Thread: Anglicanism and the new Pope Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025205
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
The Church Times, among others, are running a story that the Anglican Bishop of Argentina reports:
"[the then Cardinal] called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate was quite unnecessary, and that the Church needs us as Anglicans."
Anyone have any thoughts on the implications of this statement or what it might mean, both for the ordinariate and for relations between Rome and Anglicanism?
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
Even more impressive than that, Venables says:
"and [the Cardinal] invariably makes me take part and often do what he as Cardinal should have done."
These are exciting times. I just hope he doesn't change his mind now that he's dealing with heretical and apostate Anglican bodies in the West, rather than the orthodoxy prevalent in the developing world.
My major worry is that this pope, coming from a poorer country where Anglicanism is relatively undefiled, will assume the Papal office, have to deal with Kathy and Justin - who now tells us he's only against gay marriage because it's not equal enough! - and decide that the previous popes had it right about us all along. Time will tell.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
None, at least as far as Canadian Anglicanism is concerned. We are busy with dioceses arranging to allow parishes the "local option" to bless civilly married same sex couples, and some 30 years in to both genders being ordained, we'd have to see much change on the Roman side before we'd accept their catholicism.
This said, local Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans do much together, and also include non-liturgical denominations particularly United Church of Canada.
It is an interesting perceptual and cultural point of view, but the Roman catholic denomination is merely that - another denomination - among many in our perception here. It seems to be more than a denomination in some other places. Is this so?
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
The fact is that if Rome is to admit that she is not the 'one True Church' and renege on some of her doctrinal errors, we in the West must also be humble, look at our Anglican churches, and say how they have erred and strayed from God's ways like lost sheep, too. Sorting out these divisions in Christ's Body is not going to be easy.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Idle question, Indifferently- do call Anglicans "defiled" and "apostate" to their faces in real life, or only behind their backs and on the internet?
[ 14. March 2013, 19:20: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
This said, local Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans do much together, and also include non-liturgical denominations particularly United Church of Canada.
I'm glad you think we're pleasant, but non-liturgical? Have you seen my threads in Eccles?
Please retract, your assertion is offensive.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Idle question, Indifferently- do call Anglicans "defiled" and "apostate" to their faces in real life, or only behind their backs and on the internet?
I'm an Anglican.
I will tell it like it is. I hang out in a tiny ghetto of orthodoxy in a corner of the Church of England, which, by a vote in a beloved parish PCC of mine nearby, tragically just got smaller. I actually believe fidelity to the orthodox Anglican faith is important.
We should not be afraid to hurt others' feelings when it comes to these matters, because if the Church Fathers had taken that approach then who knows if the Arian heresy had become mainstream, or Pelagius's renunciation of God's saving grace, or manifold other false doctrines.
Honesty and humility on all sides will heal this broken Body.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Honesty and humility on all sides will heal this broken Body.
...and of course, it's always much easier to be honest with other people.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I actually believe fidelity to the orthodox Anglican faith is important.
So do the people you are being so uncharitable about.
quote:
We should not be afraid to hurt others' feelings when it comes to these matters
But you should be afraid that you are not an example of Christ's love, that drives people away from the faith rather than calls them to it.
[ 14. March 2013, 19:42: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Strange, I was a member of the Church of England for 27 years and saw little sign of the "defilement" you describe, Indifferently. The gospel was preached in word and sacrament, the ancient creeds believed and recited. As far as I'm aware the teaching was orthodox. What did you have in mind? Is it just that the CofE isn't unpleasant enough to gay people and women for your liking or did you have something else in mind?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Business as usual then.
One or two thoughts that he may not be whiter than white as regards his dealing with the Argentinian military junta.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
... if Rome is to admit that she is not the 'one True Church' and renege on some of her doctrinal errors,...
Incoming! Pigs at twelve o'clock high!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I would further add, by way of being more judgmental, that you are not Saint Athanasius, Indifferently. You are not standing up for the True Faith, at great personal cost, against the whole world, and you have shown none of Athanasius' profound insight into the Gospel, deep erudition, or unfathomable holiness. You are sitting in the comfort of your home banging out hateful comments against fellow Christians who disagree with you, and not even to their faces no less.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
One or two thoughts that he may not be whiter than white as regards his dealing with the Argentinian military junta.
What Argentinian military junta? Unless they've had a coup in the last few minutes, they were gone thirty years ago.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Strange, I was a member of the Church of England for 27 years and saw little sign of the "defilement" you describe, Indifferently. The gospel was preached in word and sacrament, the ancient creeds believed and recited. As far as I'm aware the teaching was orthodox. What did you have in mind? Is it just that the CofE isn't unpleasant enough to gay people and women for your liking or did you have something else in mind?
You've just given away your agenda. I prefer fidelity to the plain words of Scripture to satisfying the preoccupations of the Sexual Revolution and the post-60s culture which has all but wiped out Christianity, Roman or Anglican or anything else, in the West.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
You've just given away your agenda.
He (or she, I don't really know) isn't the only one.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would further add, by way of being more judgmental, that you are not Saint Athanasius, Indifferently. You are not standing up for the True Faith, at great personal cost, against the whole world, and you have shown none of Athanasius' profound insight into the Gospel, deep erudition, or unfathomable holiness. You are sitting in the comfort of your home banging out hateful comments against fellow Christians who disagree with you, and not even to their faces no less.
There is nothing 'hateful' in my comments.
I am saying that if we are to seek reconciliation with the Church of Rome (which by the way is presumably what this Topic is about) we should avoid this moral abyss into which we have fallen, and (doctrinally at least) into which the Roman Catholic Church has not fallen, because it has had strong, orthodox leadership, whereas we have had weak, secularist, politically-correct leadership beholden to all the fashions of this unchristian age.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
This said, local Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans do much together, and also include non-liturgical denominations particularly United Church of Canada.
I'm glad you think we're pleasant, but non-liturgical? Have you seen my threads in Eccles?
Please retract, your assertion is offensive.
They are non-liturgical here, and I grew up in the United Church of Canada until age 15 and have attended every few years several. Nothing like Anglican. I suspect it is of regional variation, about which my comments may have been too regional assumptive. No offence was ever intended. I believe you're in Ontario and perhaps Toronto. Anglicanism is different there too.
The UCC has contributed by example and direct assistance to the Anglican Church's progression toward social justice and equality among genders and orientations, though we no longer share a hymnal. I suspect, at least in western Canada, some of the positive trends in the Anglican Church would not have occurred but for the trail blazed by the United Church. So again, no offence was ever intended, and unreserved apologies are offered to you.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
There is nothing 'hateful' in my comments.
See, that's why people see your call for the Church to be honest so completely ridiculous.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Anyone have any thoughts on the implications of this statement or what it might mean, both for the ordinariate and for relations between Rome and Anglicanism?
In practice, I suspect not very much. The ordinariate is a done deal, and isn't going away. His Holiness will I am sure pursue cordial relationships with Anglican leaders, just like Benedict XVI and John Paul II did, but he's not going to disavow Apostolicae Curae, or admit that we are a church. He is also, much to the shock of certain segments of the media, not going to come out in favour of married lesbian priests.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Strange, I was a member of the Church of England for 27 years and saw little sign of the "defilement" you describe, Indifferently. The gospel was preached in word and sacrament, the ancient creeds believed and recited. As far as I'm aware the teaching was orthodox. What did you have in mind? Is it just that the CofE isn't unpleasant enough to gay people and women for your liking or did you have something else in mind?
You've just given away your agenda. I prefer fidelity to the plain words of Scripture to satisfying the preoccupations of the Sexual Revolution and the post-60s culture which has all but wiped out Christianity, Roman or Anglican or anything else, in the West.
So, the former, then? I find the notion that Christianity is primarily about sex, or the lack of it, to be quite bizarre. Equally I find bizarre the idea that two men or two women wanting to commit themselves in the sight of God to spending the rest of their lives together, forsaking all others, has anything much to do with the promiscuity and casual sex one would normally think of when considering the term "sexual revolution".
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
One or two thoughts that he may not be whiter than white as regards his dealing with the Argentinian military junta.
What Argentinian military junta? Unless they've had a coup in the last few minutes, they were gone thirty years ago.
Having just returned from a month in Buenos Aires, I would note that it is still a topic of conversation-- with about 12,000 or more dead, and evidence still coming forth, I would not be surprised. Still, it will be interesting to see if the cause of the Bishop of La Rioja makes any headway.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
You've just given away your agenda. I prefer fidelity to the plain words of Scripture to satisfying the preoccupations of the Sexual Revolution and the post-60s culture which has all but wiped out Christianity, Roman or Anglican or anything else, in the West.
I know not many will thank me for saying this, but I'm afraid it is all very true and very sad IMO. You only have to look at all the empty pews and churches shutting down to see this - if you have eyes to see.
How on earth can we seriously talk about an "orthodoxy" which changes all the time to suit the ever changing culture of the times? What sort of "orthodoxy" has to make itself relevant to the people it serves?
Isn't it people who have to change, with the help of God - rather than the Church's message which has to change?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The Church Times, among others, are running a story that the Anglican Bishop of Argentina reports:
"[the then Cardinal] called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate was quite unnecessary, and that the Church needs us as Anglicans."
Anyone have any thoughts on the implications of this statement or what it might mean, both for the ordinariate and for relations between Rome and Anglicanism?
Two thoughts: (1) It is a mark of maturity to befriend someone who has a great deal in common, although not everything in common, and work together as far as possible, without assuming that the differences are not worth discussing and maintaining.
(2) Maybe the Roman Catholic Church needs Anglicans as Anglicans in the same way that chemists need test tubes: to observe what happens with an experimental mixture, specifically the ordination of women. I used to think that experience was clearly showing the experiment to be a failure, compared to the healthier condition of the Roman Catholic church as a control group. But lately I'm not so sure of that. The experiment isn't over yet.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Would that the Roman Catholic Church were healthier than the rest of us, but that is not the case. It shares Protestantism's pattern of growing well in the Third World, while shrinking at a pretty breath-taking rate in the West.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Isn't it people who have to change, with the help of God - rather than the Church's message which has to change?
Getting dead horsey I'm afraid, but no, the Church's message that love is supreme must not change. The Church must change wherever it has failed to live and teach that message, and for a long part of its history it has imposed a hurtful and loveless judgement on gay people, divorced people, women and many others.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Strange, I was a member of the Church of England for 27 years and saw little sign of the "defilement" you describe, Indifferently. The gospel was preached in word and sacrament, the ancient creeds believed and recited. As far as I'm aware the teaching was orthodox. What did you have in mind? Is it just that the CofE isn't unpleasant enough to gay people and women for your liking or did you have something else in mind?
You've just given away your agenda. I prefer fidelity to the plain words of Scripture to satisfying the preoccupations of the Sexual Revolution and the post-60s culture which has all but wiped out Christianity, Roman or Anglican or anything else, in the West.
And it looks to me like you've just given away your agenda, Indifferently,
[ 14. March 2013, 20:26: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
You've just given away your agenda. I prefer fidelity to the plain words of Scripture to satisfying the preoccupations of the Sexual Revolution and the post-60s culture which has all but wiped out Christianity, Roman or Anglican or anything else, in the West.
I know not many will thank me for saying this, but I'm afraid it is all very true and very sad IMO. You only have to look at all the empty pews and churches shutting down to see this - if you have eyes to see.
How on earth can we seriously talk about an "orthodoxy" which changes all the time to suit the ever changing culture of the times? What sort of "orthodoxy" has to make itself relevant to the people it serves?
Isn't it people who have to change, with the help of God - rather than the Church's message which has to change?
Yes. I think the question here is ultimately about authority: who is authoritative? It seems some Christians take more heed of Antonio Gramsci than they do Augustine. They have adapted and co-opted the fashions of this godless age and applied it to Christianity which, being a rather bad fit, has driven people out of the pews and into agnosticism and atheism. This is no coincidence.
St Vincent of Lerins advises, prudently:
"Let us hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all, for that is truly and properly Catholic."
Our Lord tells us to deny ourselves, take up our Cross, and follow him. Him. Where does he manifest himself? In his Church. Authority is vested in ecumenical councils, the wisdom of our Church Fathers, and the Holy Scriptures. It is only the last fifty years out of the two thousand year history of the Church (and the much longer history of Israel before it) that these fashions have overtaken our faith.
And yet, those of us on the same side as most of the Christians who have ever lived (and, globally, most alive today) are called bigots and reactionaries.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
In other words, Alogon, we should not think of the Roman Catholic Church (or Eastern Orthodox for that matter) as being "separatist" in the same way as the Free Presbyterian Church or the Exclusive Brethren.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
One or two thoughts that he may not be whiter than white as regards his dealing with the Argentinian military junta.
What Argentinian military junta? Unless they've had a coup in the last few minutes, they were gone thirty years ago.
Benedict XVI got it in the neck for being in the Hitler Youth 70-odd years ago. 30 years is barely just yesterday. Why should this Pope be treated any different.
I'm surprised he hasn't already been called to Hell for something, whether sexual, financial, strangling kittens or not being nasty enough about Rupert Murdoch.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
...It is only the last fifty years out of the two thousand year history of the Church (and the much longer history of Israel before it) that these fashions have overtaken our faith.
It is alarming how much has changed in my short lifetime - what will it be like by the time my life comes to an end? I've no idea.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
If you all you want to do is "tell it like it is" to all the defiled Anglicans, a blog would probably serve your purposes better.
[ 14. March 2013, 20:43: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you all you want to do is "tell it like it is" to all the defiled Anglicans, a blog would probably serve your purposes better.
As I have pointed out to you earlier in this thread, this topic is presumably about Anglican-Roman relations under the new pope, which we are entitled to be optimistic about. I simply stated a few caveats and home truths which both sides will have to accept. It has long been the case. I find relations with Roman Catholics interesting, and yes, it is divisive and sad that we are separated politically from one another in the Body of Christ, but that there is a way forward.
Let's not be too negative.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Let's not be too negative.
See, you can't call people defiled apostates and then complain that people are being negative. YOU are the one shutting down conversation because you can only spew hatred against people you disagree with.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Less sectarianism please.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Less sectarianism please.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
Alas, we are members of the same sect.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you all you want to do is "tell it like it is" to all the defiled Anglicans, a blog would probably serve your purposes better.
Indifferently is an anglican himself, so has a right to comment on what he feels is wrong with his own church (apologies if it is a 'her'.) I'm being more cautious about what I say for obvious reasons.
Anyway, back to the thread topic, it does seem a peculiar thing for the then Cardinal to say, despite the fact that I would guess Anglicans are far more orthodox in Argentina than in the UK and US/Canada. It is peculiar because I would have thought Anglicans and Roman Catholics had very different views on the nature of the Church.
Even so, there are many causes for which Catholics and Anglicans can work together, indeed should, all over the world. However, to identify both as comprising "the Church" seems rather uncatholic.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Rephrase, if you feel the need to comprehensively denigrate each other - do it in hell- not here.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Let's not be too negative.
See, you can't call people defiled apostates and then complain that people are being negative. YOU are the one shutting down conversation because you can only spew hatred against people you disagree with.
Outsiders are looking at Anglicanism in despair. The excellent Douglas Wilson wrote of his love for genuine Anglican faith, and contrasted it to what was largely on offer at the moment. Roman Catholics must be doing the same. The whole impetus for the Ordinariate is dissatisfaction with certain tendencies within the Anglican communion, which is on the brink of breaking up thanks to innovators in the Western countries.
The Pope can be a centre of unity, if what he says to Greg Venables remains his opinion. We have a great deal to work with. But until certain groups turn and repent, that is simply never going to happen. There are people who can remember Eastern Orthodox Christians being allowed to take communion in Anglican parishes in the mid-20th century. Does that happen these days? No. Which group has innovated and changed its doctrines? I'll give you a clue - it isn't them.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
...It is only the last fifty years out of the two thousand year history of the Church (and the much longer history of Israel before it) that these fashions have overtaken our faith.
It is alarming how much has changed in my short lifetime - what will it be like by the time my life comes to an end? I've no idea.
Yes, it has changed. Women wear pants, preachify and celebrate eucharist and dream of futures besides maybe be granted shoes to wear in the kitchen. And men and women don't get arrested and charged with criminal offences if they hold hands and love another man or woman. We are allowed to create barriers between sperms and eggs such that people can enjoy sex without fear and babies. First Nations people in Canada can leave Indian Reserves without having to show a pass. Women can go into a pub without a male escort. Priests now get charged if they fuck or suck a child.
Which part of this fools golden age did you want to retain? I opt for some of the music and some of the liturgy. But that's obtainable on the internet.
Churches in many places where they are thriving are refuges for the poor and the suffering. We in the west are neither poor nor suffering enough to have this affect us.
[ 14. March 2013, 21:06: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Indifferently, is there a particular point in history where you consider the Church of England to have been the beacon of orthodoxy you desire? Do you consider it to have been, at that time, totally unified and correct in its doctrines? And, lastly, do you have those doctrines in writing or do you infer them?
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Outsiders are looking at Anglicanism in despair.
I rather doubt it. Outsiders aren't looking at Anglicanism at all. They aren't looking at Roman Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, or even Mormonism. Outsiders are living their lives--some of them quite happily--without any religion whatsoever. That's what makes them "outsiders". When we are in this beloved little backwater on the web that we call the Ship, it's easy to forget that.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Outsiders are looking at Anglicanism in despair.
I rather doubt it. Outsiders aren't looking at Anglicanism at all. They aren't looking at Roman Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, or even Mormonism. Outsiders are living their lives--some of them quite happily--without any religion whatsoever. That's what makes them "outsiders". When we are in this beloved little backwater on the web that we call the Ship, it's easy to forget that.
Well, some are looking, and they're mostly saying "why is the CofE so sexist and homophobic?" and "how can the supreme governor of the CofE be a woman but not any of her Bishops?"
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
And hundreds of years ago, the Roman Catholics in Portugal, my husband's family, were Jewish and were told they would be killed, and so they became Roman Catholic. Much later, more near the time now, they became Anglicans and Baptists in Calcutta. They still didn't like the Roman Catholic ideas.
Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Outsiders are looking at Anglicanism in despair.
I rather doubt it. Outsiders aren't looking at Anglicanism at all. They aren't looking at Roman Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, or even Mormonism. Outsiders are living their lives--some of them quite happily--without any religion whatsoever. That's what makes them "outsiders". When we are in this beloved little backwater on the web that we call the Ship, it's easy to forget that.
And some of us who are insiders are quickly being made to feel that we should be outsiders.
ETA: that meant in general terms, not reflecting anyone in this conversation
[ 14. March 2013, 21:20: Message edited by: Kyzyl ]
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
...It is only the last fifty years out of the two thousand year history of the Church (and the much longer history of Israel before it) that these fashions have overtaken our faith.
It is alarming how much has changed in my short lifetime - what will it be like by the time my life comes to an end? I've no idea.
Yes, it has changed. Women wear pants, preachify and celebrate eucharist and dream of futures besides maybe be granted shoes to wear in the kitchen. And men and women don't get arrested and charged with criminal offences if they hold hands and love another man or woman. We are allowed to create barriers between sperms and eggs such that people can enjoy sex without fear and babies. First Nations people in Canada can leave Indian Reserves without having to show a pass. Women can go into a pub without a male escort. Priests now get charged if they fuck or suck a child.
Which part of this fools golden age did you want to retain? I opt for some of the music and some of the liturgy. But that's obtainable on the internet.
Churches in many places where they are thriving are refuges for the poor and the suffering. We in the west are neither poor nor suffering enough to have this affect us.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
...Churches in many places where they are thriving are refuges for the poor and the suffering.
Yes, and these same churches would usually be far more orthodox than we are used to in the affluent West. Why is that?
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Outsiders are looking at Anglicanism in despair.
