|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A smaller church
|
SFG
Apprentice
# 17081
|
Posted
Yesterday's National Catholic Reporter has includes an article in the middle of which the author writes;
The pope wants a smaller, purer church, we're told.
Does he? What do we think of that wish?
I often think the Lord called us to be salt to the earth and too much salt would make the meal very unhealthy...
I'm not so sure about a 'purer' church though ... Sounds a little donatist.
--------------------
_ _ _____________________ _ _
A new member hoping to get it right!
Posts: 33 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Are you sure he wants a smaller purer church? I thought he wanted a more obedient and observant church even if this meant accepting as a consequence that it may be smaller.
But I never got the impression he saw a reduction in numbers per se as a good thing. I would have thought the reverse.
[ 17. May 2012, 19:51: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I've never heard of a church that didn't want "more bums in the pews" (except, of course, they'd prefer not to have the drunken kind of bum!)
At the same time, every preacher wants a more "obedient and observant" church, with the emphasis on "obedience to me" as your leader.
News at 11: Yes, The Pope was Polish.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SFG
Apprentice
# 17081
|
Posted
I took it to mean numerically smaller, but, Snags, you make me think again.
Here is a link to the article in which the comment is made. The whole article makes interesting reading.
Given 'smaller' is followed by 'purer' I guess the author has in mind the whole church being smaller.
Now smaller I can cope with, purer I am not so comfortable with.
Whether smaller is good or not must depend on how we view the church. Is it meant to draw all in, or is it a means to helping God's kingdom come.
Given a, admittedly less common, view in the RC church that the is no salvation outside the church it seems a bit unfair if the pope is suggesting the church be smaller.
[ 17. May 2012, 20:52: Message edited by: SFG ]
--------------------
_ _ _____________________ _ _
A new member hoping to get it right!
Posts: 33 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SFG:
Now smaller I can cope with, purer I am not so comfortable with.
I wouldn't be surprised if what he's saying is, be wholly and completely Catholic or stop calling yourself Catholic. To pick just one example, "if you do birth control you aren't Catholic; decide whether you want to do birth control or want to be Catholic."
A purer definition of who is Catholic -- "those who adhere to all the teachings of the Catholic Church." This is a smaller group than those who currently call themselves Catholic, some of whom ignore, defy, or argue against some of the teachings.
It would be interesting to see just what choices various nominally Catholic friends make; my guess is they'll ignore this kind of pronouncement just like they ignore anything else from the Pope they don't agree with. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The doors are open for people to walk in or they aren't, last I heard there's no official membership list, there's no way to stop someone claiming to be Catholic even while arguing it's time for a woman Pope (or whatever). Isn't any pronouncement about a purer church just hot air, except as to university professors at Catholic universities and others the Catholic hierarchy has some actual control over? Maybe those people are the real target?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Nuns caring for the poor rather than protesting abortion may be one example of "impurity", or so ISTM
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[QUOTE]university professors at Catholic universities and others the Catholic hierarchy has some actual control over
- oh, dear, I hope not (I'm one of them...) ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
The author of the article is Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun well-known for her rather "unconventional" (unconventional in right-wing Catholic terms, that is) views. The current debate is part of an ongoing centrifugal movement within Roman Catholicism. There are many areas and levels of disagreement, ranging from the purely ceremonial (Latin Mass etc) to the doctrinal (Inclusivism, anyone?) Defining what is or is not Catholic is difficult. Do I agree with everything in the Catechism? No. Do I consider myself RC? Yes.
If we don't watch out, Catholicism will be "reserved" to the likes of Opus Dei or FSSPX. Which would be a shame.
The Pope is not infallible. So I join in the time-honoured practive of non-fundamentalist Roman Catholicism by exercising my discernment (translation: ignore that which, after reflection, I cannot agree with).
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SFG:
I took it to mean numerically smaller, but, Snags, you make me think again.
Here is a link to the article in which the comment is made. The whole article makes interesting reading.
Given 'smaller' is followed by 'purer' I guess the author has in mind the whole church being smaller.
Now smaller I can cope with, purer I am not so comfortable with.
Whether smaller is good or not must depend on how we view the church. Is it meant to draw all in, or is it a means to helping God's kingdom come.
Given a, admittedly less common, view in the RC church that the is no salvation outside the church it seems a bit unfair if the pope is suggesting the church be smaller.
