judge that myself. I can just trust the judgement of others in this matter (in this case, of a pope being quite - though perhaps not infallibly - definite about it...).
Is this horse dead or just sleeping? quote:Thanks for the detailed reply. It occurs to me that the Catechism could do with a key system indicating the infallibility level of the teaching - and that's not even slightly tongue-in-cheek.
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is not to say that there is never a time to stand up to the Church in the name of one's conscience. There is a time and a season for "tough love".
quote:Sorry? What you quoted is not self-contradictory. I cannot fly a helicopter. Say my friend can and owns a helicopter, and has promised to fly me around whenever I ask him to. Then it is both true that I cannot fly a helicopter (myself) and that I can fly around in one whenever I choose to (by asking my friend to fly me). My ability to use the helicopter relies not on me, but entirely on my friend - in particular, on him keeping his promise. A priest cannot turn bread into the body of Christ, but he can be certain that if He asks God in the right manner, then God will do so. Not because the priest can command God, but because God has promised that He would. And God keeps His promises without fail.
Originally posted by ken:
Its make-your-mind-up time! Which is it?
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by "ordinary churces" here. If this is supposed to mean something like "all churches besides the RCC", then you will not find me asserting anything like what you wrote. I said above "In fact, if the RCC was wiped out entire, a valid apostolic succession would continue chiefly among the Orthodox." There are other churches, like the Polish National Catholic Church, which the Holy See recognizes as having a valid apostolic succession while not being in communion with the pope. But this does not extend to the Reformation churches. Again, it is conceivable that the Holy See errs in some of these judgements. But I certainly have neither the knowledge nor the interest to challenge them. As far as I am concerned, there's precisely one fitting solution to absolutely all of this: become Roman Catholic (by which I also mean here Catholic in another particular Church that is in communion with the pope).
Originally posted by ken:
So even if the Pope and the heirarchy went off the rails the ordinary churches would still be in the Apostolic Succession. Which sounds fair enough. But now you say Ahah! That's all theoretical! In practice what the Pope says goes despite all that! Again, which is it?
quote:Did you miss the "which are not contrary to the Faith the Church has received" bit?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It was the (quite clear to me) implication of TT's post.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:What has that got to do with the Ordinariate?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Finding a way to be in communion with the RCC (among others) without having to believe in every single dogma of that church is a significant part of my ecumenical journey.
Join the Ordinariate
quote:Well, I used to think that. Now I see that pastorally, that's probably a bad idea. As far as truths of faith go, you can consult the reasonably trustworthy compilation by Ludwig Ott. (That's a translation. If you speak German, you can get a much updated edition here.) I'm not aware of a similarly useful compilation concerning Catholic morals (suggestions much appreciated).
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It occurs to me that the Catechism could do with a key system indicating the infallibility level of the teaching - and that's not even slightly tongue-in-cheek.
quote:Huh? If in the best of conscience you decide that X is not sinful, even though the Church says that it is, then you have nothing to confess or be reconciled about! You should then simply live your life as an otherwise faithful Catholic - and of course do X as proper occasion suggests. You think that you are not sinning, the Church thinks that you sin but are not culpable. The Church certainly cannot absolve you where you are not contrite, and how can you honestly repent of something that you do not consider as sinful? The sacrament of reconciliation follows a rite but is no charade.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Given then that the Church admits the possibility of her being in error and that one of the faithful might legitimately act against her teaching, how does this work out in terms of, for want of a better word, practical reconciliation theology? What I mean is since the possibility exists, then the Church must have developed a mechanism by which absolution can be granted for actions which she considers to be sinful that are not accepted by the penitent. Otherwise the direction to follow conscience over teaching makes no sense.
quote:Indeed, you lack culpability for sins committed in following your best conscience. If you admit the possibility of being wrong, then you should follow the teachings of the Church. Because you should, by faith, follow the Church in love if not in mind. Only if you are sure and see the harm done in consequence (in particular to others) as not acceptable, then you should resist.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Is it that the person is deemed to lack culpability and is therefore not in need of absolution? Is a conditional absolution given just in case if the penitent acknowledges the possibility of being wrong?
quote:Italics mine. Basically, a priest must not lead you into culpably sinning. His primary job is to get you into heaven best he can, as shepherd, not to defend the truths of Catholicism (for that you have me, self-appointed hammer of heretics, aren't you lucky...