What a huge over-generalisation.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
MIND THE DEAD HORSES
quote:
Specifically: biblical inerrancy, homosexuality, the role of women in church and Christian households, creation and evolution, abortion, closed communion and bitching about church music.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyzyl:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Outsiders are looking at Anglicanism in despair.
I rather doubt it. Outsiders aren't looking at Anglicanism at all. They aren't looking at Roman Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, or even Mormonism. Outsiders are living their lives--some of them quite happily--without any religion whatsoever. That's what makes them "outsiders". When we are in this beloved little backwater on the web that we call the Ship, it's easy to forget that.
And some of us who are insiders are quickly being made to feel that we should be outsiders.
ETA: that meant in general terms, not reflecting anyone in this conversation
I totally agree with you there. As I said, my place in the C of E is pretty much a ghetto.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
One or two thoughts that he may not be whiter than white as regards his dealing with the Argentinian military junta.
What Argentinian military junta? Unless they've had a coup in the last few minutes, they were gone thirty years ago.
Benedict XVI got it in the neck for being in the Hitler Youth 70-odd years ago. 30 years is barely just yesterday. Why should this Pope be treated any different.
I'm surprised he hasn't already been called to Hell for something, whether sexual, financial, strangling kittens or not being nasty enough about Rupert Murdoch.
He's apparently made some disagreeable* remarks about ownership of the Falkland Islands. It would be unfortunate if he repeated them as Pope. I hope that sleeping dog is left to lie.
*Well, disagreeable if you're mainstream British, anyway.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What a sadly and ominously portentously disappointing thread.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
They have adapted and co-opted the fashions of this godless age and applied it to Christianity which, being a rather bad fit, has driven people out of the pews and into agnosticism and atheism.
An atheist who shows love for all is more Godly than a Christian who shows hate for some. If that's the kind of godlessness you decry, I say lets have more of it.
[ 14. March 2013, 22:45: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What a sadly and ominously portentously disappointing thread.
Yes, 'fraid so. Keep calm and carry on: as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. ( or as I used to think as a wee bairn, "as it was in the beginning, is now an ever-shouting world without end".
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
They have adapted and co-opted the fashions of this godless age and applied it to Christianity which, being a rather bad fit, has driven people out of the pews and into agnosticism and atheism.
An atheist who shows love for all is more Godly than a Christian who shows hate for some. If that's the kind of godlessness you decry, I say lets have more of it.
Amen.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
He's apparently made some disagreeable* remarks about ownership of the Falkland Islands. It would be unfortunate if he repeated them as Pope. I hope that sleeping dog is left to lie.
I put those down to reflexive Argentine nationalism from a poor student of history. I very much doubt he will be mentioning the Islands again now that he is Pope.
(The Falkland Islands were uninhabited, and showed no evidence of occupation when they were settled by the British and French in the 18th century. The French claim was soon ceded to Spain. The various wars of the late 18th century caused both countries to withdraw their settlers whilst maintaining their territorial claims.
The United Provinces of the River Plate first laid claim to the islands in 1820, but no settlement was established until 1828, when a German merchant set up a settlement with the authorization of both what was now called Argentina and the UK.
In 1833, direct British authority was established on the islands, and has remained ever since.
The Argentine claim to sovereignty is a complete fiction based on geographical proximity and a remarkably revisionist approach to history.)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
...Churches in many places where they are thriving are refuges for the poor and the suffering.
Yes, and these same churches would usually be far more orthodox than we are used to in the affluent West. Why is that?
Data please. What countries are you referring to. The ones I've been to spend a lot less time on doctrine and simply do what they are accustomed to doing. I find the same thing in the Canadian north. There's no fancy clothes, no judgementalism and a tendency to either care about the people or to have made a bed in which to count money with the rich.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Geographical proximity? Argentina is about as far from the Falklands as Britain is from the south-west of France. And has a lot less historical connection with the islands than England does with Aquitaine.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
Sorry, 'atheists' are not Godly. And none of us are showing hate for anyone or any group. We are called to embrace sinners despite detesting sin. The Christian must not hate anyone. That does not mean we are called to pretend that sin is holy and heresy is just another *opinion*. To say that this is 'hate' is to actually do something very dangerous indeed.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
The Falkland Islanders have now democratically expressed their collective will to remain British. Game over. The Argentines will just have to get used to it ( as though this hasn't long been the reality anyway and certainly since the late war of Argentine aggression. Pope Frank will find it convenient to maintain a discreet silence on the issue, I would think.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
... We are called to embrace sinners...
Speaking as a sinner, I prefer not to have my personal space invaded, thanks.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sorry, 'atheists' are not Godly. And none of us are showing hate for anyone or any group. We are called to embrace sinners despite detesting sin. The Christian must not hate anyone. That does not mean we are called to pretend that sin is holy and heresy is just another *opinion*. To say that this is 'hate' is to actually do something very dangerous indeed.
To refer to other people as defiled apostates is using hateful and cruel language. How is that embracing those sinners, who sin no more than you do?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
The ideas expressed by Indifferently are essentially hypocritical as they mask aggressive drive and hostile affect behind a Christian mask. Not that such cant is unique to his expression of such ideas; it is all too common throughout Christianity -- sadly.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Outsiders are looking at Anglicanism in despair.
What a huge over-generalisation.
I don't think that outsiders notice Anglicanism enough for the despair-generator to kick in. Despairing about Anglicanism is an Anglican specialty.
Apropos the Falklands, let's see if he raises it from an apostolic prefecture to a diocese and then attaches it as a suffagan to Buenos Aires.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
What a bizarre thread - lots of aggro, thinly veiled, and reproachful phrases about Christians who have diverged, or society as a whole which has jumped into Satan's cave.
I'm always amazed at how unattractive Christianity can appear. Ah well. I think it's partly the interwobble wot does it.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
My major worry is that this pope, coming from a poorer country where Anglicanism is relatively undefiled, will assume the Papal office, have to deal with Kathy and Justin - who now tells us he's only against gay marriage because it's not equal enough! - and decide that the previous popes had it right about us all along.
What did previous popes think about us? How would it affect us if Francis I adopted their thinking?
And do you call the U.S. Presiding Bishop "Kathy" because you know her so well?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm always amazed at how unattractive Christianity can appear. Ah well. I think it's partly the interwobble wot does it.
Indeed. No wonder we can get only a homeless rabbi and criminal to stand up for us.
[ 15. March 2013, 00:24: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm always amazed at how unattractive Christianity can appear. Ah well. I think it's partly the interwobble wot does it.
Indeed. No wonder we can only get a homeless rabbi and criminal to stand up for us.
I haven't a clue what you mean by that, or what connection it has with my post. Why be so cryptic?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I haven't a clue what you mean by that, or what connection it has with my post. Why be so cryptic?
I was agreeing that the Church is very unattractive. So unattractive, in fact, that the only sucker that would stand up for us was, as The Silent Acolyte likes to say, a second-rate Jew who was a criminal. That is- Jesus.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sorry, 'atheists' are not Godly.
Surely they can be, though? After all, "everyone who loves is born of God and knows God."
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
My major worry is that this pope, coming from a poorer country where Anglicanism is relatively undefiled, will assume the Papal office, have to deal with Kathy and Justin
++Katherine to you. Have some respect.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
My major worry is that this pope, coming from a poorer country where Anglicanism is relatively undefiled, will assume the Papal office, have to deal with Kathy and Justin
++Katherine to you. Have some respect.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I wondered who Kathy and Justin were. Wow, sleazy stuff.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
My major worry is that this pope, coming from a poorer country where Anglicanism is relatively undefiled, will assume the Papal office, have to deal with Kathy and Justin
++Katherine to you. Have some respect.
Christian bishops do not sell church property to Muslims in order to spite their former tenants for daring to actually assert the Christian faith. I will not respect someone who is preaching against the Gospel and undermining Christianity and the Anglican Communion.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
My major worry is that this pope, coming from a poorer country where Anglicanism is relatively undefiled, will assume the Papal office, have to deal with Kathy and Justin
++Katherine to you. Have some respect.
Christian bishops do not sell church property to Muslims in order to spite their former tenants for daring to actually assert the Christian faith. I will not respect someone who is preaching against the Gospel and undermining Christianity and the Anglican Communion.
Details (with citation or link) please. (And i doubt the Anglican Communion needs you to defend it.)
[ 15. March 2013, 02:09: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
My major worry is that this pope, coming from a poorer country where Anglicanism is relatively undefiled, will assume the Papal office, have to deal with Kathy and Justin
++Katherine to you. Have some respect.
Christian bishops do not sell church property to Muslims in order to spite their former tenants for daring to actually assert the Christian faith. I will not respect someone who is preaching against the Gospel and undermining Christianity and the Anglican Communion.
Details (with citation or link) please. (And i doubt the Anglican Communion needs you to defend it.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576614932308302042.html
"When the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, N.Y., left the Episcopal Church over disagreements about what the Bible says about sexuality, the congregation offered to pay for the building in which it worshiped. In return the Episcopal Church sued to seize the building, then sold it for a fraction of the price to someone who turned it into a mosque."
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
This link gives more details, TEC was so determined to spite them that they sold the building for a fraction of the price, when the congregation was willing to actually pay them for it:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12334#.UUKFOxyeOfI
Litigious Kathy certainly prefers this policy to actually allowing Christians to use their buildings.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Fail. the Church of the Good Shepherd wasn't closed in spite for preaching the Gospel. The building was sold because the majority its congregation left, and the bishop didn't have an Episcopal congregation to put in it anymore. And, furthermore, I don't recall Bishop Schori actually having anything to do with that case.
[ 15. March 2013, 02:23: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Indifferently, I am a liberal Anglo-Catholic. I have many conservative evangelical friends. Your conservatism is not an issue here. However, calling people defiled apostates behind their back (do you go round the local AffCath places calling them this to their faces?) and implying that ++Katherine isn't a Real Christian is spectacularly unkind, unjust and un-Christian. Would it hurt to speak charitably about those who have the temerity to disagree with you? Anglicanism is SUPPOSED to be a broad church, we are supposed to have differing beliefs within the church and inevitably that leads to disagreements about Dead Horse topics. They're not doing it to piss you off, they just disagree with you on some things. Why is that not OK?
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Indifferently,
First, the Episcopal Church USA is not congregationalist. If the folks who left are so all-fired staunch in their beliefs, surely they ought to welcome being able to nobly sacrifice material property (that belongs to the whole church, not to them). ++Katherine's responsibility is to the church communion she has been called to lead, not to "an organization that wants to put us out of business." Certainly the Episcopal Church would truly be a nasty un-Christian body if the kind of folks you champion were to take it over.
Second, you cite as a source one of Rupert Murdoch's publications, which may have its own agenda in the way they present this story.
Third, of course a little cheap Islamaphobia doesn't hurt, does it?
Lastly, do you have long-distance ESP to presume hidden motives of spite on the part of the Presiding Bishop?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Indifferently, if what you allege we're true, there would be no accounting for TEC and its Diocese of Maryland reaching a very generous settlement with Mount Calvary, Baltimore in respect to the parish's real property. They have been allowed to leave with the building, with the diocese only requiring first right of refusal in the event the now-Ordinariate parish should decide to sell the property in the future.
Please stop slandering the Episcopal Church. As I recall it is considered a sin to bear false witness.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Indifferently, if what you allege we're true, there would be no accounting for TEC and its Diocese of Maryland reaching a very generous settlement with Mount Calvary, Baltimore in respect to the parish's real property. They have been allowed to leave with the building, with the diocese only requiring first right of refusal in the event the now-Ordinariate parish should decide to sell the property in the future.
Please stop slandering the Episcopal Church. As I recall it is considered a sin to bear false witness.
So they will give a parish to a group moving into the Church of Rome, but not one choosing to actually remain Anglican?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Indifferently, if what you allege we're true, there would be no accounting for TEC and its Diocese of Maryland reaching a very generous settlement with Mount Calvary, Baltimore in respect to the parish's real property. They have been allowed to leave with the building, with the diocese only requiring first right of refusal in the event the now-Ordinariate parish should decide to sell the property in the future.
Please stop slandering the Episcopal Church. As I recall it is considered a sin to bear false witness.
So they will give a parish to a group moving into the Church of Rome, but not one choosing to actually remain Anglican?
A parish that you agree with is getting to stay in their own church building. Do you think they should be made homeless just because they joined the Ordinariate? The Anglican church is not the One True Church, members of the Ordinariate - no matter how much I may disagree with them - are still my siblings in Christ and the RCC is not apostate but a Christian church sustained by God Almighty as He sustains our church. Allowing a now Ordinariate parish to stay in their church building seems like generosity and kindness on the part of TEC.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I'm beginning to get the impression that Indifferently is the Anglican equivalent of a sedevacantist.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yes, and these same churches would usually be far more orthodox than we are used to in the affluent West. Why is that?
Data please...
I was going by the law of averages, but seeing as you ask let's start with Uganda. Why do you imply that churches which care about the poor more than money cannot be orthodox?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Litigious Kathy certainly prefers this policy to actually allowing Christians to use their buildings.
You're doing yourself no favours by refering to the American TEC primate as "Kathy" - why not just Katharine Jefferts Schori?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I get twitchy when people start referring to the 'plain words' of anything in argument, never mind the plain words of Scripture.
If words were plain I'd be out of a job.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yes, and these same churches would usually be far more orthodox than we are used to in the affluent West. Why is that?
Data please...
I was going by the law of averages, but seeing as you ask let's start with Uganda. Why do you imply that churches which care about the poor more than money cannot be orthodox?
If your definition of orthodoxy includes backing the judicial murder of gay people then I'm glad to be heterodox.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If your definition of orthodoxy includes backing the judicial murder of gay people then I'm glad to be heterodox.
It doesn't - next question?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If your definition of orthodoxy includes backing the judicial murder of gay people then I'm glad to be heterodox.
It doesn't - next question?
The next question is easy - "In that case, why did you give Uganda as your only example of orthodoxy?"
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Litigious Kathy certainly prefers this policy to actually allowing Christians to use their buildings.
You're doing yourself no favours by refering to the American TEC primate as "Kathy" - why not just Katharine Jefferts Schori?
It's to show contempt, isn't it? This is one of those Christian virtues which you hear about, in action!
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
My major worry is that this pope, coming from a poorer country where Anglicanism is relatively undefiled, will assume the Papal office, have to deal with Kathy and Justin - who now tells us he's only against gay marriage because it's not equal enough! - and decide that the previous popes had it right about us all along. Time will tell.
Indifferently has a point (although it wouldn't kill him/her to refer to Bishop Schori and Archbishop Taylor by their proper titles).
And it's this: the Roman Catholic Church is not going to change its position on women's ordination, same-sex marriage and abortion. It's all very well castigating 'conservative evangelicals' for these beliefs but the RCC holds these beliefs too, and it won't be budging on them. Ever.
Which is one of the reasons why I respect it, actually. (Without necessarily agreeing on every point.)
I would be delighted if Pope Francis is more ecumenical and open to relations with the Anglican Church than Pope Benedict seemed to be*, but I don't expect it. It's not down to me to tell Catholics how to run their church.
The new Pope does seem to have had good relationships with Jews and Protestants though. Which is all to the good. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
* On paper, at least. Benedict was strict in his beliefs but courteous towards the Anglicans and leaders of other faiths when he visited England.
[ 15. March 2013, 09:48: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Does anyone seriously imagine that if the Anglican Church consistently adopted exactly the same position as the RCC on the Dead Horse issues, union with Rome would be one whit likelier?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The next question is easy - "In that case, why did you give Uganda as your only example of orthodoxy?"
Are there no other issues in the African continent to worry about, like war, terrorism, famine, malnutrition, poverty, clean water, AIDS - why do people keep banging on about gay rights as if it's the only thing that matters?
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
There will be no change in Rome's ecumenical policy towards Anglicanism (or any of the other mainline Protestant denominations). Ecumenical efforts will continue to be directed primarily eastward where there is scope for actual progress.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Does anyone seriously imagine that if the Anglican Church consistently adopted exactly the same position as the RCC on the Dead Horse issues, union with Rome would be one whit likelier?
Well if they adopted the same line the theoretical possibility of reunion in the future would remain open, if not necessarily likelier.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The next question is easy - "In that case, why did you give Uganda as your only example of orthodoxy?"
Are there no other issues in the African continent to worry about, like war, terrorism, famine, malnutrition, poverty, clean water, AIDS - why do people keep banging on about gay rights as if it's the only thing that matters?
I haven't noticed people saying that it's the only issue that matters. Who says that?
I think people are concerned about gay rights in place like Uganda, as there seems to be a persecution of gays, extending to imprisonment, and even the death penalty.
Furthermore, it appears that some Christians support this persecution, so naturally enough, there is going to be vociferous protest at that.
[ 15. March 2013, 10:13: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
why do people keep banging on about gay rights as if it's the only thing that matters?
Because it is the easiest one to tackle, you just have to decide not to treat people differently because of something they do that doesn't involve you in any way. I don't know about you but I find that easier than curing AIDS.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Does anyone seriously imagine that if the Anglican Church consistently adopted exactly the same position as the RCC on the Dead Horse issues, union with Rome would be one whit likelier?
Well if they adopted the same line the theoretical possibility of reunion in the future would remain open, if not necessarily likelier.
But that possibility isn't open and never has been. It's closed by disagreements on issues such as:
- The authority of the Pope.
- The infallibility of the Pope.
- The authority of councils subsequent to those allowed by the Thirty-Nine Articles.
- Purgatory.
- Indulgences.
- The nature of Holy Communion.
- The validity of Anglican orders.
- The nature of the sacraments other than Baptism and Holy Communion.
- Etc ...
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Those banging on about 'orothodoxy' with regard to Anglicanism need a history lesson (if not a dictionary). Authentic Anglican orthodoxy would naturally have had nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome and his 'abuses' of the sacraments and church institution. For 'plain' meaning, the 39 articles is the only place for a so-called orthodox Anglican to begin - and presumably end.
Whereas I can't recognize which species of 'orthodoxy' Indifferently is referring to. At any rate it would be helpful if all this talk of 'orthodoxy' with regard to the Anglican Church could at least be used accurately and with some proper reference to the history and real meaning of the terms?
And, no, Indifferently, you don't 'tell it like it is'. You tell 'it' how you see 'it', and how you've taken 'it' on board from others. It's more than likely that if any of us actually saw 'it' how it really is, we'd be so horrified at ourselves and humbled, we'd shut the hell up.
And, btw, to date, 'it' from your perspective is sounding suspiciously like every other sectarian truther faction that abounds today. For 'defiled apostate' read 'lizard people'. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I haven't noticed people saying that it's the only issue that matters. Who says that?
I think people are concerned about gay rights in place like Uganda, as there seems to be a persecution of gays, extending to imprisonment, and even the death penalty.
Furthermore, it appears that some Christians support this persecution, so naturally enough, there is going to be vociferous protest at that.
It's a shame we don't have a more stable platform from which to speak out about the things going on in Uganda. We want to preach right and wrong to others, yet the same issues have us in a quandary in this country (the UK) with no consensus in sight. So we seem to use up all our time discussing the gay agenda, forcing through new laws, but giving ourselves no time to deal with any other, perhaps more important issues.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Are there no other issues in the African continent to worry about, like war, terrorism, famine, malnutrition, poverty, clean water, AIDS - why do people keep banging on about gay rights as if it's the only thing that matters?
So, on the one hand, it's so important that policy towards gays is the proof of TEC's apostasy, and on the other hand, it's so unimportant that it doesn't matter if a few gays get lynched?
Do you genuinely not see the double standard?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So, on the one hand, it's so important that policy towards gays is the proof of TEC's apostasy, and on the other hand, it's so unimportant that it doesn't matter if a few gays get lynched?
Do you genuinely not see the double standard?
Do you genuinely not see that you're putting words into my mouth which I never actually said?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The next question is easy - "In that case, why did you give Uganda as your only example of orthodoxy?"