Your first problem is that you're reading the National Catholic Distorter. Secondly, the pope never said he wanted a smaller purer church, he merely observed that it may be an unavoidable consequence of the rapidly increasing secularism of the West - only the committed will stay the course.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
only the committed will stay the course.
Commited to what may I ask?
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
It sounds like making a virtue of necessity.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
This reminds me of an Anglican priest of my acquaintance, who thought that now in post-Christendom era, the church should be a remnant of committed, intentional followers of Jesus, with emphasis on "remnant". I think his ideal parish would have looked like a lay monastic community, with a strong committed core and a very small postulant-like fringe.
I can see his point, but it doesn't seem to work all that well. His parish dwindled in numbers, and appeared quite committed, but when he retired it was clear that the apparent deep spirituality of the core membership was mostly his, and the parish floundered on the brink of closure.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Nuns caring for the poor rather than protesting abortion may be one example of "impurity", or so ISTM
Or less nuns supporting abortion may be a good start and a habit instead of a pant suit
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Is the wearing of a habit necessary for a nun to function, or is it just a visual way of identifying a nun? Is that identification necessary, or just vaguely desirable? Should they rely on the wearing of habit or by their works/piety/nun-ness?
And, given the tenor of the thread, who gets to say? The men in Third Century Roman civil service costume, or the nuns who actually go out to work?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is the wearing of a habit necessary for a nun to function, or is it just a visual way of identifying a nun? Is that identification necessary, or just vaguely desirable? Should they rely on the wearing of habit or by their works/piety/nun-ness?
And, given the tenor of the thread, who gets to say? The men in Third Century Roman civil service costume, or the nuns who actually go out to work?
The habit is a mark of Catholic religious identity, otherwise you're just a glorified social worker. And yes it is the bishops who decide, there is no other authority outside of them; no bishops, no Church.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
This is not about the Church and its "actual" teachings. It is dangerous to cling to that. Especially since the "actual" teachings have changed so much, over the centuries, because of people applying... discernment.
As to the pantsuits issue, well, so many male members of religious orders wear civilian cloths all the time or some of the time, why make a fuss because some nuns take off the veil?
If Vatican II "allowed" us to celebrate mass in the vernacular, surely we are allowed to also adapt our vestimentary habits to the area where we happen to live (nb: Indian RC nuns, most of whom can hardly be accused of being rebellious, do not wear a veil. In harmony with local customs, they wear a Saree.
And lastly, as my Atheist friend who peers over my shoulder as I type this points out: "Isn't it Saint Paul who said that you should look at people's soul, and not at how they're dressed or circumcised or whatever?".
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
only the committed will stay the course.
Commited to what may I ask?
The Church, it's magisterium and it's actual teachings. People aren't going to, and don't, bother with any organisation that merely offers them a paler version of what is already freely available to them in the secular world. An Anglican clergyman once said he who marries the Spirit of this age finds himself a widower in the next; that fact is something Liberal Christianity has never managed to get it's head around.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
This is not about the Church and its "actual" teachings. It is dangerous to cling to that. Especially since the "actual" teachings have changed so much, over the centuries, because of people applying... discernment.
Those are weasel words to try and justify innovation or undermine that which has been doctrinally and dogmatically settled. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The habit is a mark of Catholic religious identity, otherwise you're just a glorified social worker.
Yikes, I sure hope the nuns are doing something a little different than social work! Social work is valuable, but don't church people (supposedly) bring something else to the mix, some sort of awareness of God?
If so, the nuns are identified by their work, it is the work of religious not of secular social workers (and without the constraints put on secular social workers who are God-aware but required to avoid mention of God to clients).
Thinking an external detail like a costume (or title or position) is what makes you religious is so backwards! God looks at the heart, so should we.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
And yes it is the bishops who decide, there is no other authority outside of them; no bishops, no Church.
No other authority? What about God?
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Commited to what may I ask?
The Church, it's magisterium and it's actual teachings.
Not to God, then?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
@ CL: I do sympathise with your argument about the "spiritual widowhood".
but
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
might be true for them. "Causa" finita est in their books, not necessarily in the books of a large part of their flock.
I agree with Marvin's last point; this is about doing God's work through following Christ. And not about worshipping a Church.
[ 18. May 2012, 15:00: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Can those who object to a pure church explain why?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Can those who object to a pure church explain why?
Yeah. I don't see where even Saint Paul called himself pure. What he called himself was the chief of sinners.
Given that example, who would have the arrogance to stand up and call himself pure; and if someone did, who would believe him?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Can those who object to a pure church explain why?