Vademecum for cofessors...
On the part of the penitent, the sacrament of Reconciliation requires sincere sorrow, a formally complete accusation of mortal sins, and the resolution, with the help of God, not to fall into sin again. In general, it is not necessary for the confessor to investigate concerning sins committed in invincible ignorance of their evil, or due to an inculpable error of judgment. Although these sins are not imputable, they do not cease, however, to be an evil and a disorder. ... Whenever the confessor considers it necessary to question the penitent, he should do so with discretion and respect.
The principle according to which it is preferable to let penitents remain in good faith in cases of error due to subjectively invincible ignorance, is certainly to be considered always valid ... And this applies whenever it is foreseen that the penitent, although oriented towards living within the bounds of a life of faith, would not be prepared to change his own conduct, but rather would begin formally to sin. Nonetheless, in these cases, the confessor must try to bring such penitents ever closer to accepting God's plan in their own lives, even in these demands, by means of prayer, admonition and exhorting them to form their consciences, and by the teaching of the Church.
).
quote:I'm not sure how this works in practice. It seems from what you are saying that if you follow your best conscience, but it leads you to act in such a way that it contradicts the teaching of the church, it is only if you are "sure" you are right that you are not culpable. But, assuming that truth and goodness are not subjective but have their objective foundation in God, how can anyone ever be absolutely sure they are right, even when they are convinced in their conscience that such and such an action or decision is the one they must choose? To know something with absolute certainty would seem to be something only God can do. We finite creatures on the other hand can only do our best. Given that, can there ever be any occasion when in fact we are not morally culpable if we act against the teaching of the Church?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, you lack culpability for sins committed in following your best conscience. If you admit the possibility of being wrong, then you should follow the teachings of the Church. Because you should, by faith, follow the Church in love if not in mind. Only if you are sure and see the harm done in consequence (in particular to others) as not acceptable, then you should resist.
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:As true as this is, perhaps we should be careful about stating it too derisively. In their heart of hearts, a lot of Protestants are weighed down by their accumulated sin and unstable in excusing themselves of it.
quote:If you ask in your local RC parish, and knock about in their RCIA, then I'm confident that you will be received into the RCC. Whereupon you can for example ask your local RC priest for the sacrament of reconciliation, then knock your knees together in the confessional and I'm confident that you will eventually receive forgiveness of your sins. Of course, you may well favour a more abstract conception of "ask, knock, receive", because it is just much more convenient to ask yourself whether you are OK with God, knock down opposing thoughts, and thereby receive reassurance for getting on with life. I'm not saying that that does not work. Of course it might, God is merciful. Am I confident (Latin root: "with+faith") of that though? Nope...
Originally posted by Evensong:
What of ask, knock, receive?
Given what's at stake, I'd add to the above the affirmation that the Church will welcome and not judge for earlier errors.
eee RuthW. ooda thought it.quote:Can you flesh this out some more? It seems to me that this is dangerous territory. Are you saying that if I decide sexual acts outside of marriage are not sinful and I sincerely so believe even though the Church says they are, then, I'm not guilty of sin? I can still take Communion and participate in the Church and have the promise of heaven, even though I'm fornicating away? That would seem to lead to everyone potentially rationalizing his/her way out of sin.
If in the best of conscience you decide that X is not sinful, even though the Church says that it is, then you have nothing to confess or be reconciled about! You should then simply live your life as an otherwise faithful Catholic - and of course do X as proper occasion suggests. You think that you are not sinning, the Church thinks that you sin but are not culpable.