Are there no other issues in the African continent to worry about, like war, terrorism, famine, malnutrition, poverty, clean water, AIDS - why do people keep banging on about gay rights as if it's the only thing that matters?
You should get out more - meet more people, apparently. The only place I find open discussion on gay rights is on the internet at the moment. There is some at Synod, sometimes, but I wouldn't describe that as open discussion necessarily!
OTOH, the ordinary church congregations I know focus pretty much on the other things you mention. So much easier to put a couple of euro in the retiring collection for famine relief than facing up to the fact that someone in your family is gay. But of course, it isn't a choice. We don't either send off a cheque to Water Aid OR treat gay people as if they're human beings. It is possible to do both. If we really want to.
The problem is many Christians don't really want to.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Does anyone seriously imagine that if the Anglican Church consistently adopted exactly the same position as the RCC on the Dead Horse issues, union with Rome would be one whit likelier?
Well if they adopted the same line the theoretical possibility of reunion in the future would remain open, if not necessarily likelier.
If the Anglican Communion did move closer (or move backwards) to an increasingly similar view to the RCC, it would, of course, no longer be the Anglican Church. Some of us really do prefer to be where we are because it is not any other Church. The future for all Churches and denominations is not synchronization, it's respect. It is the Spirit of God who unites, not any one form of institutionalism or traditionalism.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So, on the one hand, it's so important that policy towards gays is the proof of TEC's apostasy, and on the other hand, it's so unimportant that it doesn't matter if a few gays get lynched?
Do you genuinely not see the double standard?
Do you genuinely not see that you're putting words into my mouth which I never actually said?
You've consistently referred to the lack of orthodoxy of the Anglican church in 'the West' compared to its orthodoxy in the developing world. What could this refer to other than its opinions of homosexuality?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I'm curious what this term 'orthodox' means in this context. What does this 'undefiled' Anglicanism involve, apart from a condemnation of gay sex?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The next question is easy - "In that case, why did you give Uganda as your only example of orthodoxy?"
Are there no other issues in the African continent to worry about, like war, terrorism, famine, malnutrition, poverty, clean water, AIDS - why do people keep banging on about gay rights as if it's the only thing that matters?
You haven't answered the question I asked, which means you've missed the point I was making. Allow me to attempt to make it a bit clearer.
The Ugandan church supports the judicial murder of gay people.
You held up the Ugandan church as an example of the orthodoxy you are talking about.
You then deny that the judicial murder of gay people is part of the orthodoxy you're talking about.
Note the word "part".
Which of your comments is true, Mark? You can't have both. If the Ugandan church is an exemplar of the orthodoxy you espouse, then that orthodoxy includes support for the judicial murder of gay people. If said judicial murders are not part of the orthodoxy you support, then the Ugandan church cannot be an exemplar thereof.
Choose.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Added to which I'd be interested to know how the church's stance on terrorism, famine or clean water was a useful way to distinguish the orthdoxy of Uganda from the unorthodoxy of UK Anglicanism, for instance.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Perhaps Uganda wasn't the best choice - shall we try Kenya?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
It may be worth noting that it is not the Church in Uganda which is the cause of persecution of gay/lesbian people - that is caused by the culture and the government.
So just as in Nazi Germany, the more progressive churches cosied up to Hitler, and in more secular atheistic countries progressive churches cosy up to liberalism and abandon their traditions, so we can't be too surprised the same happens in Uganda.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
There will be no change in Rome's ecumenical policy towards Anglicanism (or any of the other mainline Protestant denominations). Ecumenical efforts will continue to be directed primarily eastward where there is scope for actual progress.
Alas, CL, having followed this for some years, the RCs have the same problem with the Orthodox as they do with the Anglicans, viz., the role of the Pope. I actually see slightly more likelihood of TEC accepting the papal magisterium than I do the Patriarchate of Moscow. The only way ahead for RC/Orthodox relations is patriarchate to patriarchate, such as the Melkites and Antiochians are working out. What might be more important is how the new Pope approaches Judaism and Islam.
I don't want to touch the horse which seems to be the other topic of this thread, but I cannot find anything suggesting that the Ugandan church has endorsed the death penalty for gays and I am going to give up looking for it.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It may be worth noting that it is not the Church in Uganda which is the cause of persecution of gay/lesbian people - that is caused by the culture and the government.
So just as in Nazi Germany, the more progressive churches cosied up to Hitler, and in more secular atheistic countries progressive churches cosy up to liberalism and abandon their traditions, so we can't be too surprised the same happens in Uganda.
I think you're implying that the "more progressive churches" are cozying up to the Ugandan government's bill, and that explains why Anglicans would support it. The problem with that is that Anglicans in Uganda seem split or rather quiet on it. From the Wikipedia page, which refers to a few news sources:
quote:
Following private discussions with the Ugandan Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams has said in a public interview that he did not see how any Anglican could support it: "Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can’t see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades. Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible – it seeks to turn pastors into informers."[66]
Divisions emerged in the Anglican community however. In response to the Anglican Church of Canada intervention, the Bishop of Karamoja Diocese, Joseph Abura, wrote an editorial saying, "Ugandan Parliament, the watch dog of our laws, please go ahead and put the anti-Gay laws in place. It is then that we become truly accountable to our young and to this country, not to Canada or England. We are in charge!"[67] While the Anglican Church in Uganda opposes the death penalty, its archbishop, Henry Luke Orombi, has not taken a position on the bill.[68] Some individuals within the Anglican church, such as retired bishop Christopher Senyonjo, from the West Buganda diocese, have been vocally opposed to the bill and supportive of LGBT rights in Uganda. In 2010, Bishop Senyonjo was touring the United States to draw attention to the bill.[69]
It's American evangelicals who have been pushing for the bill. Who are, in your view...less or more progressive than Ugandan Anglicans? I'm not really sure how it plays out in your theory.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Non-orthodox = evil. Pretty simple.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So just as in Nazi Germany, the more progressive churches cosied up to Hitler, and in more secular atheistic countries progressive churches cosy up to liberalism and abandon their traditions, so we can't be too surprised the same happens in Uganda.
Hang on a minute. You were holding them up as exemplars of orthodoxy just a few hours ago, and now you're dismissing them as progressive? Make your mind up.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Non-orthodox = evil. Pretty simple.
Thank goodness for some clarity on the issue. And Indifferently says, 'I will tell it like it is', which is also wonderfully clear. I feel better now, as my qualms about what is orthodox and what is not have been resolved.
And, let me add, I think it's wonderful that there are still some orthodox people around to light the way for the endarkened.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
It's American evangelicals who have been pushing for the bill. Who are, in your view...less or more progressive than Ugandan Anglicans? I'm not really sure how it plays out in your theory.
I really don't know - I can imagine american evangelicals having a knee-jerk reaction to anything espoused by TEC - I suppose both are progressive, but towards the opposite extremes.
How can I comment on the Anglican church in Uganda when the Americans claim to be their 'voice' while they themselves don't even seem to be involved?
A lot depends too, I suppose, on which media sources you use.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So just as in Nazi Germany, the more progressive churches cosied up to Hitler, . . .
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
??? Is there a full moon?
That sounds like one of the most manifestly false, opposite-from-historically-factual statements i think i've ever heard on the Ship. How the heck are you defining "progressive" in the context of German history of the 1930s?
I guess the Confessing Church supported by Bonhoeffer et al. was a regressive church.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
How the heck are you defining "progressive" in the context of German history of the 1930s?
In any context, he appears to be defining it as "following the prevailing social norms". Which is, evidently, a bad thing.
One wonders what the reaction would be if the prevailing social norm showed a definite tendency towards charity and care for the poor. Would the churches have to reject both to avoid falling into the evils of "progressiveness"?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So just as in Nazi Germany, the more progressive churches cosied up to Hitler, and in more secular atheistic countries progressive churches cosy up to liberalism and abandon their traditions, so we can't be too surprised the same happens in Uganda.
Poe and Goodwin in one foul swoop.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Plus supreme illogicality. No hang on, there is a logic here - 'progressive' means exactly what I say it means, and I feel free to change this. So there.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
Anglicans make up about a third of the Ugandan population, Roman Catholics another 2/5s (Muslims make up only about 10-15% of the population) and virtually everyone else is some other variety of Christian. BTW most of the parts of the Ugandan church that are against the death penalty for gays aren't against most of the rest of the bill which includes severe penalties for those who don't turn in gays to the police (some oppose this at least for priests who find out), allow them to live in their houses or rent from them, support gay rights, etc. Canon Gideon Byamugisha is the only prominent one that I know of still in the Church of Uganda who has spoken out against the entire bill (Bishop Senyonjo is no longer part of the Church according to the Church).
BTW the Church in both Uganda and Kenya ordains women as priests. I'm glad to know Mark Betts considers that orthodox.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
How the heck are you defining "progressive" in the context of German history of the 1930s?
In any context, he appears to be defining it as "following the prevailing social norms". Which is, evidently, a bad thing.
Quite right, that is what I was trying to say. It can be a bad thing when the country is en masse moving away from traditional morality into, shall we say, 'new' experimental morality.
quote:
One wonders what the reaction would be if the prevailing social norm showed a definite tendency towards charity and care for the poor. Would the churches have to reject both to avoid falling into the evils of "progressiveness"?
You mean, where society is moving towards more christian morality (instead of greed/consumerism?) Why should there be any reaction at all? But now you are being disingenuous concerning how one defines "progressive." Well done.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Quite right, that is what I was trying to say. It can be a bad thing when the country is en masse moving away from traditional morality into, shall we say, 'new' experimental morality.
Spiritual apathy/complacency is not the same thing as progressiveness.
The German churches of the 1930s have a case to answer for, sure. Maybe they didn't speak out against the encroaching horror for fear they would be persecuted themselves. Sadly, some seem to have capitulated to the prevailing Nazi ideology. Whatever the reasons, it was a horrible, historical fail.
But I can hardly imagine those churches were taking a liberal attitude towards sex before marriage, or homosexuality.* Their problem wasn't capitulating to liberalism (I would hardly describe the Reich as 'liberal'. ) Their problem was moral and spiritual cowardice in the face of a viciously racist, deeply malevolent regime.
* The Reich's own murderous attitude towards gay people need hardly be spelt out.
[ 15. March 2013, 13:55: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Whelp, comparisons between Anglicanism and Naziism have been drawn, so I think we can officially declare it hopelessly gone. I wonder what this thread would have looked like if it had been about the topic of the OP and hadn't turned into a fight about Indifferently's hangups.
[ 15. March 2013, 14:20: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
...I wonder what this thread would have looked like if it had been about the topic of the OP and hadn't turned into a fight about Indifferently's hangups.
I already tried that here but no-one seemed interested.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
...I wonder what this thread would have looked like if it had been about the topic of the OP and hadn't turned into a fight about Indifferently's hangups.
I already tried that here but no-one seemed interested.
You'd be surprised how much being called a defiled, apostate Nazi puts one off dialogue.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You'd be surprised how much being called a defiled, apostate Nazi puts one off dialogue.
Myself and Indifferently aren't in league you know - and stop taking things so personally. Sorry, if that helps.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Whelp, comparisons between Anglicanism and Naziism have been drawn, so I think we can officially declare it hopelessly gone. I wonder what this thread would have looked like if it had been about the topic of the OP and hadn't turned into a fight about Indifferently's hangups.
How to derail a thread in 3 easy lessons:
1. Have a rant about a bee in one's bonnet.
2. Continue having a rant.
3. Paraphrase one's rant.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
4: Wonder why everyone is walking away.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
5. Make a little speech - 'I'm not being hateful; I'm just showing you how things are, and unfortunately, this shows you in a poor light. This is my Christian duty, and boy, does it make me feel better!'
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
OK, I've sat this one out, but, as usual, Mark Betts has pushed me over the limit. Having had some relatives who were proud Nazis, albeit deceased in the last great unpleasantness; being someone who is attempting to support the life of the Anglican Church in my neighbourhood as best I can; having survived the attempt by the ACNA to brand our group as "not really Christian at all"; ...I find it difficult to accept that I am defiled, apostate and a Nazi.
Why do you insist that I not "take it personally"? Or is it just part of your inability to realise that the rest of us are actually real human people who desire some interaction with God? My Orthodox friends, few though they are, are embarrassed by you.
I have gay friends, who are not the spawn of Satan - rather, they are in stable loving relationships and don't say rude things about other peoples' relationships.
I have Muslim friends who never, under any circumstance, belittle other people. Period. They also pray devoutly and to their great inconvenience on some occasions.
Exactly which part of "orthodoxy" for Christians implies the necessity for rudeness, misinformation and the general portrayal of judgmentalism and a lack of the ability to love others?
How does any of your rhetoric show anything of the Love of Christ and the need to work for the Kngdom, here on Earth or in Heaven?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Let's just straighten a few things out, shall we? I never called anyone apostate nor defiled - that was another poster. I was using Nazi Germany as an example of how churches can be influenced by the ever-changing surrounding culture, and suggesting that this can happen anywhere - for good or bad, if a church abandons Holy Tradition. I didn't call any church Nazi, never mind any person.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
and suggesting that this can happen anywhere - for good or bad, if a church abandons Holy Tradition.
Among the traditions that churches can abandon are ones involving loving ones enemies, living the gospel instead of just preaching it, and recognising the distinction between God's authority and Caesar's.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Let's just straighten a few things out, shall we? I never called anyone apostate nor defiled - that was another poster. I was using Nazi Germany as an example of how churches can be influenced by the ever-changing surrounding culture, and suggesting that this can happen anywhere - for good or bad, if a church abandons Holy Tradition. I didn't call any church Nazi, never mind any person.
Didn't the Russian Orthodox church cosy up to the Soviet state as soon as it got the opportunity in WW2? And doesn't the Russian Orthodox church seem to be in lock step with the Kremlin on any number of issues? Why yes, yes it does.
And didn't the Roman Catholic church sign a concordat with the Nazi state promising to keep out of politics if the Nazis left the church alone?
The sin of conforming to the world is one that afflicts every church, but I think in Anglicanism the biggest risk with that is money, rather than sexuality. One wonders, for example, why we pay Bishops more than Priests, when the stipend is meant to be an allowance to live on rather than a financial way to recognise status.
If Mark Betts could identify what is Orthodox about Kenyan or Ugandan Anglicanism as opposed to that in the UK, I'd be interested to know.
Going back to the original topic, I suppose it's a matter of hope for me that there will come a time when all parts of Christ's church may be able to disagree amicably, to argue, to debate, perhaps where there is broad agreement to hold an ecumenical council. I saw the words of the then Cardinal as a tantalising glimmer that he may be prepared to move in that direction.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Our Lord tells us to deny ourselves, take up our Cross, and follow him. Him. Where does he manifest himself? In his Church.
No. He manifests himself in the poor - according to the plain meaning of scripture and, most likely, in the view of our wonderful new pope.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
You were doing very well up to this point Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
...Going back to the original topic, I suppose it's a matter of hope for me that there will come a time when all parts of Christ's church may be able to disagree amicably, to argue, to debate, perhaps where there is broad agreement to hold an ecumenical council. I saw the words of the then Cardinal as a tantalising glimmer that he may be prepared to move in that direction.
Oh dear, you seem to have no idea about how Roman Catholics view the Church, do you. You can't have an Ecumenical Council amongst divided fragments which may or may not be Church, you know. There would have to be reunification first, with everyone under the jurisdiction of the Pope. You see, Roman Catholics don't believe in the "invisible" Church - to them the Church is very visible and you are either in it or outside of it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Didn't Augustine originate the concept of an invisible church? Although of course not quite in the sense that the puritans used the term.
But in either case I don't see how the concept encouraged ecumenism.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You were doing very well up to this point Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
...Going back to the original topic, I suppose it's a matter of hope for me that there will come a time when all parts of Christ's church may be able to disagree amicably, to argue, to debate, perhaps where there is broad agreement to hold an ecumenical council. I saw the words of the then Cardinal as a tantalising glimmer that he may be prepared to move in that direction.
Oh dear, you seem to have no idea about how Roman Catholics view the Church, do you. You can't have an Ecumenical Council amongst divided fragments which may or may not be Church, you know. There would have to be reunification first, with everyone under the jurisdiction of the Pope. You see, Roman Catholics don't believe in the "invisible" Church - to them the Church is very visible and you are either in it or outside of it.
I don't actually have a problem with the jurisdiction of the Pope, so long as it's not the dictatorship of the Pope. Unity doesn't have to mean unanimity. And stating the current official position of the Roman Catholic portion of the church is fairly pointless. I do understand the current official position. I'm hoping that it will evolve over the coming years to something that encourages efforts towards unity. A small step might be to say that converting Anglicans should be conditionally ordained, reflecting your "may or may not be" concern, rather than the current bold and flagrantly false assertion that Anglican orders are "utterly null and void".
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
A small step might be to say that converting Anglicans should be conditionally ordained, reflecting your "may or may not be" concern, rather than the current bold and flagrantly false assertion that Anglican orders are "utterly null and void".
On this: when he was head of the Inquisition, Benedict XVI raised Apostolicae Curae to a level of dogma that all Catholics had to affirmatively assent to (or something like that).
Question: are Catholics required to assert that C of E orders are null and void now, or that C of E orders were null and void in 1896? In other words, can a Catholic licitly believe that the modern C of E has re-acquired valid succession via the Old Catholic union of Utrecht, or not?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
BTW the Church in both Uganda and Kenya ordains women as priests. I'm glad to know Mark Betts considers that orthodox.
They did before we did. In the Anglican communion, East Africa led the way on that. Well, if you ignore China.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
On this: when he was head of the Inquisition....
STOP! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Pope Benedict XVI was nothing to do with any Inquisition, he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Question: are Catholics required to assert that C of E orders are null and void now, or that C of E orders were null and void in 1896? In other words, can a Catholic licitly believe that the modern C of E has re-acquired valid succession via the Old Catholic union of Utrecht, or not?
Sorry to answer a question with another question, but in all seriousness and with the greatest of respect, how can the modern C of E re-acquire valid succession via the Old Catholic union of Utrecht, since they too are out of communion with Rome?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
On this: when he was head of the Inquisition, Benedict XVI raised Apostolicae Curae to a level of dogma that all Catholics had to affirmatively assent to (or something like that).
As head of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger didn't have the power to dogmatize anything. The status of AC as a papal bull made it doctrinally binding.
quote:
Also originally posted by Leorning Cniht: Question: are Catholics required to assert that C of E orders are null and void now, or that C of E orders were null and void in 1896? In other words, can a Catholic licitly believe that the modern C of E has re-acquired valid succession via the Old Catholic union of Utrecht, or not?
The mechanical issue of interrupted succession may have been remedied by the Dutch Touch, but there is still the problem of intent, which is the primary issue in Leo XIII's bull. The ordination of women has further muddied the waters, since Rome will not consider the ordination of women to the sacred ministry valid, nor any ordination performed by a female bishop to be valid.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
On this: when he was head of the Inquisition....
STOP! Pope Benedict XVI was nothing to do with any Inquisition, he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Known as the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition" until the 20th century. Its the same body.
(If you want to defend him, don;'t pretend he wasn't part of the body that used to be called the Inquisition, tell people that it was the utterly unrelated Spanish Inquisition that was the nasty one, not the Roman Inquisition - its almost true and we get to bring out the oldies but goodies...)
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Sorry to answer a question with another question, but in all seriousness and with the greatest of respect, how can the modern C of E re-acquire valid succession via the Old Catholic union of Utrecht, since they too are out of communion with Rome?
As of the late 19th century, Rome considered Old Catholics to be schismatics with valid orders. The outrageous antics of the various vagantes, and the ordination of women, were later developments.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Our Lord tells us to deny ourselves, take up our Cross, and follow him. Him. Where does he manifest himself? In his Church.
No. He manifests himself in the poor - according to the plain meaning of scripture and, most likely, in the view of our wonderful new pope.