Hardcore Inquisition, anyone?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
"Can those who object to a pure church explain why?"
Certainly.
I object to it because a church can never be pure. It is a congregation of people (Flesh and blood and brains in varying states of functioning) moving -and being moved- through time.
In other words, Church is a social process. As such it can never be pure. The aim of it may well be pure (following Christ), but the entity itself can not.
Church is really not a noun but a verb. It is an ongoing pilgrimage.
We do need signposts, institutions, and a ceremonial and doctrinal framework. But neither of these should ever be cast in stone.
[ 18. May 2012, 15:38: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
People aren't going to, and don't, bother with any organisation that merely offers them a paler version of what is already freely available to them in the secular world.
No, probably not. But the real "adventure" is not in following "challenging" requirements from some authority. That you can get in any themepark.
The real Christian adventure is to switch on your brain and open your ears. It is this feeling of loneliness, of my self alone in the face of God and God's plan for me, with just a couple of guidelines given to me but ultimately down to my handling of them, which are the trigger of what is called the "leap of faith". The ultimate trust in God.
As long as we blindly cling to the guidelines and signposts, we will never grow up. And Christianity is an adventure for grown-ups.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
There are advantages, to be sure. I grew up in parishes full of cradle Christians and people who attended out of social pressure. I now live in a church in which converts and intentional members are much more noticeable. The latter seem much more receptive to old ideas.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is the wearing of a habit necessary for a nun to function, or is it just a visual way of identifying a nun?
Lots of nuns don't. I've met some.
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
And yes it is the bishops who decide, there is no other authority outside of them; no bishops, no Church.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Not even the Roman Catholics claim that there is no source of suthority other than bishops!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
--exactly. And as anyone who follows a synod can tell you, Bishops do not always agree. They I do not want to know about thesilent sufferings of those Bishops who know and feel and believe better than what they have to profess "ex officio" to the outside world...
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
The author of the article is Joan Chittister
Shhhhh! One does not speak the name of great demons other than under the bright midday sun.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Defining what is or is not Catholic is difficult. Do I agree with everything in the Catechism? No. Do I consider myself RC? Yes.
"They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion." (Lumen Gentium 14)
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
If we don't watch out, Catholicism will be "reserved" to the likes of Opus Dei or FSSPX. Which would be a shame.
There is little chance of that. But Catholicism will become overwhelmingly African, Asian and South American. While that means that liberal Catholicism is firmly on the way out, it will not exactly bring joy to the European traditionalists either.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
The Pope is not infallible. So I join in the time-honoured practive of non-fundamentalist Roman Catholicism by exercising my discernment (translation: ignore that which, after reflection, I cannot agree with).
"And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment." (Lumen Gentium 25)
"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will." (Lumen Gentium 25)
Ahh, the Spirit of Vatican II, don't you just love it?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Oh yes, Lumen Gentium, of course... "This religious submission of mind and will ..." oh dear, I completely forgot that one.
Well, I must mend my ways then... and run to confession. I expect the priest will get a hysterical fit when I start confessing that I don't agree with Lumen Gentium...
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I thought that wearing of the habit was a function of whichever order you were a member of. Did I get that wrong?
[ 18. May 2012, 18:53: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
No, that's correct. RC monastic orders differ widely in customs regarding the habits, with great intra-order variations e.g. in the Benedictines (from ultra-strict veil plus wimple for some congregations to the famous pantsuits in others)
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Back to the OP. SFG writes -
quote:
Yesterday's National Catholic Reporter has includes an article in the middle of which the author writes;
The pope wants a smaller, purer church, we're told.
Does he? What do we think of that wish?
I often think the Lord called us to be salt to the earth and too much salt would make the meal very unhealthy...
I'm not so sure about a 'purer' church though ... Sounds a little donatist.
I've been trying to find out what exactly it is that the pope does think. If you try googling, you'll get opinions and blog posts from every man and his dog, none of them apparently citing much of anything. Classic chinese whispers territory. After a bit of digging, I came up with a couple of links that seem well worth a look.
Firstly, here is an anlysis of his thoughts from an article in the NY Times. quote:
But he does not seem to speak happily about the prospect of a smaller church. "Most people admit that at the present stage of things in Europe, the number of baptized Christians is simply dwindling," he said in a 2002 book of interviews, "God and the World." "We simply have to face up to it."
In that book, in fact, he strongly opposes the idea of being a "closed club."
"I have nothing against it, then, if people who all year long never visit a church go there at least on Christmas night or New Year's Eve or on special occasions, because this is another way of belonging to the blessing of the sacred, to the light," he said.
This second one is from an Anglican blog which has actually located his published thoughts from one of his books. There is an extended quote there you should take a look at, though I suspect it may be too long to cut and paste directly here.
Without further investigation, I cannot say whether these accurately capture his thoughts, though they do seem to be in agreement. Whatever it was Sr. Chittister was told, it doesn't seem to tally with the viewpoints reported in those two links. Her article touches on other things of course, but the OP asks what we think of B16's reported wish, and my response would be "it doesn't look as if that's what he wants at all. It's what he thinks might happen."
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
[QB] I've been trying to find out what exactly it is that the pope does think. (...) Classic chinese whispers territory. (...) I cannot say whether these accurately capture his thoughts (...)/QB]
Indeed. I fear we'd all be surprised if we knew for sure the huge and deep differences between what the Pope thinks, what he is supposed to say, what different factions in his Church want to hear and think he should saty, and what the rather unfortunate team of spokesmen and Media "experts" around him manage to convey to the public.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Those are weasel words to try and justify innovation or undermine that which has been doctrinally and dogmatically settled. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
Which means what? Translation please.
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
Which means what? Translation please.
"I may not know much about art, but I know what I like!"
[ 19. May 2012, 09:18: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
The natural tendency for anyone with as fastidious a zeal for doctrinal purity as BXVI is a church with a single member. The only remaining question is how long that process takes.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
Which means what? Translation please.
"I may not know much about art, but I know what I like!"
Or (most succinctly and Un-Anglican ![[Biased]](wink.gif) . "Rome has Spoken, the Case is closed"
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
The natural tendency for anyone with as fastidious a zeal for doctrinal purity as BXVI is a church with a single member. The only remaining question is how long that process takes.
The question is, though, to what extent such a view is a genuine representation of the facts, and to what extent it is a mischaracterization - or in some cases a psychological projection - by people who takes a different POV.
Undoubtedly the Catholic church has a magisterium which it teaches. Whether I agree with it or not is not the issue - I am not a Roman Catholic. The question here is whether a smaller church due to doctrinal purity is what this is all about. I don't think it is. As best I can tell, it is about something entirely different, i.e. the contraction of the church due to societal changes.
There is a separate discussion to be had about doctrinal purity of course, but my immediate response to Sr. Joan Chittister's article is that she appears to be conflating these two things. She doesn't quote her source for her opinion on B16's view - quote:
The pope wants a smaller, purer church, we're told.
A grammatic construction that would receive the immediate blue pencil in any reputable peer-reviewed journal.
I've given my sources. I appreciate they are finite, but if you feel disposed to argue with my understanding, I would ask you for some evidence, because right now I have seen none.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Certainly fair to point out the Pope may want other than what he is being said to want.
Put "pope wants smaller church" into Google and came up with a spate of articles in 2005 mentioning Pope and "smaller and purer church."
quote:
In the early days of his Pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI was quoted to say that he envisioned the immediate future of the Church to be a smaller but more pure Church. In the video below he reiterates something very similar:
In my view, a Church which seeks above all to be attractive, is already on the wrong path, because the Church does not work for herself, she does not work to increase her numbers and power. She works for Another. She serves not herself, not to become strong. She serves to make the announcement of Jesus Christ more accessible….. (On the Papal Plane headed to the U.K.).
Archdiocese of Washington web site
And about "Pope Benedict XVI wants Catholic colleges to ensure that faculty are faithful to church doctrine" Washington Post
Which may all have been based on misunderstanding, or Pope may have refined his thinking or expression of thoughts. But it's not one religious woman's invented idea, lots of reporters think the Pope expressed something about smaller and purer.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Yes, I'm sure we've both been trawling through some of the same articles there, Belle Ringer. It's probably right to say he envisages a smaller church. But the number of articles that just go straight from there to assuming that is tied in with the issue of doctrinal purity is legion. They all seem to be parroting one another without going back to source. I'm sure Sr. Joan is not lying when she used the words I cited, and someone indeed told her that. Maybe lots of people say that, and it's become one of those things that "everyone knows".
It all seemed rather unsatisfactory to me, so I tried to track it back to source, hence the above. I think this linkage to be an error that misrepresents his thought on this matter.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
It is not without reason the the National Catholic Reporter has become known as the National Catholic Distorter in many corners and Sr Joan Chittister is notoriously parti pris.