If this is the case (and I'm not saying that it necessarily isn't) what happens if / when poverty is abolished? Can Christianity survive the abolition of poverty?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Our Lord tells us to deny ourselves, take up our Cross, and follow him. Him. Where does he manifest himself? In his Church.
No. He manifests himself in the poor - according to the plain meaning of scripture and, most likely, in the view of our wonderful new pope.
If this is the case (and I'm not saying that it necessarily isn't) what happens if / when poverty is abolished? Can Christianity survive the abolition of poverty?
I think leo is referring to Matt 25 v31-end:
quote:
Matthew 25v40:
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
In this he is right, but it isn't the only way our Lord manifests Himself.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Known as the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition" until the 20th century. Its the same body.
(If you want to defend him, don;'t pretend he wasn't part of the body that used to be called the Inquisition, tell people that it was the utterly unrelated Spanish Inquisition that was the nasty one, not the Roman Inquisition - its almost true and we get to bring out the oldies but goodies...)
This is true, but the first thing people will think of is the Spanish Inquisition which is unrelated. it was set up in 1542 by Pope Paul III "to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines."
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I will not respect someone who is preaching against the Gospel and undermining Christianity and the Anglican Communion.
My daddy taught me that if you don't respect someone's views, that is when you treat them with more respect, such as using their proper titles.
It's a similar reason why US Congressional representatives are called "the Honorable Senator So and So" or "The Honorable Representative So and So" even when they are on completely different sides of an issue.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I will not respect someone who is preaching against the Gospel and undermining Christianity and the Anglican Communion.
My daddy taught me that if you don't respect someone's views, that is when you treat them with more respect, such as using their proper titles.
It's a similar reason why US Congressional representatives are called "the Honorable Senator So and So" or "The Honorable Representative So and So" even when they are on completely different sides of an issue.
Yeah, but expectation there is, ideally, sincere, constructive dialogue.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yeah, but expectation there is, ideally, sincere, constructive dialogue.
Hey Zach, you need to get CSPAN.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yeah, but expectation there is, ideally, sincere, constructive dialogue.
Hey Zach, you need to get CSPAN.
He didn't say it was a well-founded expectation. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]The mechanical issue of interrupted succession may have been remedied by the Dutch Touch, but there is still the problem of intent, which is the primary issue in Leo XIII's bull.
My understanding was that the 1662 prayer book remedied the thing that to RC eyes looks like evidence for a lack of intent in the Edwardine prayer book, so that come the Dutch Touch, the form was remedied, and the intent was at least arguably present too. (Not addressing any of the arguments in Saepius Officio, which maintains that nothing was ever lost.)
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I will not respect someone who is preaching against the Gospel and undermining Christianity and the Anglican Communion.
My daddy taught me that if you don't respect someone's views, that is when you treat them with more respect, such as using their proper titles.
It's a similar reason why US Congressional representatives are called "the Honorable Senator So and So" or "The Honorable Representative So and So" even when they are on completely different sides of an issue.
Yeah, but expectation there is, ideally, sincere, constructive dialogue.
Also, the amount of venom one can twist into, say "The Honorable Senator from Kentucky" is epic, if you practice hard enough. Even then, you're calling Rand Paul by his title and not, you know, "The Notorious Jackass and Supreme Ignoramus Rand Paul".
Then again, my daddy also used to say, "Mary, if you aren't going to act like a lady, you will by God act like a gentleman." Which is why I take my hat off when I enter a building and hold doors open for people-- out of basic respect for their dignity as human beings. Even if they are notorious jackasses and supreme ignoramuses.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]The mechanical issue of interrupted succession may have been remedied by the Dutch Touch, but there is still the problem of intent, which is the primary issue in Leo XIII's bull.
My understanding was that the 1662 prayer book remedied the thing that to RC eyes looks like evidence for a lack of intent in the Edwardine prayer book, so that come the Dutch Touch, the form was remedied, and the intent was at least arguably present too. (Not addressing any of the arguments in Saepius Officio, which maintains that nothing was ever lost.)
Well, AC was promulgated in 1896, by which time the 1662 had been in use for over 200 years. It even takes note of the fact that the 1662 had added to the 1559 "for the office and work of a priest," (thus correcting to some extent the form) but still finds it lacking in intent : specifically, the Anglican ordinal still contains reference to Reformed theological ideas which the RCC rejects as errors.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.
I think that the response is more one of resentment at being wilfully misunderstood and the RC position being more political in motivation than theological. We could call that insecurity, I suppose.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Can Christianity survive the abolition of poverty?
Yeah, I lay awake at night worrying about that.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Can Christianity survive the abolition of poverty?
People will always suffer poverty, even if not in monetary terms.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Look, it's right there in the Bible. We will always have the poor with us.
And indeed, in some places there are some conscientious Christians working very hard to ensure that Jesus' remark is fulfilled...
[ 16. March 2013, 01:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.
I think that the response is more one of resentment at being wilfully misunderstood and the RC position being more political in motivation than theological. We could call that insecurity, I suppose.
Well, resent away. Seeing as I don't think the pope has the ability to read the minds of Reformation era bishops, I don't give Leo's ruling any credence. But after 200 years the Roman Catholic Church hasn't budged an inch, so it might be time to move on.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I suppose intention is the million dollar question.
Among high church clergy, there was a consistent belief in the reality of apostolic succession, even if, as Rome argues, the 1662 Prayerbook comes dangerously close to denying the objective reality of the apostolic succession. But then I wouldn't be surprised if there were Roman Catholics who denied transubstantiation. Surely no one is going to argue that the validity of the Eucharist is not dependent on the individual opinions of catholics in the pews.
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.
I think that the response is more one of resentment at being wilfully misunderstood and the RC position being more political in motivation than theological. We could call that insecurity, I suppose.
Well, resent away. Seeing as I don't think the pope has the ability to read the minds of Reformation era bishops, I don't give Leo's ruling any credence. But after 200 years the Roman Catholic Church hasn't budged an inch, so it might be time to move on.
117 years since the declaration and the Catholic view of Anglican orders being invalid goes back much further then 200 years
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.
I think that the response is more one of resentment at being wilfully misunderstood and the RC position being more political in motivation than theological. We could call that insecurity, I suppose.
Well, resent away. Seeing as I don't think the pope has the ability to read the minds of Reformation era bishops, I don't give Leo's ruling any credence. But after 200 years the Roman Catholic Church hasn't budged an inch, so it might be time to move on.
I was just trying to be precise, Zach82, but I suppose that your advice on moving on could be applied to an awful lot of things with which there is disagreement with the RCC. That would be interesting.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.
It has been settled for far longer than that. John Clement Gordon, SEC bishop of Galloway had his Anglican orders declared invalid as far back as 1704.
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.
It has been settled for far longer than that. John Clement Gordon, SEC bishop of Galloway had his Anglican orders declared invalid as far back as 1704.
But something has changed, one doesn't go from being ++Newton in the Church of England to Monsignor and effectively acting as a bishop for the Ordinariate without Rome recognising the value of the prior ministry. Whatever even the most conservative in the Roman Catholic Church believe about the efficacy of Anglican Holy Orders, denying the ministry and prior beliefs of Anglican priests and bishops doesn't appear to be a matter of controversy.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
But something has changed, one doesn't go from being ++Newton in the Church of England to Monsignor and effectively acting as a bishop for the Ordinariate without Rome recognising the value of the prior ministry.
Or so the Romans keep saying, like it ought to be terribly gratifying.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot imagine why Rome's acceptance of our orders is a matter of such frequent conversation on the ship. It's been a done deal for going on 200 years, and it smacks of insecurity.
It has been settled for far longer than that. John Clement Gordon, SEC bishop of Galloway had his Anglican orders declared invalid as far back as 1704.
But something has changed, one doesn't go from being ++Newton in the Church of England to Monsignor and effectively acting as a bishop for the Ordinariate without Rome recognising the value of the prior ministry. Whatever even the most conservative in the Roman Catholic Church believe about the efficacy of Anglican Holy Orders, denying the ministry and prior beliefs of Anglican priests and bishops doesn't appear to be a matter of controversy.
They've never dismissed previous ministry.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Quite so. Just as the CofE does not dismiss the previous ministry of, say, a URC minister who converts and receives Anglican orders.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
As Augustine said, acting like that should be enough is a willful misunderstanding of what Anglicans claim for themselves.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.
Indeed, but in my experience disaffected RCs often make very good Anglicans, and so perhaps dissafected Anglicans might make very good RCs and, dare I say it, perhaps help the RCC with some of its troubles.
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.
A senior member of the Catholic clergy in the UK (who will remain anonymous) said much the same when discussing the issue at a lecture I was at. His concern: people that are ultra-traditionalist and thus cause trouble in one church are likely to cause trouble in another for similar reasons. Rumour has it that some Ordinariate members have criticised some Catholic masses in the UK already for 'not doing things right'.
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.
A senior member of the Catholic clergy in the UK (who will remain anonymous) said much the same when discussing the issue at a lecture I was at. His concern: people that are ultra-traditionalist and thus cause trouble in one church are likely to cause trouble in another for similar reasons. Rumour has it that some Ordinariate members have criticised some Catholic masses in the UK already for 'not doing things right'.
Quelle Surprise!
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.
A senior member of the Catholic clergy in the UK (who will remain anonymous) said much the same when discussing the issue at a lecture I was at. His concern: people that are ultra-traditionalist and thus cause trouble in one church are likely to cause trouble in another for similar reasons. Rumour has it that some Ordinariate members have criticised some Catholic masses in the UK already for 'not doing things right'.
Anglican liturgical snobbery ?? Surely not??!!
Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.
A senior member of the Catholic clergy in the UK (who will remain anonymous) said much the same when discussing the issue at a lecture I was at. His concern: people that are ultra-traditionalist and thus cause trouble in one church are likely to cause trouble in another for similar reasons. Rumour has it that some Ordinariate members have criticised some Catholic masses in the UK already for 'not doing things right'.
Well in our re-training at Catholic seminaries we were told quite clearly by our lecturers that many Catholic priests were not doing things right and warned of the abuses we needed to look out for.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
If one may revert to the OP, IMHO what Cardinal Jorge (AHTW) was implying was that the RCC had quite enough troubles of its own without importing a bunch of disaffected Anglicans.
A senior member of the Catholic clergy in the UK (who will remain anonymous) said much the same when discussing the issue at a lecture I was at. His concern: people that are ultra-traditionalist and thus cause trouble in one church are likely to cause trouble in another for similar reasons. Rumour has it that some Ordinariate members have criticised some Catholic masses in the UK already for 'not doing things right'.
Well in our re-training at Catholic seminaries we were told quite clearly by our lecturers that many Catholic priests were not doing things right and warned of the abuses we needed to look out for.
Shows you just how much Catholic seminaries have improved in the last 15 years.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Anglican liturgical snobbery ?? Surely not??!!
More likely that the root cause of the upset of some ultra-conservatives is not truly religious. I know a few sedevacantists and, IMO, there exists no status of which they would ever be quo.*
There main issue is dissatisfaction and this will be the case no matter where they are.
Note: I am not stating this applies to all ultra-conservative religious.
*Yes, I know that makes no sense in the Latin, but you do know what I mean.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Indifferently, is there a particular point in history where you consider the Church of England to have been the beacon of orthodoxy you desire? Do you consider it to have been, at that time, totally unified and correct in its doctrines? And, lastly, do you have those doctrines in writing or do you infer them?
Well, there is a huge difference between wanting complete unity in doctrine, and pretending it´s okay to have primates and bishops that don´t even believe in God, Jesus, and all that stuff.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Well, there is a huge difference between wanting complete unity in doctrine, and pretending it´s okay to have primates and bishops that don´t even believe in God, Jesus, and all that stuff.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Indifferently, is there a particular point in history where you consider the Church of England to have been the beacon of orthodoxy you desire? Do you consider it to have been, at that time, totally unified and correct in its doctrines? And, lastly, do you have those doctrines in writing or do you infer them?
Well, there is a huge difference between wanting complete unity in doctrine, and pretending it´s okay to have primates and bishops that don´t even believe in God, Jesus, and all that stuff.
That's a relief - it's a good thing none of us do that then.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Indifferently, is there a particular point in history where you consider the Church of England to have been the beacon of orthodoxy you desire? Do you consider it to have been, at that time, totally unified and correct in its doctrines? And, lastly, do you have those doctrines in writing or do you infer them?
I'm sure there's been a point in Church of England history where there were such things as Heresy Trials. Nowadays there seems to be no such thing as "heresy" in the C of E, which means ministers seem to be able to say and publish anything they like with no fear of repercussions.
These same errant ministers are the ones which make the press headlines and give the whole church a bad name IMO. The C of E was never perfect, but it's been better - a lot better.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Which ministers do you mean, Mark? I can only think of Don Cupitt, who is pretty tangential nowadays and anyway was never exactly going to get onto the front page of the Sun, and David Jenkins, who was generally misreported, either becauise journos didn't understand him, couldn't be bothered to try to understand him, or didn't care about understanding him but wanted to give him a good kicking for daring to question the Blessed Margaret. And even David Jenkins is going back the better part of 30 years now. Before that what've you got- Bishop Barnes of Birmingham (ob. 1953)? Hewlett Johnson (ob. 1966, though AFAIK it was his politics rather than his theology which was controversial)?
I think that this idea that the CofE is full of unbelieving or at best agnostic clergy is a myth. It's a staple of popular fiction, of course, because you can hang a good story on it, and I suppose that you could argue that they could be there but just be keeping their views to themselves- a belief that is almost by definition not open to proof or even reasonable discussion one way or the other. It's just the kind of stuff that lazy right-wing journos trot out when they don't like some cleric's politics, and certain types of atheists and anti-clericals come up with because it saves them actually thinking.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I can only think of Don Cupitt, who is pretty tangential nowadays and anyway was never exactly going to get onto the front page of the Sun.
Also Don Cupitt was Dean of Emmanuel College Chapel, which, like all Oxbridge chapels, is not (at least AIUI) formally part of the Church of England.
[ 18. March 2013, 10:34: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Which ministers do you mean, Mark? I can only think of Don Cupitt, who is pretty tangential nowadays and anyway was never exactly going to get onto the front page of the Sun, and David Jenkins, who was generally misreported, either becauise journos didn't understand him, couldn't be bothered to try to understand him, or didn't care about understanding him but wanted to give him a good kicking for daring to question the Blessed Margaret. And even David Jenkins is going back the better part of 30 years now. Before that what've you got- Bishop Barnes of Birmingham (ob. 1953)? Hewlett Johnson (ob. 1966, though AFAIK it was his politics rather than his theology which was controversial)?
I think that this idea that the CofE is full of unbelieving or at best agnostic clergy is a myth. It's a staple of popular fiction, of course, because you can hang a good story on it, and I suppose that you could argue that they could be there but just be keeping their views to themselves- a belief that is almost by definition not open to proof or even reasonable discussion one way or the other. It's just the kind of stuff that lazy right-wing journos trot out when they don't like some cleric's politics, and certain types of atheists and anti-clericals come up with because it saves them actually thinking.
I am thinking cheifly of the likes of Don Cupitt and Bishop J. A. T. Robinson. However, recently, bishops and clergy are much more guarded about their beliefs.
The following article, from 2002, gives a general idea of how things were back then, but they have doubtless deteriorated since then:
One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection (in 2002)
There are also reports every so often of C of E priests who don't believe in God, but it is so commonplace nowadays that such things don't even get much media attention.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Don Cupitt (who has not officiated at public worhsip since the early 1990s) and Bp JAT Robinson (another clever and misunderstood man, who died in, what, 1983?). And then you come up with an 11 year old report on some survey, published in a newspaper part of whose bread and butter is deploring 'decline' in the standards of the CofE, and add that 'doubtless' things have declined further since then, without giving anything to suggest why or how they might have done so?
I repeat: this idea that there is a huge mass of unbelieving clergy out there is a lazy cliche, trotted out by people who find it comforting to think that they are part of the remnant of true believers and that everyone else is going to hell in a handcart.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Some odd equivocation going on there. "Doubts over the physical resurrection" =/= "don't believe in the resurrection".
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
And before anyone gets onto ++ Katherine, she said that while she did not know how the Resurrection occurred, she believed in it. At no stage did she deny it, but has strongly affirmed it.
[ 18. March 2013, 11:48: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Benedict XVI raised Apostolicae Curae to a level of dogma that all Catholics had to affirmatively assent to (or something like that).
Question: are Catholics required to assert that C of E orders are null and void now, or that C of E orders were null and void in 1896? In other words, can a Catholic licitly believe that the modern C of E has re-acquired valid succession via the Old Catholic union of Utrecht, or not?
My question too. I thought the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception were the only 2 Infallible Papal Pronouncements made since the declaration of papal infallibility
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I repeat: this idea that there is a huge mass of unbelieving clergy out there is a lazy cliche, trotted out by people who find it comforting to think that they are part of the remnant of true believers and that everyone else is going to hell in a handcart.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also Don Cupitt was Dean of Emmanuel College Chapel, which, like all Oxbridge chapels, is not (at least AIUI) formally part of the Church of England. [/QB]
So when did they stop being part of the Church of England? The 1625 (?) Canons in force until recently ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
have a lot to say about them, prescribing eg the minimal requirements for celebrating the HC, eg the dress of the scholars.
Many (?most) college statutes require C of E services, and C of E (or in communion) clergy.
I think you could as well say Westminster Abbey is not formally part of the Church of England.
For what it's worth I rather like these blurred edges.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I did hedge it with 'AIUI'. There was a story a while ago about Emmanuel College Chapel, Cambridge, blessing civil partnerships, as the Dean argued he was not subject to the Bishop of Ely and therefore did not need canonical permission. (Source (especially in the third paragraph).
It is possible that the Dean was misrepresenting the canonical position.
(I think this is also different from the situation at Westminster Abbey, which (again AIUI) is explicitly subject to the Archbishop of Canterbury even though it's outside the diocesan structure.)
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Betts:
quote:
The C of E was never perfect, but it's been better - a lot better.
Even though I'm inclined to think you're not really interested in a response, I thought I might bite anyway.
Now let's see; from it's earliest beginnings it's a confused mess of religion, politics and power. Some people were hanged, some were burnt, others were jailed and left to rot, some poor souls were martyred. In the seventeenth century its 'mission' begins in earnest - particularly in Ireland. It brings persecution, a lack of religious freedom, abuses founded on fear and paranoia. It begins to bring it's cultural baggage and colonialist attitudes that will live on like a cancer in almost every country it touches. This situation continues for a very considerable length of time. In the eighteenth and probably first half of the nineteenth century, there are widespread abuses by priests. Churches are used to stable horses, store grain on the cheap, run markets. Clergy lift wages, but disappear on world tours or butterfly collecting missions (Trollope may be tongue in cheek, but there's a pointed barb to it). In the latter part of the nineteenth century the church maintains a peculiar moral rectitude that pretty much veils a moral rot in Victorian society; worse still, the church often ends up supporting the capitalist 'smash and grab' that goes on in its mission fields. It gets terribly morally self righteous about slavery, while on the other hand ignoring one of the worst famines ever known on their own doorstep.
I know I've focused only on the negatives, and there were those who were faithful Christians - and thank God they were, but even with them the survival of Anglicanism at all is nothing short of a bloody miracle. I am very fond of Anglicanism, but to pretend that there was ever a golden age in the past is to wear glasses so deeply rose tinted that you can't see out of them. If there was ever a 'good period' of Anglicanism, it's today.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
These same errant ministers are the ones which make the press headlines and give the whole church a bad name IMO. The C of E was never perfect, but it's been better - a lot better.
I seriously question this idea of when the Church was a lot 'better' - at least in terms of clergy. There were certainly times when the Church was more powerful, more influential, more politically integrated, more unchallanged - but did that make it 'better'?