No Christian, and certainly not the Holy Father, could want a smaller Church, as the Gospel to be read tomorrow in the Catholic Churches of England Wales reminds us. What seems abundantly clear, however, is that BXVI recognises that fidelity to the Gospel is more important than popularity. On his reading - and I have to say, on my own - it seems likely that such fidelity is not and will not be universally popular.
Desert Daughter, there seems to me a delicious irony in the suggestion that where this leads is to a Church composed only of Opus Dei and the SSPX. For all of my adult life there has been a concerted and persistent attempt to completely demonise and marginalise members of the first in the entire English, French and German speaking bits of the Catholic Church and the hyperbole and hysteria directed at the latter has been scarcely believable. Catholics who find little wrong in sharing the Eucharist with Buddhists seem to have a fit of the vapours at the prospect of breaking bread with fellow Catholics. How delightful to find them being required to show the same charity to such as these as they show to those who can't even call Jesus Lord.
Your comments about dissent are interesting, albeit a trifle self-indulgent and leaving unsaid some pretty important qualifications about properly informed conscience and the objective hierarchy of authority. As Blessed John Henry Newman put it (Letter to the Dule of Norfolk, pp.255ff.):
quote:
First, I am using the word "conscience" in the high sense in which I have already explained it,—not as a fancy or an opinion, but as a dutiful obedience to what claims to be a divine voice, speaking within us; and that this is the view properly to be taken of it, I shall not attempt to prove here, but shall assume it as a first principle.
Secondly, I observe that conscience is not a judgment upon any speculative truth, any abstract doctrine, but bears immediately on conduct, on something to be done or not done. "Conscience," says St. Thomas, "is the practical judgment or dictate of reason, by which we judge what hic et nunc is to be done as being good, or to be avoided as evil." Hence conscience cannot come into direct collision with the Church's or the Pope's infallibility; which is engaged in general propositions, and in the condemnation of particular and given errors....
...If in a particular case it is to be taken as a sacred and sovereign monitor, its dictate, in order to prevail against the voice of the Pope, must follow upon serious thought, prayer, and all available means of arriving at a right judgment on the matter in question. And further, obedience to the Pope is what is called "in possession;" that is, the onus probandi of establishing a case against him lies, as in all cases of exception, on the side of conscience. Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it, and would commit a great sin in disobeying it.
Re-reading your post, it does not seem to me that you adequately describe the seriousness of the decision and imply that it might be taken with a lightness of heart that trivialises it.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
No Christian, and certainly not the Holy Father, could want a smaller Church, as the Gospel to be read tomorrow in the Catholic Churches of England Wales reminds us.
Trisagion - do you have any insight into why this has got to be such a popular interpretation? I spent some time ploughing through assorted articles and it seems nearly universal in the USA at least - as much on conservative sites as on any other.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
No Christian, and certainly not the Holy Father, could want a smaller Church, as the Gospel to be read tomorrow in the Catholic Churches of England Wales reminds us.
Trisagion - do you have any insight into why this has got to be such a popular interpretation? I spent some time ploughing through assorted articles and it seems nearly universal in the USA at least - as much on conservative sites as on any other.
Because the fault lines in American Catholicisms are very deep and very wide. It is a useful stick with which to beat your opponents: you're too liberal and the Pope wants you out of the Church, on the one hand, and you're too concerned with purity of doctrine or behaviour and you and the Pope aren't as loving and accepting as Jesus, on the other.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I probably need yet another culture wars example like I need a hole in the head right now, but if I can press you Trisagion, why are the faultlines so deep as you see it? Most commentators believe the culture wars to be of protestant origin insofar as they have any root in belief, yet here we have a big divide in catholicism - ?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
There is more than a little of the Protestant about the mindset of not a few American Catholics, so perhaps it ought not to surprise anyone that the culture wars rage there too.
There is a very politicised social justice v religious purity dualism (I would say a false dualism) at work in the American Church. Until the internet, it was not nearly so obvious but the ease of publication that comes with the web has meant that voices that had previously struggled to get a hearing were now able to get their views out there. I am, myself, perhaps too parti pris to say much more without allowing my own prejudices and predilections to get in the way of helping you. Suffice it to say that a massive dose of charity all round wouldn't go amiss and neither would a little intellectual humility.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Then I shall not press you further, but thank you for your contribution.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