Eg, discernment processes to (fairly) objectively test and vet vocations of candidates is a recent thing. Whereas beforehand it was usually if not often a case of whoever had a degree and the personal nod of a Bishop could, with not much effort end up ordained and occupying a living. Just one of the reasons contemporary victorian writers were able to represent the public disdain for the profession, as they sometimes did; viewed as it was as a rather lazy way to acquire an income without doing much to earn it.
Another reason of course was the 'younger and/or poorer son' syndrome; that the Church was the default profession for the sons of gentlemen who had no titles or money, regardless of aptitude or preference. Certainly, there were plenty of talented holy men in orders - thank God!; good pastors, innovative, passionate and strong in a Biblical faith. But the clouds of men regarded as societal rejects, and only fit for the Church, must've been considerable. And absentee rectors and vicars, abuse of the curate system, and the deliberate accumulation of lucrative livings - finally legislated against - were all quite normal in large parts of the Church.
It's easy, too, to imagine that matters of belief were much simpler before our more modern scientific times. But whether that actually made the clergy of previous times 'better' as ministers and pastors, than the current crop of broken reeds and clay jars( ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) is highly doubtful.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I took so long to do my post, I've kind of x-posted with Fletcher Christian.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The following article, from 2002, gives a general idea of how things were back then, but they have doubtless deteriorated since then:
One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection (in 2002)
There are also reports every so often of C of E priests who don't believe in God, but it is so commonplace nowadays that such things don't even get much media attention.
As well as being old, the report has a misleading headline. Nothing requires us to believe in a LITERAL, PHYSICAL resurrection.
Nor LITERAL virgin birth.
And neither have any bearing on believing in God.
[ 18. March 2013, 13:37: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
We need to keep the tired "Heresy libel" against Anglicanism, but especially the CoE and TEC, in perspective. Every sect gets its own set of paranoid fanatics trotting out non-stop slander against it on the internet. Some of the stuff that's addressed against the Roman Catholic Church would make one's hair curl.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Betts:
Mark will do just fine... quote:
quote:
The C of E was never perfect, but it's been better - a lot better.
Even though I'm inclined to think you're not really interested in a response, I thought I might bite anyway.
Not at all, I am interested in responses, good or bad.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
...I repeat: this idea that there is a huge mass of unbelieving clergy out there is a lazy cliche, trotted out by people who find it comforting to think that they are part of the remnant of true believers and that everyone else is going to hell in a handcart.
I don't find it at all comforting to believe most Anglicans are going to hell in a handcart - in fact I don't even believe that at all, and I don't want to think that the C of E is a huge mass of unbelieving clergy, nor that things are getting worse. So make my day Albertus, and reassure me I have got things wrong.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
We don't have to disprove your ridiculous slander any more than Roman Catholics have to bother taking time to disprove the slander than the RC Church is all one big cult of Isis. Especially when you can't come up with a credible case for the slander.
[ 18. March 2013, 14:00: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As well as being old, the report has a misleading headline. Nothing requires us to believe in a LITERAL, PHYSICAL resurrection.
Nor LITERAL virgin birth.
And neither have any bearing on believing in God.
Well, therein lieth the problem - who decided that and when? And why hasn't it got around to the RC and Orthodox churches yet, amongst others?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
So is the basis of your slander nothing more than "What some guy on the internet said," Mark?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So is the basis of your slander nothing more than "What some guy on the internet said," Mark?
It isn't slander - it's quotes from the media - and these date from before there was any such thing as the internet.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The weakness of the evidence has already been point out, and ignored by you.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So is the basis of your slander nothing more than "What some guy on the internet said," Mark?
It isn't slander - it's quotes from the media - and these date from before there was any such thing as the internet.
The slandery bit is the implication that lots of Anglican clergy "don't believe in God", and that on the basis of a couple of famous figures from decades ago (one wonders the Bishop of Woolwich didn't get a mention*) and a report from the Torygraph on a survey worded in such a way that it is guaranteed to catch quite a lot of dangerous unbelieving liberal fifth-columners.
Now, do you have anything substantive that passes the laugh test?
*Michael Flanders - "They don't actually exist, any more than the Bishop of Woolwich actually exists"
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
+ Woolwich did get a mention- that's Bp JAT Robinson, though Michael Flanders's line is beautifully witty, especially when you hera hjow he delivers it.
But Mark, you ask me to reassure you that what you say isn't true. The problem is, of course, that you have no evidence for what you do say apart from the D Tel's take on one rather elderly survey. So I can say that I believe that what you say is incorrect but I'm guessing that's not actually going to convince you. And as you are the person making the allegation in the first place, it's rather up to you to prove it, isn't it?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
My research fail.
Mae ddrwg gen i/Je suis desolé/I will go and stand in the corner.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
It looks like the information was gathered from a Cost of Conscience survey:
The Mind of Anglicans Part III - The Cost of Conscience Survey
You can dismiss it if you want, but this is the sort of thing the public read and form an opinion on.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
That's precisely how slander works. Vaguely substantiated accusations are made, and the onus is forced onto the victim of the slander to disprove it.
I have heard literally hundreds of Anglican sermons in my life, and I have heard only one, maybe two clearly heretical one in all that time. And trust me, I am the sort to notice that sort of thing.
What one is more likely to hear is a sort of airy theology which, while not really heretical, is really too pointless to count as orthodox. "Today's sermon comes from this magazine that I found in the hedge," as St. Izzard lampooneth. I've heard it enough in Catholic homilies to convince me that it's not a specifically Anglican problem.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It looks like the information was gathered from a Cost of Conscience survey:
The Mind of Anglicans Part III - The Cost of Conscience Survey
You can dismiss it if you want, but this is the sort of thing the public read and form an opinion on.
As I said before, if you're going to word the question to distinguish "complete confidence" from all other positions, then you're going to catch a lot of people who can't sign up for "complete confidence" but who haven't nailed their colours to the mast for the opposite proposition either.
Of course, we don't know what the actual questions were; I'm making the above guesses from the way the answers have been reported.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
It has been pointed out that survey results can be - shall we say "malleable"?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And as you are the person making the allegation in the first place, it's rather up to you to prove it, isn't it?
Not how these things work, laddie. They are obviously true, you are simply ignorant of the plot.
Or part of the conspiracy. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Damn. You have rumbled me. Now I will have to kill you. Lucky I don't believe there's a God who'll judge me for it, isn't it.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So is the basis of your slander nothing more than "What some guy on the internet said," Mark?
I am reminded of this.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The following article, from 2002, gives a general idea of how things were back then, but they have doubtless deteriorated since then:
One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection (in 2002)
There are also reports every so often of C of E priests who don't believe in God, but it is so commonplace nowadays that such things don't even get much media attention.
As well as being old, the report has a misleading headline. Nothing requires us to believe in a LITERAL, PHYSICAL resurrection.
Nor LITERAL virgin birth.
And neither have any bearing on believing in God.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Nothing requires us to believe in a LITERAL, PHYSICAL resurrection.
Nor LITERAL virgin birth.
And neither have any bearing on believing in God.
Leo, I think you have to do some very fancy dancing to avoid the clear import of the Creeds on those two points of belief.
And certainly one need not be a Christian to believe in God. The devils also believe, and tremble.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I have heard literally hundreds of Anglican sermons in my life, and I have heard only one, maybe two clearly heretical one in all that time.
My own score in that regard would depend on whether they've declared being arse-numbingly boring to be a heresy.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
The stronger objection here is, I think, about the nature of the survey- and as has been pointed out, we didn't see the questions. However, from the preamble in the document that Mark linked us to, it is seems rather likely that the survey was designed to elicit a sharp division between the True Believers (TM) and the Dirty Libruls. This looks to be particularly so if, as it appears, the compilers of the survey were spinning only 'complete confidence' (whatever that may mean) as counting as 'belief'.
(Cross-posted with Adeodatus)
[ 18. March 2013, 16:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
I'm afraid I don't think I have a copy of the booklet anymore but you could buy one here.
Thurible
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I'm afraid I don't think I have a copy of the booklet anymore but you could buy one here.
Thurible
The fact that they published the results in a booklet form, for dissemination to those considering leaving the CoE, doesn't fill me with confidence in the results.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
However, from the preamble in the document that Mark linked us to, it is seems rather likely that the survey was designed to elicit a sharp division between the True Believers (TM) and the Dirty Libruls. )
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
However, from the preamble in the document that Mark linked us to, it is seems rather likely that the survey was designed to elicit a sharp division between the True Believers (TM) and the Dirty Libruls.
Not really. It was designed to attempt to persuade evangelicals that women priests are incurably liberal and so they should have to do with them. Basically just another move in Forward In Faith's twenty-year propaganda campaign to get a few more evangelicals onto their side by conflating some issues that are in fact seperate.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Does anyone seriously imagine that if the Anglican Church consistently adopted exactly the same position as the RCC on the Dead Horse issues, union with Rome would be one whit likelier?
Well if they adopted the same line the theoretical possibility of reunion in the future would remain open, if not necessarily likelier.
I was about to respond as you did. However, what theoretical possibility remains after Apostolicae Curae slammed the door shut way back in 1896? Obviously we believe in the validity of our orders (those of us who care about such things at all) or we wouldn't still be here; and obviously the RCs do not. What can be done? The continuing concern of Anglicans with Christian unity has been shown recently in the concordat of TEC with Lutherans-- who doctrinally are hardly down there with Unitarians and the MCC.
[ 18. March 2013, 16:18: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Gosh, what's the point? We all know full well that, soon enough, the same slanders are going to repeated with the same flimsy evidence by the same people like this thread never even happened.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
However, recently, bishops and clergy are much more guarded about their beliefs.
So are you assuming the worst? Why?
I don't understand how a bishop who not only recites the Nicene Creed but, as ordinary, demands an explanation in writing if ever the creed is omitted at a Sunday morning service in the diocese can be said to be too guarded about his beliefs. What do you want?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
He wants us to admit we are guilty. But,
quote:
I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I think it's probable that, if there was a time when there was a large number of non-believing clergy in the CofE (and doubtless in other denominations), it was long before the present. Given the nature of the tithe system the attraction of a country parish for a young gentleman of limited means circa 1800 would likely have overwhelmed any doubts about his personal faith. Today, when the demands on clergy are so much greater and the material rewards so much more limited, the unbelievers in the church are likely to be those who lose their faith in later life, and there is no reason to believe there are large numbers of them. It's also highly probable that such exist in the RCC, but simply supress their doubts.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It looks like the information was gathered from a Cost of Conscience survey:
The Mind of Anglicans Part III - The Cost of Conscience Survey
You can dismiss it if you want, but this is the sort of thing the public read and form an opinion on.
Depends what you mean by 'the public'. The public I'm most familiar with just want a guy/gal in a funny frock to be conveniently available when the baby needs 'done' or Uncle Fred needs buried. There's also some overlap with that other 'public' who don't care what the church does or doesn't believe so long as they're not being asked to believe or not believe it either.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
And the sort of person who thinks that an article in the Torygraph is read by "the people" is in the same category as someone who thinks a 10.30pm slot on Radio 3 is "mass media".
The only people reading that would, I suspect, already have formed opinions that would be congruent with it.
I think that in all our talk of what people think about us, we forget that most people, most of the time, actually think bugger all about us. Church and Christianity are barely on their radar, except as those annoying people who occasionally bring frivolous law suits over their right to dictate other people's morals being abrogated, or do a "Down with this sort of thing! Careful now!" protest about some play or something that no-one'd know owt about were it not for the protest.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
There's also some overlap with that other 'public' who don't care what the church does or doesn't believe so long as they're not being asked to believe or not believe it either.
Oh, what a wonderful world it would be if everybody had that attitude
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
But... but... but... - how can I be confident in my beliefs if I can't persuade everyone else to share them?
Seriously, though, some of us are Anglicans because we are unsure, doubtful and a bit wishy-washy and don't want an environment where we have to sign up to a definitive set of beliefs that we're not sure we hold.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And the sort of person who thinks that an article in the Torygraph is read by "the people" is in the same category as someone who thinks a 10.30pm slot on Radio 3 is "mass media".
I like that! And think it very true, too.
Thurible
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Seriously, though, some of us are Anglicans because we are unsure, doubtful and a bit wishy-washy and don't want an environment where we have to sign up to a definitive set of beliefs that we're not sure we hold.
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The following article, from 2002, gives a general idea of how things were back then, but they have doubtless deteriorated since then:
One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection (in 2002)
There are also reports every so often of C of E priests who don't believe in God, but it is so commonplace nowadays that such things don't even get much media attention.
As well as being old, the report has a misleading headline. Nothing requires us to believe in a LITERAL, PHYSICAL resurrection.
Nor LITERAL virgin birth.
And neither have any bearing on believing in God.
In regard to the above, I can with 100% literal certainty recite all three of the creeds without fudging or crossing my fingers on a single word. I know this because I've experienced the creeds to be true. I have faith in them. If you don't have faith in them, there is utterly no way to know that they are true.
That being said, the historicity of the creeds is really neither here nor there. What matters is faith. If there was some archeological dig that said "yep, these are 100% the bones of Jesus," would that shatter your faith? How could if it if that faith has formed you, converted you, and made you who you are? If you have first-hand experienced the saving power of Christ?
The other way of thinking, the way that is aghast at what Leo is saying, seems to me to be more after the model of St. Thomas. It wants hard and fast "proof." Even if that "proof" isn't on hand, it suggests that the proof is out there, hidden from us. This to me, is more like the devils who believe, not Leo.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Yup. The pertinent question is not "Was there a literal physical resurrection 2000 years ago?", but "Is Jesus alive now?"
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Not an 'either/or' but a 'both/and'. If there was and is no Resurrection, we're well-and-truly fucked, as St Paul makes clear in I Cor 15.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yup. The pertinent question is not "Was there a literal physical resurrection 2000 years ago?", but "Is Jesus alive now?"
Pertinent to whom?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yup. The pertinent question is not "Was there a literal physical resurrection 2000 years ago?", but "Is Jesus alive now?"
Pertinent to whom?
Well, to me, certainly.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not an 'either/or' but a 'both/and'. If there was and is no Resurrection, we're well-and-truly fucked, as St Paul makes clear in I Cor 15.
The terms "resurrection" and "literal physical resurrection" are not equivalent.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I appreciate that, Karl! I felt the discussion was taking a more wideranging remit though.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not an 'either/or' but a 'both/and'. If there was and is no Resurrection, we're well-and-truly fucked, as St Paul makes clear in I Cor 15.
The terms "resurrection" and "literal physical resurrection" are not equivalent.
In what way?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not an 'either/or' but a 'both/and'. If there was and is no Resurrection, we're well-and-truly fucked, as St Paul makes clear in I Cor 15.
The terms "resurrection" and "literal physical resurrection" are not equivalent.
Not in se, no. But the resurrection reported in the NT is unequivocally physical. See Luke 24:39. I really don't see much wiggle room.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Exactly.
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
There's exactly no wiggle-room on belief in the Resurrection. Not one inch.
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
Since we all seem to agree with that, where did this straw man "Anglicanism-is-full-of-clerics-who-deny-the-Resurrection" come from?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Nothing requires us to believe in a LITERAL, PHYSICAL resurrection.
Nor LITERAL virgin birth.
And neither have any bearing on believing in God.
Leo, I think you have to do some very fancy dancing to avoid the clear import of the Creeds on those two points of belief.
Have you every asked a sample group of layfolk how they view the creed?
There are as many differing interpretations of the creed as their are people who recite it.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
But the resurrection reported in the NT is unequivocally physical. See Luke 24:39. I really don't see much wiggle room.
But there's also no wiggle room when Paul says that "what is sown is physical; what is raised is spiritual". The resurrection, as a better theologian than I once said, is not merely a conjuring trick with bones. And I could imagine a pollster asking me about the resurrection in many ways that would force me to say, "No, I don't believe that."
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Nothing requires us to believe in a LITERAL, PHYSICAL resurrection.
Nor LITERAL virgin birth.
And neither have any bearing on believing in God.
Leo, I think you have to do some very fancy dancing to avoid the clear import of the Creeds on those two points of belief.
Have you every asked a sample group of layfolk how they view the creed?
There are as many differing interpretations of the creed as their are people who recite it.
I could ask a sample group of layfolk what they feel about species counterpoint or integral calculus and get a number of differing answers, too. That wouldn't mean they'd be right.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
But the resurrection reported in the NT is unequivocally physical. See Luke 24:39. I really don't see much wiggle room.
But there's also no wiggle room when Paul says that "what is sown is physical; what is raised is spiritual". The resurrection, as a better theologian than I once said, is not merely a conjuring trick with bones. And I could imagine a pollster asking me about the resurrection in many ways that would force me to say, "No, I don't believe that."
I don't think Paul is using "spiritual" as a synonym for non-material. By "spiritual body" he seems to mean material that is incorruptible and immortal--hyper-material, if you will.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I don't think Paul is using "spiritual" as a synonym for non-material. By "spiritual body" he seems to mean material that is incorruptible and immortal--hyper-material, if you will.
I know. But would there be a tick-box on the questionnaire corresponding to that answer?
Perhaps we should be asking, when polls are commissioned that reveal (shock, horror!) that we're all going to hell in a handbasket, are those who commission them doing God's work, or are they trying to panic and scatter his flock?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
But the resurrection reported in the NT is unequivocally physical. See Luke 24:39. I really don't see much wiggle room.
But there's also no wiggle room when Paul says that "what is sown is physical; what is raised is spiritual". The resurrection, as a better theologian than I once said, is not merely a conjuring trick with bones. And I could imagine a pollster asking me about the resurrection in many ways that would force me to say, "No, I don't believe that."
I don't think Paul is using "spiritual" as a synonym for non-material. By "spiritual body" he seems to mean material that is incorruptible and immortal--hyper-material, if you will.
Without wishing to get too Keryg. over it, I think that's a matter of translation - I believe it was Tom Wright (pbuh) who pointed out that pneumatikos is the word used to describe Hero's steam engine. It is powered by steam, not made of it. You could say a similar thing about pneumatic drills. It's a regular part of Paul's flesh/spirit discussion. Certainly "spiritual" seems to refer to "God-breathed" in Paul's thought.
So no, there is no wriggle room, but the question becomes what is it that is now powered by the Spirit, that was formerly powered by "the flesh" - by which I assume what we would now call natural or physical processes?
(bah humbug - crossposted!)
[ 19. March 2013, 17:58: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Perhaps we should be asking, when polls are commissioned that reveal (shock, horror!) that we're all going to hell in a handbasket, are those who commission them doing God's work, or are they trying to panic and scatter his flock?
A perfectly reasonable question to ask, I think.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Nothing requires us to believe in a LITERAL, PHYSICAL resurrection.
Nor LITERAL virgin birth.
And neither have any bearing on believing in God.
Leo, I think you have to do some very fancy dancing to avoid the clear import of the Creeds on those two points of belief.
Have you every asked a sample group of layfolk how they view the creed?
There are as many differing interpretations of the creed as their are people who recite it.
I could ask a sample group of layfolk what they feel about species counterpoint or integral calculus and get a number of differing answers, too. That wouldn't mean they'd be right.
Depends how you define 'Christianity'
Is it what Christians actually believe and disbelieve?
Or is it what they 'should' believe?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Depends how you define 'Christianity'
Is it what Christians actually believe and disbelieve?
Or is it what they 'should' believe?
Unreservedly and unashamedly the latter, minus the scare quotes.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not an 'either/or' but a 'both/and'. If there was and is no Resurrection, we're well-and-truly fucked, as St Paul makes clear in I Cor 15.
(excusing the 'f' word)
Posted by Chas of the Dicker (# 12769) on
:
Surely the unity of Christians is a 'found' unity in the body of Christ not a 'constructed' unity between fallible (or infallible?) human institutions.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Depends how you define 'Christianity'
Is it what Christians actually believe and disbelieve?
Or is it what they 'should' believe?
Unreservedly and unashamedly the latter, minus the scare quotes.
And who decides what they "should" believe? You?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Depends how you define 'Christianity'
Is it what Christians actually believe and disbelieve?
Or is it what they 'should' believe?
Unreservedly and unashamedly the latter, minus the scare quotes.
And who decides what they "should" believe? You?
Right, Marvin, because there's absolutely no middle ground between believing whatever the hell you want and calling it "Christianity" and my setting myself up as a one-man Magisterium.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chas of the Dicker:
Surely the unity of Christians is a 'found' unity in the body of Christ not a 'constructed' unity between fallible (or infallible?) human institutions.
Only if you are a Protestant.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chas of the Dicker:
Surely the unity of Christians is a 'found' unity in the body of Christ not a 'constructed' unity between fallible (or infallible?) human institutions.
That rather depends on whether you class the Church as a "human institution". Since it is the body of Christ, there is at least some mileage in reflecting upon the hypostatic union of the Divine and the Human in the person of Christ before resolving that.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Actually Trisagion I think there is a good case for arguing the opposite. That is that because God himself is guarantor of the Church there is not need for the human institution of Papal Infallibility.
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Wiggle room, schmiggle room. I need a middle ground between not being able to say, hand on heart, all the time that I really believe that Jesus' dead body was resuscitated and abandoning the faith all together. I do this by focussing on the question of whether Jesus is alive today.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Right, Marvin, because there's absolutely no middle ground between believing whatever the hell you want and calling it "Christianity" and my setting myself up as a one-man Magisterium.
I just find it interesting that every time someone says "Christianity means you must believe this, that and the other", they always and without fail list the things that they believe.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Wiggle room, schmiggle room. I need a middle ground between not being able to say, hand on heart, all the time that I really believe that Jesus' dead body was resuscitated and abandoning the faith all together. I do this by focussing on the question of whether Jesus is alive today.
I find 'I don't know' useful here, as well as being accurate. Hang on, I think we've been down this road before. Well, I'm not sure really!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Chas of the Dicker:
Surely the unity of Christians is a 'found' unity in the body of Christ not a 'constructed' unity between fallible (or infallible?) human institutions.
Only if you are a Protestant.
Good to see we get something right, then.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by CL:
quote:
Only if you are a Protestant.
I always felt Lumen Gentium veered to the Proddy end of things.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by CL:
quote:
Only if you are a Protestant.
I always felt Lumen Gentium veered to the Proddy end of things.
It did and that's why the Traditionslists found it highly problematic.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Actually Trisagion I think there is a good case for arguing the opposite. That is that because God himself is guarantor of the Church there is not need for the human institution of Papal Infallibility.
Jengie
But then you are a member of a Protestant community that has a history of fissiparousness. Perhaps looking down the wrong end of the telescope has something to do with that.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
But then you are a member of a Protestant community that has a history of fissiparousness. Perhaps looking down the wrong end of the telescope has something to do with that.
Nothing makes it right or wrong - just a different pov.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Right, Marvin, because there's absolutely no middle ground between believing whatever the hell you want and calling it "Christianity" and my setting myself up as a one-man Magisterium.
I just find it interesting that every time someone says "Christianity means you must believe this, that and the other", they always and without fail list the things that they believe.
That's a fairly good summary of what happened at Nicaea, yes. It's also why we claim to be Apostolic first. Apostolicity informs and defines Catholicity.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
How about we affirm the truth of our unity in Christ (even with the Catholics), without progressing to denying the importance of the visible unity of the Church? No need for simplistic dichotomies here.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Actually Trisagion I think there is a good case for arguing the opposite. That is that because God himself is guarantor of the Church there is not need for the human institution of Papal Infallibility.
Jengie
But then you are a member of a Protestant community that has a history of fissiparousness. Perhaps looking down the wrong end of the telescope has something to do with that.
But then you are a member of the Roman Catholic community. Perhaps not realizing that your Church in many ways invented the telescope through which we are all supposed to view the 'real' Church has something to do with that?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Trisagion, you look tiny. Is that for real or am I just looking the wrong way down the telescope again?
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
well, tiny he is not, so the answer must be the second option.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I can second that, having met him IRL!
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Relevant to the thread, if not to the actual discussion!
New pope and Anglicanism
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Relevant to the thread, if not to the actual discussion!
New pope and Anglicanism
True story: I once won a crucifix exactly like that in a raffle here at the seminary. I gave to away to a friend, though.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chas of the Dicker:
Surely the unity of Christians is a 'found' unity in the body of Christ not a 'constructed' unity between fallible (or infallible?) human institutions.
How. precisely, does one find unity in the body of Christ, when from outside all we see is division? Certainly, fallible human institutions are good at 'constructing' disunity, but not unity.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
True story: I once won a crucifix exactly like that in a raffle here at the seminary. I gave to away to a friend, though.
Maybe that's what happened to Abp Sentamu, and maybe he is following your lead
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
True story: I once won a crucifix exactly like that in a raffle here at the seminary. I gave to away to a friend, though.
Maybe that's what happened to Abp Sentamu, and maybe he is following your lead
Is the Archbishop receiving or giving it away?
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
He is giving it to the pope - in the video version you see him showing the pope his pectoral cross which is a smaller version of the same cross.
eta actually the picture shows him doing that as well
[ 20. March 2013, 19:25: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Chas of the Dicker:
Surely the unity of Christians is a 'found' unity in the body of Christ not a 'constructed' unity between fallible (or infallible?) human institutions.
How. precisely, does one find unity in the body of Christ, when from outside all we see is division? Certainly, fallible human institutions are good at 'constructing' disunity, but not unity.
Err, that;'s exactly what he said. The fallible human political institutions - our churches and dioceses and denominaitons and so on - tend to disunuty. The genuine unity we have is through our connection to and incorporation in Jesus Christ.
[ 20. March 2013, 19:31: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...The genuine unity we have is through our connection to and incorporation in Jesus Christ.
Even when we cannot share Holy Communion together?
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Well if you come to Ken's or my church you are free to share in it. Might it not be a sign of the human failing of your tradition then?
Jengie
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
We're being unfair to our Catholic brothers and sisters here. Even the Roman Catholic Church admits that Protestants have a share in the blessings of the Church by merit of their common baptism and common faith (to the degree that they share the faith of the Roman Catholic Church).
[ 20. March 2013, 19:58: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Technobabble question - could a non Roman Catholic share in the communion of intention ? After all, at that point you are not transubstantiating (after making confession obviously).
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Technobabble question - could a non Roman Catholic share in the communion of intention ? After all, at that point you are not transubstantiating (after making confession obviously).
Do the degree that a Protestant participates in worship sincerely, sure.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Well if you come to Ken's or my church you are free to share in it. Might it not be a sign of the human failing of your tradition then?
In one way or another, yes Jengie Jon. But putting poor Humpty together again isn't so simple. Thanks for yours and Ken's offer, but Holy Communion was never "open" this way in the early Church - it was important that all believed the same things.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We're being unfair to our Catholic brothers and sisters here. Even the Roman Catholic Church admits that Protestants have a share in the blessings of the Church by merit of their common baptism and common faith (to the degree that they share the faith of the Roman Catholic Church).
Same with the Orthodox Zach82, but I don't think it's enough without Holy Communion.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
You have the accounts of communion services from the first century AD? The assumption that the behaviour of the church after persecution which happened in the first century is the same as the original is actually deeply flawed. You only need to look at the changes that happened within Presbyterianism when it was persecuted to realise that.
Persecution leads to closing down of access, whether this should be normative when there is not a persecution is a good question and one that history does not tell us.
Jengie
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
You have the accounts of communion services from the first century AD?
The Didache would be pretty close, but I suspect Mark would find the eucharistic prayers deficient. As I recall, they don't mention the resurrection of Jesus. I think it also consecrates the cup before the bread.
I don't seem to remember instructions as to who was permitted to commune, either--but I'm considerably older than I was the last time I read it, so I'm more than willing to be corrected if I'm wrong.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...The genuine unity we have is through our connection to and incorporation in Jesus Christ.
Even when we cannot share Holy Communion together?
Yes, of course. Our stubborn failure to recognise and live up to our unity in Christ is us falling short, but it doesn't affect his work or his poer.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
... Holy Communion was never "open" this way in the early Church - it was important that all believed the same things.
Yes, and so? What's that got to do with it?
[ 20. March 2013, 20:45: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Same with the Orthodox Zach82, but I don't think it's enough without Holy Communion.
It's enough for me to say that the Eucharist is the cup of life. I don't see the need to box God in by saying He cannot offer his saving grace through other means.
[ 20. March 2013, 20:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's enough for me to say that the Eucharist is the cup of life. I don't see the need to box God in by saying He cannot offer his saving grace through other means.
You may be right - let's hope so.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's enough for me to say that the Eucharist is the cup of life. I don't see the need to box God in by saying He cannot offer his saving grace through other means.
You may be right - let's hope so.
Do you hope so? You're the one limiting God's grace to one ceremony.
Seeing as I won't assert any life or virtue apart from grace, and I see both in those who haven't partaken of the Eucharist, I can be pretty certain that God's grace is much freer than all that.
[ 20. March 2013, 21:29: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Thanks for yours and Ken's offer, but Holy Communion was never "open" this way in the early Church - it was important that all believed the same things.
Maybe that was just a symptom of the fallen, broken humanity of the early church.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Indeed, Marvin. And anyway, as ken said upthread, just because the early church did this or that, why should we be obliged to follow it? After all, I don't feel obliged to do things in the way I did them in early infancy, and I bet no-one else on this board does either. The Church is a living body: she grows and adapts and changes and learns.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Right, Marvin, because there's absolutely no middle ground between believing whatever the hell you want and calling it "Christianity" and my setting myself up as a one-man Magisterium.
I just find it interesting that every time someone says "Christianity means you must believe this, that and the other", they always and without fail list the things that they believe.
ISTM the creeds are a minimal statement of what Christians must believe. It's usual in many churches to require adherence to them in order to qualify for membership.
I believe a number of things that aren't treated in the creeds; apostolic succession, for example. But there are plenty of Christians who don't believe those things, and are no less Christian for that. I might think Presbyterians are wrong about the priesthood, but that doesn't mean they aren't Christians.
And struggling with belief is one thing; fetishizing your unbelief is another. We all do the former from time to time; the latter is the way of Lewis' apostate bishop.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The Church is a living body: she grows and adapts and changes and learns.
The life of the Church is the Holy Spirit. The Church does not "change" and neither does tradition develop. Growth without change, for without continuity it is not the same Church or the same faith. Innovation equals heresy.
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The life of the Church is the Holy Spirit. The Church does not "change" and neither does tradition develop. Growth without change, for without continuity it is not the same Church or the same faith. Innovation equals heresy.
Didn't John XXIII inaugurate Vatican II with the desire that the Spirit would sweep in through newly opened windows and breath renewal/change in the Church - implying on at least one level change?
Change in itself is not heresy,and tradition certainly does develop: liturgically speaking, compare the earliest recorded liturgies to those of a later period and we see organic differences; theologically speaking, look at the ways the Christian church used to condone the practice of slavery, until it learned the errors of its ways and became supportive of abolition.
Change/innovation in either theological or liturgical areas can be heretical only if they are so deficient in grace and insight that it takes people AWAY from God (not just away from what some view as God or as the accepted way of doing things. I'm ingorning the inner urgings to comment on issues of magisterium, faulty or otherwise.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
The faith was "delivered once to the saints". It does not develop (such naturally implies change). It remains the same even if our understanding of it increases. Liturgies indeed grow, but again there is nothing "new" in them.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Well, I disagree with that. At least if I understand it right. It suggests an attempt to bottle the work of the Holy Spirit as He speaks to the churches.
Essentially, we have a gospel to proclaim. Not only with our lips but with our lives. And he who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit of God is saying to the churches.
Here are the seven last words of the church.
"We've. Never. Done. It. This. Way. Before."
The core beliefs of Christianity are of eternal value because they speak to the abiding issue of human fallibility, That doesn't change.
But how we see those core beliefs and how we proclaim and represent them is a dynamic challenge to us because of the issues of cultural differences, cultural change and relevance. We "scratch" where people do not "itch". We ignore current legitimate "itches".
Being faithful to the faith once given requires us to recognise these things. Else our message will fall on deaf ears, not because they or God have closed them but because language and meaning have moved on and we are communicating irrelevant gobbledegook to their ears.
That's essentially what Pentecost was about. On one central level, it was a reversal of Babel. The gift of the Holy Spirit enabled the disciples to communicate and folks from different lands and cultures to hear "in their own tongue".
And the living need for that "dunamis" is an ongoing challenge to the church. Else the gospel is emptied of its power to save.
Posted by Cadfael (# 11066) on
:
For those interested, I would like to recommend David Brown's books 'tradition and imagination' and 'discipleship and imagination'' - these provide an excellent scholarly account of growth, development and change in church traditions.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Continuity is a sign that the Holy Spirit is working in the Church. It is the golden thread which leads to the Apostles so that we may know that what we have is Apostolic and not an innovation. We see this view of tradition in the Fathers and most especially in the holy councils of the Church (the seventh ecumenical council in particular comes to mind).
Posted by Cadfael (# 11066) on
:
As David Brown argues, continuity neither equates to nor requires stasis in tradition. Studies of tradition as phenomenon (e.g. Shils, 1981) also provide robust support for this.
One is reminded of Pelikan's famous quotation - "tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."
But this is a tangent to the main topic of the thread - and it is quite unlikely that agreement between scholars and traditionalists is going to happen anytime soon - so I will leave it there.
[ 21. March 2013, 07:18: Message edited by: Cadfael ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thanks Cadfael. I haven't read that, will see if I can get a copy. I do like Pelikan's quotation. (But then I would).
I think it is a relevant tangent, because I think Anglicanism (I am not an Anglican) does try to engage with this issue. Fresh Expressions is a laudable attempt to do that, as has been (and is) the wrestling with the issues of the roles of women and coming to terms with gay people.
Here is Rowan Williams speaking truth after the vote on women bishops
quote:
In a strongly-worded speech to the General Synod this morning, Dr Williams said the church had ‘a lot of explaining to do’.
‘We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do,’ he said.
‘Whatever the motivation for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society.
‘Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society.
‘We have some explaining to do, we have, as a result of yesterday, undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society.’
To be open to that POV may be the most important factor to pray about in future Anglican-Catholic dialogue over any issues of difference.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I find all this rather problematic. If the faith changes - and let's be honest, much of the changes "wider society" would like to see from the Church essentially amount to complete u-turns - then it's not the same faith, it's not Apostolic and not from God. After all, God is truth or then he is something altogether rather whimsical in nature.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Tradition, from an Orthodox perspective at least, is not something seperate from the sacred scriptures, rather it is the scriptures properly lived and understood by the Church. It's the Apostolic teaching and practice realised in the Church's worship, canon, creeds and the lives of the saints - it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Holy Spirit is God who is truth and therefore does not change. It is the same word that was delivered at the beginning only our understanding grows (not change).
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
But the Holy Spirit (we were told) 'will lead you into all truth'. It doesn't follow that we've got there yet.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I find all this rather problematic.
So do I.
quote:
If the faith changes - and let's be honest, much of the changes "wider society" would like to see from the Church essentially amount to complete u-turns - then it's not the same faith, it's not Apostolic and not from God. After all, God is truth or then he is something altogether rather whimsical in nature.
The faith doesn't change. The tradition is capable of movement in accordance with the imperatives of mission. The mission needs to take into account the understandings, hopes, aspirations and fears of the folks with whom we share and live out the gospel. It will both confront the wrong and recognise the right. And hear what the Spirit of God is saying about wrong and right.
In the process, we learn from mission. Think Peter learning from seeing the operation of the Holy Spirit in the family of Cornelius. He learned that, truly. God does not show partiality. Or think about the row over circumcision and Gentiles. The church moved away from a traditional (jewish) understanding. It took a row and a conference to do it. Why should such processes not be ongoing? Mission is both a speaking and a listening. And above all, it is a demonstration of the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Else it is not mission.
Our problem is our fracturedness. We don't have ongoing ecumenical conferences to look at this sort of stuff. And as a result of both schism and reformation, we've gone down different roads. Which means we don't have a united way of coping with the vexed problem of what the Spirit of God is saying to the churches today. And that is a big issue.
But it is no excuse for denying the dynamic of necessary change. The tradition is a valuable source of principle and wisdom. But if we lose the ability to be critical of its relevance to changed circumstances, of determining which principles should apply, then we gradually lose our ability to speak sense to the Babel of our times.
[ 21. March 2013, 10:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Holy Spirit is God who is truth and therefore does not change.
Since when does truth not change? It used to be true that humans cannot fly, and then we invented the airplane.
And anyway, even if the spiritual truth of God the Holy Spirit is utterly unchanging, that doesn't mean our understanding of it should be utterly unchanging. To say that it should would be to say that humans are (or once were) capable of a perfect and infallible understanding of God, and I'm pretty damn sure that's never been true.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Relevant to the thread, if not to the actual discussion!
New pope and Anglicanism
"Mine's bigger than yours!"
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Yet again I feel that this boils down to ecclesiology, how we view the Church and it's relationship with tradition and the Holy Spirit. I would argue that the Church is able to be infallible, that the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth. I understand that the Church's understanding of the faith once delivered increases, but to suggest the Church's understanding can change to mean something different than before? No. That wouldn't be the work of the Holy Spirit because that's not what Christ promised the Apostles.
[ 21. March 2013, 10:34: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I'm inclined to agree; yes, the medium (mission) can and should change but not the message (evangelion), and there is always a danger of conflating and confusing the two.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Since when does truth not change? It used to be true that humans cannot fly, and then we invented the airplane.
And it's still true that humans cannot fly. That humans can fly aeroplanes is a different thing altogether. What is true is always true.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Barnabas62: quote:
Our problem is our fracturedness. We don't have ongoing ecumenical conferences to look at this sort of stuff. And as a result of both schism and reformation, we've gone down different roads. Which means we don't have a united way of coping with the vexed problem of what the Spirit of God is saying to the churches today. And that is a big issue.
But it is no excuse for denying the dynamic of necessary change. The tradition is a valuable source of principle and wisdom. But if we lose the ability to be critical of its relevance to changed circumstances, of determining which principles should apply, then we gradually lose our ability to speak sense to the Babel of our times.
AdOrientem, if/when it becomes possible to give humans gills to live underwater, will you still hold to the Universal Truth that people can't breathe water?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would argue that the Church is able to be infallible, that the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth.
Isn't that observably and obviously false?
Perhaps you mean that in certain special circumstances in relation to certain limited matters the Church is able to be infallible. But that isn't a useful statement.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Since when does truth not change? It used to be true that humans cannot fly, and then we invented the airplane.
And it's still true that humans cannot fly. That humans can fly aeroplanes is a different thing altogether. What is true is always true.
Ah, but then we come to what I'll call secondary truths, such as "every journey between the UK and the USA must be made by boat". This was indeed truth in the past, because humans cannot fly and there's an ocean in the way.
But now that airplanes have been invented, it is no longer the truth that all journeys between the UK and the USA must be made by boat. And that is a fairly fundamental change to the truth as pertains to cross-Atlantic travel. Would a transport traditionalist be justified in saying that the truth cannot ever change, therefore all journeys between the UK and the USA must still be made by boat regardless of any new innovations that may come along? Of course not!
The truth that humans cannot fly hasn't changed, but how we deal with that truth has.
I submit that many of the theological innovations that you disparage as heresy are comparable to that change. The core spiritual truth behind reality may not have changed, but how we deal with it has. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Barnabas62: quote:
Our problem is our fracturedness. We don't have ongoing ecumenical conferences to look at this sort of stuff. And as a result of both schism and reformation, we've gone down different roads. Which means we don't have a united way of coping with the vexed problem of what the Spirit of God is saying to the churches today. And that is a big issue.
But it is no excuse for denying the dynamic of necessary change. The tradition is a valuable source of principle and wisdom. But if we lose the ability to be critical of its relevance to changed circumstances, of determining which principles should apply, then we gradually lose our ability to speak sense to the Babel of our times.
AdOrientem, if/when it becomes possible to give humans gills to live underwater, will you still hold to the Universal Truth that people can't breathe water?
You do realise that here you ate referring to a new and different species.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would argue that the Church is able to be infallible, that the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth.
Isn't that observably and obviously false?
Perhaps you mean that in certain special circumstances in relation to certain limited matters the Church is able to be infallible. But that isn't a useful statement.
I would have thought it obvious that when speaking of the Church and infalliblity that it relates to the faith and not, say, tomorrows hockey scores. I believe that this is demonstrable, however, first we must look for the Church.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
quote:
You do realise that here you ate referring to a new and different species.
I daresay a biologist will be along to dispute this with you in a minute, so I won't bother.
How about astronomy? The ancients (some of them anyway) believed that the stars were fixed on a heavenly sphere and the sun revolved around the earth. Nowadays we know that is wrong. The sun and stars have always been huge balls of flaming gas a very long way away from us; our understanding of them has changed.
Should we have held to the Ptolomaic model of the universe, even though it's wrong?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Eh? Now we're talking about different things here. What one thinks is true and what actually is true can indeed be two diffetent things, but however erroneous the former is it doesn't change the latter. As far as the Church and the faith are concerned the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Marvin -
I'm not sure about this business of secondary truths, whatever that pans out to mean. In fact what is going on is that the whole way the issue is looked at has been re-framed. Its external viewpoints of examination have been changed.
No problems with that in general. In fact I would encourage it. But in practice people doing that seem frequently unable to address the weaknesses or limitations of their own way of framing things. You (generic you) need to be as hard on yourself as you are on others.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Eh? Now we're talking about different things here. What one thinks is true and what actually is true can indeed be two diffetent things, but however erroneous the former is it doesn't change the latter. As far as the Church and the faith are concerned the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm not sure about this business of secondary truths, whatever that pans out to mean.
I was thinking of things that are true, but only because other things are true first. If the first truths change, then so do the second ones.
quote:
In fact what is going on is that the whole way the issue is looked at has been re-framed. Its external viewpoints of examination have been changed.
No problems with that in general. In fact I would encourage it. But in practice people doing that seem frequently unable to address the weaknesses or limitations of their own way of framing things. You (generic you) need to be as hard on yourself as you are on others.
All I'm asking of others is to be open to the possibility that they are wrong. I ask no less of myself.
Though I do make an exception for those situations where people are only asking me to consider if I'm wrong so that they can say "ha ha - if you might be wrong about things then you might be wrong about me being wrong, which means I'm right!", or in other words when they're just trying to ignore the possibility that they're wrong. What can I say? Obstinate arrogance drives me up the wall.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What one thinks is true and what actually is true can indeed be two diffetent things
How sure are you that what you think is true is actually true?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
What separated church understanding from Jewish understanding in the early years? When faced with the issue of greater inclusiveness - gentiles coming to the light, aspects of the previous Jewish tradition (e.g. circumcision, various food laws) were seen as no longer appropriate.
There's a principle or two involved there concerning impartiality and inclusiveness. The early Christian church took a more inclusive road. That's in the tradition and I'm very glad it is.
That aspect of the tradition needs to be weighed in the balance with other aspects of the tradition when considering some of the vexed questions of the day, which divide Christians. That's both a critical process and a reverent one.
I mean, if you and Matt and others want to hold that the message is unchanging, that there isn't some dynamic relationship between it and the medium (the mission field) then tradition itself holds a challenge to that proposition. The message changed. You don't need to be circumcised. Except in the heart.
The tradition contains within itself the roots of dynamic change. That might seem a bit of a paradox to you, but that's for sure the way it looks to me.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Ad Orientum said quote:
I would have thought it obvious that when speaking of the Church and infalliblity that it relates to the faith and not, say, tomorrows hockey scores. I believe that this is demonstrable, however, first we must look for the Church.
It's not just hockey scores, it's supporting crusades, it's violence towards doctrinal enemies, it's all sorts of spiritual and moral error that is evident in the history of the churches. Apart from the denomination that came into existence this afternoon, I'm sure no church can claim to be free of this sort of error. It doesn't say much for our knowledge of the truth of the faith when we live it out very badly, but we do. They did in New Testament times, as well.
If you have to identify the right bit of the church to find the infallible bit, then we have the problem, as I said, of a statement that has no use: a bit of the church is infallible, and the bit it is is the infallible bit. Either it's infallible because it's the church, or we're not saying anything, and infallibility is not an obvious characteristic of the church.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What one thinks is true and what actually is true can indeed be two diffetent things
How sure are you that what you think is true is actually true?
Personally, where there's a dearth of definitive evidence for one view over another, I tend to be very unsure of the sure.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
But there we are talking about two covenants, in essence the difference between two religions - Judaism and Christianity - not two Christian traditions. It's like comparing methods of eating an apple (do you just bite into it or do you slice it up and then eat it?) to eating a banana: what matters is that you eat an apple, not a banana.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
[Missed edit window - reply to Barnabas]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Ad Orientem: quote:
What one thinks is true and what actually is true can indeed be two diffetent things, but however erroneous the former is it doesn't change the latter.
Well done, that was the point I was trying to make. Now what makes you so sure that what you think is true is more likely to be true than what the rest of us think?
And 'because the Church says so' is not an acceptable answer. The Roman Catholic Church has finally admitted they were wrong about Galileo, so 'The Church' can change its mind. This is not a new idea; as Barnabas62 keeps pointing out, The Church has been changing its mind since the very beginning.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
The Church guided by the Holy Spirit does not err in matters of faith. Galileo is always brought up and it's always worth pointing out that this is a classic example of Rome over-stepping its bounds. As for what I think well, it's not about me, it's about trusting in the promises of Christ. As I said earlier, this is an ecclesiological question. Each person has to work out for themselves who and what the Church is. Only then does the relationship between the Church, the Holy Spirit and Tradition become clear. Then you have to find it and test the fruits.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If you have to identify the right bit of the church to find the infallible bit, then we have the problem, as I said, of a statement that has no use: a bit of the church is infallible, and the bit it is is the infallible bit. Either it's infallible because it's the church, or we're not saying anything, and infallibility is not an obvious characteristic of the church.
That's really basic bullshit, and you've been around long enough to know better. The Church herself says which parts of her teachings are infallible, and which parts are not - and hence can be judged objectively according to that. It simply is not, and never has been, a universal claim. It always has been a claim about specific statements under specific circumstances. Indeed, there is not only a binary infallible-fallible distinction, but rather a fairly elaborate hierarchical scheme of more or less certain claims. The Holy Spirit is guaranteed to assist the Church on certain occasions, lending her Divine infallibility on these occasions. Everything else is the usual human mix from near certainty to near arbitrariness. As embarrassing as for example the Galileo affair may be, it does not play at all concerning the Church's infallibility since it never was a matter thereof.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Ad Orientum said quote:
I would have thought it obvious that when speaking of the Church and infalliblity that it relates to the faith and not, say, tomorrows hockey scores. I believe that this is demonstrable, however, first we must look for the Church.
It's not just hockey scores, it's supporting crusades, it's violence towards doctrinal enemies, it's all sorts of spiritual and moral error that is evident in the history of the churches. Apart from the denomination that came into existence this afternoon, I'm sure no church can claim to be free of this sort of error. It doesn't say much for our knowledge of the truth of the faith when we live it out very badly, but we do. They did in New Testament times, as well.
If you have to identify the right bit of the church to find the infallible bit, then we have the problem, as I said, of a statement that has no use: a bit of the church is infallible, and the bit it is is the infallible bit. Either it's infallible because it's the church, or we're not saying anything, and infallibility is not an obvious characteristic of the church.
This is what I mean when I say it boils down to ecclesiology. For instance, when you talk of "bits" of the Church this betrays the reason why you cannot see a Church that is protected by the Holy Spirit from error.
[ 21. March 2013, 13:54: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
IngoB said quote:
The Holy Spirit is guaranteed to assist the Church on certain occasions
Almost definitely. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As embarrassing as for example the Galileo affair may be...
Sometime we ought to think about a thread on Galileo and the church. There is much more to the story than meets the eye, certainly much more to it than the glib example of church vs science that it is often used as. Anyone interested?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Ad Orientum said quote:
This is what I mean when I say it boils down to ecclesiology. For instance, when you talk of "bits" of the Church this betrays the reason why you cannot see a Church that is protected by the Holy Spirit from error.
No, I'm happy to talk about the church as a whole. I would argue that from the Council of Jerusalem onwards, if not from that day when James and John got a bit ambitious, the church has been characterised by fallibility. Also grace, of course. I thought you were talking about bits when you said first we have to look for the church.
I'm excited that doctrine develops. I'm delighted that the New Testament preserves for us the story of Peter being dragged to a new understanding of God, and therefore gives us a model of the church reaching a new understanding of God.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Ad Orientum said quote:
This is what I mean when I say it boils down to ecclesiology. For instance, when you talk of "bits" of the Church this betrays the reason why you cannot see a Church that is protected by the Holy Spirit from error.
No, I'm happy to talk about the church as a whole. I would argue that from the Council of Jerusalem onwards, if not from that day when James and John got a bit ambitious, the church has been characterised by fallibility. Also grace, of course. I thought you were talking about bits when you said first we have to look for the church.
I'm excited that doctrine develops. I'm delighted that the New Testament preserves for us the story of Peter being dragged to a new understanding of God, and therefore gives us a model of the church reaching a new understanding of God.
Again, the way you speak of the Church betrays why you cannot conceive of the Church being guided into truth. The reason you think that is probably because you hold to some form of branch theory. I wouldn't, rather I see the Church as a visible body professing the same faith and sharing the same altar. Those who do not are outside. But, I do not bring this up as an opportunity to be partisan, only to show that we all need to work out how we view the Church first before we can understand its relationship with Tradition.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Ad Orientem: quote:
Each person has to work out for themselves who and what the Church is. Only then does the relationship between the Church, the Holy Spirit and Tradition become clear. Then you have to find it and test the fruits.
And why is it so difficult for you to accept that other people have done this and reached a different answer to the one you have?
Plus, what hatless said.
[ 21. March 2013, 14:41: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
What do you mean by "difficulty"? I have no trouble understanding that others might think differently but I still think they're wrong, the reason being they're most likely looking in the wrong places.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, the way you speak of the Church betrays why you cannot conceive of the Church being guided into truth. The reason you think that is probably because you hold to some form of branch theory. I wouldn't, rather I see the Church as a visible body professing the same faith and sharing the same altar. Those who do not are outside. But, I do not bring this up as an opportunity to be partisan, only to show that we all need to work out how we view the Church first before we can understand its relationship with Tradition.
I've no idea what branch theory is. I'm sure the church is often guided into truth, for instance when the Dutch Reformed Church repented of Apartheid. I'd even say we are always being guided into truth. What I wouldn't say is that we have the truth as a possession. I believe we sit always under the truth, and that our relationship to God is always one of faith.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The reason you think that is probably because you hold to some form of branch theory. I wouldn't, rather I see the Church as a visible body professing the same faith and sharing the same altar. Those who do not are outside.
Just for clarification, can you please confirm you're saying that of the approximately two billion Christians currently on the planet, only a maximum of seven percent or so are actually in the Church? That the rest of us haven't been baptised into the Church and have never actually received any sacraments, that our holy communions are at best lacking in the presence of Christ and at worst travesties of the real thing?
If so, well I'm Anglican so I'm used to that but I thought I'd ask for the benefit of the Ship's complement of Catholics.
If on the other hand you're prepared to say that you don't know the status of the non-Orthodox churches, you might want to withdraw that final sentence.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The reason you think that is probably because you hold to some form of branch theory. I wouldn't, rather I see the Church as a visible body professing the same faith and sharing the same altar. Those who do not are outside.
Just for clarification, can you please confirm you're saying that of the approximately two billion Christians currently on the planet, only a maximum of seven percent or so are actually in the Church? That the rest of us haven't been baptised into the Church and have never actually received any sacraments, that our holy communions are at best lacking in the presence of Christ and at worst travesties of the real thing?
If so, well I'm Anglican so I'm used to that but I thought I'd ask for the benefit of the Ship's complement of Catholics.
If on the other hand you're prepared to say that you don't know the status of the non-Orthodox churches, you might want to withdraw that final sentence.
I thought this might start getting all partisan. That was not my intention however. If anyone knows what Orthodoxy believes concerning this then they will already have the answer.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I thought this might start getting all partisan. That was not my intention however. If anyone knows what Orthodoxy believes concerning this then they will already have the answer.
As far as I can tell, Orthodoxy believes a range of things regarding the status of non-Orthodox churches, and the members thereof. I just wanted to confirm which particular interpretation of St Cyril's teaching you believed, and point out the consequences if I was guessing correctly.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If anyone knows what Orthodoxy believes concerning this then they will already have the answer.
As one who believes in the 'church invisible' concept rather than what you seem to be getting at, I'd be interested in your answer to GreyFace's question. I certainly don't know what the Orthodox Church believes concerning this and would rather like to find out!
Viewing other churches as having less of the truth than one's own does is one thing (I guess most church members think this to some extent, else we'd change church) but equating your church with the one true church is something I find very alarming. You aren't secretly a Jehovah's Witness, are you Ad Orientem?!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It's what the Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, Oriental Orthodox, and lots of other claims for themselves, SCK.
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Holy Spirit is guaranteed to assist the Church on certain occasions, lending her Divine infallibility on these occasions. Everything else is the usual human mix from near certainty to near arbitrariness.
This is the part I don't get. How is this guarantee made? And how are the infallible occasions distinguished from the human ones? I don't see how such a claim can be made without a large dose of circular reasoning--it needs something other than "because the Church says so."
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
To be fair to the Catholics, they acknowledge the validity of the sacraments of some of the other churches, and official teaching is that all baptised Christians are in an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.
To be fair to the Orthodox, the belief that the visible Orthodox Church is made up of the local churches about which they are sure enough to be in communion and that they're not actually declaring the rest to be necessarily Right Out, doesn't appear to be uncommon.
To be fair to anybody that does go the whole hog on the One True Church line, it's worth pointing that out that they're not pretending to believe that in order to poke the rest of us in the eye with a stick - it's sincerely held to be the truth.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Tradition, from an Orthodox perspective at least, is not something seperate from the sacred scriptures, rather it is the scriptures properly lived and understood by the Church. It's the Apostolic teaching and practice realised in the Church's worship, canon, creeds and the lives of the saints - it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Holy Spirit is God who is truth and therefore does not change. It is the same word that was delivered at the beginning only our understanding grows (not change).
quote:
that the Holy Spirit is seeking to guide the Church into the fullness of truth, it draws upon everything in human experience and thought which will give to the content of revelation its fullest expression and widest application. It is primarily concerned with the growth of the seed of God's word from age to age
(ARCIC Final Report)
quote:
But tradition is a dynamic process with inevitable admixture of truth and error; and formulations of faith change through the ages, not least because of changing contexts and situations
(Baptist response to Lima text)
quote:
We are agreed that the development of doctrine and the production of confessions of faith is a dynamic process.
(WCC)
quote:
An engagement and struggle with what is given. Orthodoxy makes us critical, it provokes questions. It is 'what keeps the Church free to question its traditions'
(Lossky)
quote:
The tradition..and in particular the doctrinal tradition, is truly itself only when it throws itself away. That is, it is not the last word, just as it is not the first word. It is only within the dynamism of history as the place and the time of irreversible personal decisions that the Word is truly heard, and faith truly active
(R. Gregor Smith)
Keeping tradition and betraying it, the difference is a knife edge because:
'prodidomi' - to betray; paradidomi - to hand over
'traditor' - traitor; 'traditio' - to hand on.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I was going to say it is far too common a belief for us to get alarmed about every time we hear it.
And actually many evangelicals and protestant groups believe something similar.
Of course the actual belief is always a bit more nuanced than that. People will often soften their sentiments a bit by talking about not being able to be definite regarding salvation outside the church (or in the case of some evangelicals, not being able to exclude the possibility that there are some real christians in the RCC).
Also I think the Orthodox and RCC would have one attitude towards another Orthodox church with which they have impaired communion, and a weird protestant thing which isn't really the Church at all.
So in practice it usually isn't about "one true church" except in caricature. And we ought not to be alarmed or shocked anyway.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's what the Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, Oriental Orthodox, and lots of other claims for themselves, SCK.
I thought the Catholic Church softened its stance on this a few hundred years ago, or am I thinking of something else?
In any case, I'm interested to find out what it implies regarding my status before God; what do the above churches consider to be the status of those not within their institutions? If the answer is as strong as 'not made right with God' then doesn't that fit the typical definition of what a cult is?
The whole idea also seems like a remaking of the Temple curtain; restricting access to God when Jesus seemed to do the exact opposite of this in his ministry, death and resurrection.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But the Holy Spirit (we were told) 'will lead you into all truth'. It doesn't follow that we've got there yet.
Certainly not completely. But the Holy Spirit doesn't contradict Himself, either. If He has revealed God to us as Triune, that's off the table. We can be led into a deeper understanding of what the Trinity is, but not an understanding which contradicts revealed Truth.
As a rule of thumb, I'd say that if the revelation contradicts established dogma, then the spirit which is speaking is the Zeitgeist and not the Heilige Geist.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Nice one!
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's what the Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, Oriental Orthodox, and lots of other claims for themselves, SCK.
I thought the Catholic Church softened its stance on this a few hundred years ago, or am I thinking of something else?
More recently than a few hundred years ago - Google for Lumen Gentium which dates from 1965.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's what the Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, Oriental Orthodox, and lots of other claims for themselves, SCK.
I thought the Catholic Church softened its stance on this a few hundred years ago, or am I thinking of something else?
In any case, I'm interested to find out what it implies regarding my status before God; what do the above churches consider to be the status of those not within their institutions? If the answer is as strong as 'not made right with God' then doesn't that fit the typical definition of what a cult is?
The whole idea also seems like a remaking of the Temple curtain; restricting access to God when Jesus seemed to do the exact opposite of this in his ministry, death and resurrection.
The Catholic Church has been willing to talk more often about the graces other Churches have, and the idea that all non-Catholics are certainly damned has become less popular, but it still considers itself the one and only true Church.
Assuming you are baptized, the Catholic Church considers you a Christian with an impaired relationship to the Church. Very few mainstream Catholic theologians these days would say all non-Catholics are certainly damned, but I don't think that's a matter of dogma either way. At any rate, it IS a matter of dogma that it would better for you to join up with the Real Deal.
I have a wider definition of the Catholic Church than Rome, but I entirely agree that the Church of God has certain marks, and that not all Christian communities have those marks.
[ 21. March 2013, 16:58: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ leo
Thanks. I knew I had read something in the ARCIC documents which had influenced my thinking - that's what it was
@ Matt Black
We may be a bit at cross purposes and it's probably my fault. The acceptability of the faith of Gentiles and the conditions for that acceptability were matters of dispute between prominent Christians of Jewish background (Gal 2). The sources of the dispute were indeed traditional Jewish understandings, but that doesn't really matter. The principles of impartiality and inclusivity underlay the solution which Christians found.
What I am arguing is that these are dynamic, living, ongoing principles of justice to be born in mind when handling many issues. I'll cite the age it took for the Church to resolve the issue of slavery and observe that the tradition and traditional writings of scripture and fathers were ambivalent on the matter. Else the issue might have been resolved earlier. But what principles do we now see enshrined in the reformed Christian view on slavery? We find impartiality and inclusivity (amongst other of course) have finally won the day. And they were there from the start, waiting to be applied.
There's a dynamism in that. It can take us a while to see the connection between the new challenge and the old verity. But we can change our mind when we do.
What's wrong with that approach to the principles we find in tradition? They can be instruments of both stability and change. They are a lot better than an automatic "we've never done it this way before".
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As a rule of thumb, I'd say that if the revelation contradicts established dogma, then the spirit which is speaking is the Zeitgeist and not the Heilige Geist.
Doesn't that just show an unwarranted prejudice in favour of the Zeitgeist that was around when the dogma was first established?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's what the Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, Oriental Orthodox, and lots of other claims for themselves, SCK.
The RC claim of being the one, true Church is not exclusive of seeing "other churches as having less of the truth than one's own" (SCK's words). Basically, the RCC considers itself as the standard against which all others are being measured. If you agree 98% with the RCC, then you are 98% the one, true Church. If you agree 50%, then only 50%. Of course in reality there is not just a single numerical measure, but many aspects of different value. In addition, the RCC does not actually consider itself as the standard in the sense of some measurement. Rather it is a question where the fullness of Divine life and favour is to be found. Keeping or developing certain teachings and practices is a consequence of that and can serve as a sign thereof, but saying how "true" a Church is, is not purely a matter of doing behavioural statistics...
As an analogy, think back to the old Dutch masters of painting, who were running their own schools which acted both as a kind of "mass production" facility (with students of the master finishing large parts of the paintings) and to educate students in the style of the master. What we are saying then is that if you want to learn to paint like Rembrandt, your best bet is to go to the school of Rembrandt. That doesn't mean that every student of Rembrandt learns to paint like Rembrandt. That does not mean that all other schools of painting are crap. Indeed, many of them will produce material that is quite similar. An individual may even learn to paint better elsewhere due to unfavourable circumstances (e.g., it's hard to rise up through the ranks and get serious instructions from Rembrandt himself). But if you are asking where the real Rembrandt is at, then his school is where you should go.
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
This is the part I don't get. How is this guarantee made? And how are the infallible occasions distinguished from the human ones? I don't see how such a claim can be made without a large dose of circular reasoning--it needs something other than "because the Church says so."
You are confusing two separate issues here. Namely, how it is being signified by the Church that an infallible decision is being made, and how you may know that this is truly the case. The difference is crucial, because it involves faith. It is actually rather straightforward for the Church to signify that something infallible is about to be declared. And essentially it indeed boils down to her just saying so. Though the infallibility is actually implicit in the occasion and the kind of statement being made, rather than an explicit marker: "The following is infallible: ..." But that just how humans operate, flatly stating facts in a manner accessible to all is not what people tend to do on momentous occasions.
Anyway, the question why you should believe in any such statement as actually infallible is a different one. That depends on your faith about the Church. It is not that the kind of statement being made somehow proves that the Church has infallible powers in making it. Rather the Church is assumed to have infallible powers (under certain circumstances), and the statement is seen as being made with those due to certain signifiers that the Church employs on that occasion. I do not believe at all that the Church can prove herself infallible by her teachings. The only proof that is potentially possible is that the Church is not infallible: namely if she were to declare something as infallibly true which we can know by other means to be false. That has not happened, but if it did, then we could reject the claim of infallibility.
So in my opinion, you first have to sort out what you believe the Church is about. Then you will know whether some of things she does may be infallible.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But the Holy Spirit (we were told) 'will lead you into all truth'. It doesn't follow that we've got there yet.
Certainly not completely. But the Holy Spirit doesn't contradict Himself, either. If He has revealed God to us as Triune, that's off the table. We can be led into a deeper understanding of what the Trinity is, but not an understanding which contradicts revealed Truth.
As a rule of thumb, I'd say that if the revelation contradicts established dogma, then the spirit which is speaking is the Zeitgeist and not the Heilige Geist.
Since when is the Holy Ghost/Spirit a "he"? Better to avoid gender exclusive language with the HS. Rather glaring to me in this post, and I think it's an artefact of received translations of the various gender nouns for spirit etc, which I thought most were feminine with a few neuter.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I thought this might start getting all partisan. That was not my intention however. If anyone knows what Orthodoxy believes concerning this then they will already have the answer.
As far as I can tell, Orthodoxy believes a range of things regarding the status of non-Orthodox churches, and the members thereof. I just wanted to confirm which particular interpretation of St Cyril's teaching you believed, and point out the consequences if I was guessing correctly.
If you really want to know what I believe then it is this. I believe that the Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded. This is, if you like, a federation of local Churches in communion with one another because they all confess the same faith under an orthodox bishop. There are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church. The Church, however, is not limited by jurisdiction but is defined first and foremost by the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit act outside the bounds of jurisdiction though? Certainly, but where is difficult to say.
[ 21. March 2013, 17:46: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But the Holy Spirit (we were told) 'will lead you into all truth'. It doesn't follow that we've got there yet.
Certainly not completely. But the Holy Spirit doesn't contradict Himself, either. If He has revealed God to us as Triune, that's off the table. We can be led into a deeper understanding of what the Trinity is, but not an understanding which contradicts revealed Truth.
As a rule of thumb, I'd say that if the revelation contradicts established dogma, then the spirit which is speaking is the Zeitgeist and not the Heilige Geist.
Since when is the Holy Ghost/Spirit a "he"? Better to avoid gender exclusive language with the HS. Rather glaring to me in this post, and I think it's an artefact of received translations of the various gender nouns for spirit etc, which I thought most were feminine with a few neuter.
Actually, in Greek they are mostly neuter (pneuma) with a few masculine (parakletos). The KJV, NASB, NAB & NRSV all refer to the HS as "he," so I'm fairly certain I'm standing on firm ground. If you prefer a neuter pronoun, then feel free to use it; I won't grumble.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What do you mean by "difficulty"? I have no trouble understanding that others might think differently but I still think they're wrong, the reason being they're most likely looking in the wrong places.
That's not right. You think they're looking in the wrong places. And you think these are wrong places because you have chosen to believe something you have been taught. Someone else - or the institution you trust in - tells you that God is not in these 'wrong places', and cannot be sought there. But God is always found where he is truly sought. It isn't the 'place' which is wrong. It is the heart.
And, taking the argument a little wider, there seems to be an awful lot of mistaking the Body of Christ - with Christ as the Head - for the human institutionalizing of Christianity. People are the Body of Christ - not doctrines, traditions or institutions. Together, these things may well comprise the action of the Body, the fulfilment of the Mission of the Body under the direction of the Head. But there is too much diversity of good and evil, the fruitful and fruitless, for any institution to claim it is 'the' Body of Christ.
As a realist, I can see it would be inevitable that competition and striving after supremacy would naturally result in the most powerful of the early church communities rising to the top, to assume leadership. And the work of the Church Fathers does much to make us realize how they, at least, strove to preserve the spiritual life of the Church as it moved through these centuries of challenge. Clearly the Church (as institution) could not help BUT change if it was to survive.
Administratively, organization and detail obviously needed to be added to a growing religion - particularly after Constantine's support sent it viral (so to speak!). In short, too much power, wealth and spiritual influence was at stake to leave such a religion in the hands of local pastors or groups.
But that this should be viewed as being very much more than a typical worldly method of ensuring the Christian Church PLC was brought under control, is deluded.
Incidentally, it also rather patently proves that the Church - as an institution - most certainly did and does change. Rather radically.
It changed from the disciple experience of those who had nowhere to lay their heads, carried one tunic, no purse etc; to a consolidation of phenomenal assets, and the establishment of a permanent earthly-presence, transforming gradually into a powerful city-state in its own right. It changed from the leadership of the man who refused to be protected by a sword on the night of his betrayal, to the requirement of entire Papal (and other Church) armies, to provide military defence and initiate violence against enemies.
It changed from the criticisms and warnings of Christ about the wealthy and those who 'lord it over others as the gentiles do'; to stratospheric hierarchies and unassailable authority - whether of Council or Pontiff. (Or even monarch and Lambeth, or Synod, or protestant manifestos of the use of wealth and leadership.)
Now, of course, the Holy Spirit can work in and through all this. Of course, the Church, or the Body - even in its worst incarnations - remains sanctified by its Head. But only because God is gracious and only because God wills it. There is nothing inherent in any church institution which can secure God's guarantee for its survival or its approbation. If any of our Churches or denominations or groups are ever blest it's because God is gracious and he wills it.
The RCC is one massive example of God's grace to the world. Every form of godliness and holiness and blessing lives and thrives there. And where the institution has been powerful in the Spirit incredible good has been done in Christ's name. But in that respect it is - qualitatively - no different from any other Church or denomination. And it seems strange to me that a history which - above all else - should teach it how to repent and reform afresh in every generation, is somehow transformed into a free pass for infallibility and the right never to be fundamentally questioned.
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
This is the part I don't get. How is this guarantee made? And how are the infallible occasions distinguished from the human ones? I don't see how such a claim can be made without a large dose of circular reasoning--it needs something other than "because the Church says so."
You are confusing two separate issues here. Namely, how it is being signified by the Church that an infallible decision is being made, and how you may know that this is truly the case. The difference is crucial, because it involves faith. It is actually rather straightforward for the Church to signify that something infallible is about to be declared. And essentially it indeed boils down to her just saying so. Though the infallibility is actually implicit in the occasion and the kind of statement being made, rather than an explicit marker: "The following is infallible: ..." But that just how humans operate, flatly stating facts in a manner accessible to all is not what people tend to do on momentous occasions.
Anyway, the question why you should believe in any such statement as actually infallible is a different one. That depends on your faith about the Church. It is not that the kind of statement being made somehow proves that the Church has infallible powers in making it. Rather the Church is assumed to have infallible powers (under certain circumstances), and the statement is seen as being made with those due to certain signifiers that the Church employs on that occasion. I do not believe at all that the Church can prove herself infallible by her teachings. The only proof that is potentially possible is that the Church is not infallible: namely if she were to declare something as infallibly true which we can know by other means to be false. That has not happened, but if it did, then we could reject the claim of infallibility.
So in my opinion, you first have to sort out what you believe the Church is about. Then you will know whether some of things she does may be infallible.
No, I don't think I'm confusing the issues -- that's why I posed two separate questions.
But your last paragraph neatly illustrates the circularity: if I assume/accept by faith that the Church can be infallible, then I will know that she can be infallible.
[edited for coding]
[ 21. March 2013, 18:25: Message edited by: Lothiriel ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
But your last paragraph neatly illustrates the circularity: if I assume/accept by faith that the Church can be infallible, then I will know that she can be infallible.
There's nothing circular there at all, other than you repeating the same thing twice, and sticking it into an "if .. then ..." construct. It is simply the case that you have to take on faith that the Church can be infallible. One can argue for the coherence of this belief with other beliefs, etc., but ultimately there is no "proof" for such matters.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
But your last paragraph neatly illustrates the circularity: if I assume/accept by faith that the Church can be infallible, then I will know that she can be infallible.
Speaking for myself, I have faith in Jesus, which demands that I also have faith in the Scriptures that tell me about Jesus, which also demands that I have faith in the Church from which the Scriptures proceed. Then, of course, faith in Jesus leads me to have faith in the promises he's made to His Church, which leads me to trust in his Church. It's not circularity- it's all one piece.
And I'm arguing that as a Protestant.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's what the Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, Oriental Orthodox, and lots of other claims for themselves, SCK.
I thought the Catholic Church softened its stance on this a few hundred years ago, or am I thinking of something else?
More recently than a few hundred years ago - Google for Lumen Gentium which dates from 1965.
Of which ad orientam has already said: quote:
I always felt Lumen Gentium veered to the Proddy end of things.
It did and that's why the Traditionslists found it highly problematic.
Posted by Cadfael (# 11066) on
:
Anselmina:
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
But your last paragraph neatly illustrates the circularity: if I assume/accept by faith that the Church can be infallible, then I will know that she can be infallible.
There's nothing circular there at all, other than you repeating the same thing twice, and sticking it into an "if .. then ..." construct. It is simply the case that you have to take on faith that the Church can be infallible. One can argue for the coherence of this belief with other beliefs, etc., but ultimately there is no "proof" for such matters.
Well, you gave me a "first ... then". Seems like a distinction without a difference.
But yes, what I was trying to understand is that the Church claims infallibility purely as a matter of faith, and that this claim is the basic assumption--thank you for clarifying that.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Speaking for myself, I have faith in Jesus, which demands that I also have faith in the Scriptures that tell me about Jesus, which also demands that I have faith in the Church from which the Scriptures proceed. Then, of course, faith in Jesus leads me to have faith in the promises he's made to His Church, which leads me to trust in his Church. It's not circularity- it's all one piece.
And I'm arguing that as a Protestant.
I can see how that progression works -- but infallibility of the Church is not a necessary conclusion; trusting Jesus need not inevitably lead to trusting everything the Church says when it has its infallibility hat on. There are other possibilities, as suggested in the preceding discussions about human failings--e.g., how can the Church claim that we should trust it implicitly on matters of faith and doctrine but not necessarily on its own practices? Faith and practice seemed not distinct matters in Jesus's mind.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I can see how that progression works -- but infallibility of the Church is not a necessary conclusion; trusting Jesus need not inevitably lead to trusting everything the Church says when it has its infallibility hat on. There are other possibilities, as suggested in the preceding discussions about human failings--e.g., how can the Church claim that we should trust it implicitly on matters of faith and doctrine but not necessarily on its own practices? Faith and practice seemed not distinct matters in Jesus's mind.
Naturally I'm going to look more at the Bible as my source of authority, being a Protestant and all. But if you don't have something reliably telling us about Jesus, we're stuck with what we feel in our hearts becoming normative for the whole Church.
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I can see how that progression works -- but infallibility of the Church is not a necessary conclusion; trusting Jesus need not inevitably lead to trusting everything the Church says when it has its infallibility hat on. There are other possibilities, as suggested in the preceding discussions about human failings--e.g., how can the Church claim that we should trust it implicitly on matters of faith and doctrine but not necessarily on its own practices? Faith and practice seemed not distinct matters in Jesus's mind.
Naturally I'm going to look more at the Bible as my source of authority, being a Protestant and all. But if you don't have something reliably telling us about Jesus, we're stuck with what we feel in our hearts becoming normative for the whole Church.
I quite agree -- as an Anglican, I stand on the three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
I quite agree -- as an Anglican, I stand on the three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason.
I don't mean to sound petulant about this, but I'm coming to find that "But the three legged stool!" almost always seems to be a completely empty phrase. What does it mean? What is its relevance? Is it actually a Christian source of authority as employed but its invoker? It's never clear to me.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The great temptation is to avoid having to base everything on flimsy feeling and choice by declaring the infallibility of scripture or the church. At least, I see it as a temptation. But the alternative is to patiently and carefully argue, using tradition and reason. Absolute certainty is beyond us, but that doesn't mean that we can say nothing. You can get a long way with probabilities and the provisional - look at science.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The great temptation is to avoid having to base everything on flimsy feeling and choice by declaring the infallibility of scripture or the church. At least, I see it as a temptation. But the alternative is to patiently and carefully argue, using tradition and reason. Absolute certainty is beyond us, but that doesn't mean that we can say nothing. You can get a long way with probabilities and the provisional - look at science.
If we don't have some source of objective information about the matters at hand we have nothing to argue about.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The great temptation is to avoid having to base everything on flimsy feeling and choice by declaring the infallibility of scripture or the church. At least, I see it as a temptation. But the alternative is to patiently and carefully argue, using tradition and reason. Absolute certainty is beyond us, but that doesn't mean that we can say nothing. You can get a long way with probabilities and the provisional - look at science.
If we don't have some source of objective information about the matters at hand we have nothing to argue about.
It's politics, really.
We have plenty of objective information, but no certainty. We have the New Testament, we have centuries of theology and art and liturgy - a huge amount of stuff to get our teeth into. We can and do have great fun creatively arguing about the Trinity and forgiveness and contraception and the rest.
But we have to argue. One side wins many hearts and minds for a while, but not all, and then the pendulum swings and other arguments prevail. It's tiresome and risky, and people in hats don't like it.
If we had certainty, then all the arguing could be stopped, the little people could be silenced, the Ship of Fools and all the synods and conferences could be shut down, and everybody would be of one mind. Apart from the people who were wrong.
I think that uncertainty is written into the fabric of the universe and therefore into theology. I think it's part of the character of God. God is a relationship. In the beginning was the conversation.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
You're confusing certainty and authority. Authority tells us what the content of the Christian faith is, and discerning that content can involve argument using reason and tradition. But do the propositions discerned in the Scriptures really obtain? That is not a matter of certainty- it's a matter of faith.
It's not a matter of certainty that there is one God. It is certain that Christianity says there is one God.
[ 21. March 2013, 20:51: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
I quite agree -- as an Anglican, I stand on the three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason.
I don't mean to sound petulant about this, but I'm coming to find that "But the three legged stool!" almost always seems to be a completely empty phrase. What does it mean? What is its relevance? Is it actually a Christian source of authority as employed but its invoker? It's never clear to me.
I don't think it's a source of authority in itself as much as a reminder that we shouldn't lean too heavily on any single authority and we should use our heads. AIUI, it's a repudiation of sola scriptura, as well as the Catholic triumverate of scripture, tradition, and magisterium. (And, since scriptural authority derives from the declaration/tradition of the church as to which writings are canonical, the authority of scripture can be considered a subset of that of tradition.)
The nod to reason is a caution against believing things based on blind trust and flimsy foundations. It's also a guard against, say, taking scripture literally when all evidence points to something else -- so, that, for example, since the overwhelming scientific evidence points to a universe that took shape in considerably more than six days, we should treat the biblical creation stories as something other than scientific fact. Thus reason doesn't override scripture, but it changes the way we see it.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
I quite agree -- as an Anglican, I stand on the three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason.
I don't mean to sound petulant about this, but I'm coming to find that "But the three legged stool!" almost always seems to be a completely empty phrase. What does it mean? What is its relevance? Is it actually a Christian source of authority as employed but its invoker? It's never clear to me.
It seems to be a misreading of Richard Hooker.
quote:
Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this succeedeth that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.
--The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, V:8:2
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But if you don't have something reliably telling us about Jesus, we're stuck with what we feel in our hearts becoming normative for the whole Church.
Or to put it another way, we're stuck with having to rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us into truth.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I've never thought of the Holy Spirit as "Some vague spiritual sensibility," but that's me.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
On 'scripture, reason and tradition', I'm sure we've had this discussion before. My understanding is that, yes, this was Hooker's response to some of the odder 'sola scriptura' arguments. However, he was not maintaining that these are three independent sources of authority, nor that one could weigh each of the three in the balance and choose which one found the more persuasive in any particular situation. He was arguing from an assumption that scripture is the basic authority, but that one must and should accept the assistance of reason and tradition in understanding it.
I'm sure I can also remember a thread that got onto discussing which pronoun to use for the Holy Spirit. The usual argument, with which I profoundly agree, is that he is not 'it'. Although the Holy Spirit does not have gender in the way the other two persons of the Trinity do, in English 'it' so strongly conveys 'thinghood' or 'non-personhood', that to use 'it' is more seriously misleading than allocating a gender to one who is a person but is neither male nor female.
For the same reason, 'it' implies that one doesn't really take seriously that the Holy Spirit is Consubstantial and Co-eternal with the Father and the Son.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Second post
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Or to put it another way, we're stuck with having to rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us into truth.
Who else are you expecting to do this, or are you imagining could do it better?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I think the sort of humility Marvin is proposing is actually an attack on the very core of the Christian message. God became a human being, a particular one in a particular place and time. As a human being he lived, taught, was persecuted, died, and rose again from the dead. The apostles saw it with their own eyes, and their experiences are related to all humankind today in the Holy Scriptures. Salvation comes to humankind by believing it.
But modern man says to these apostles, the ones who actually knew Jesus firsthand, and says "I like this loving one another business very well, but surely you can't have gotten matters right." And it seems very odd to me that people who did not know Jesus should question those who did know him. This modern man goes on to say, if only implicitly "The apostles didn't really know God in Jesus, and no one does or ever will. Not for sure anyway."
And just like that Christianity becomes completely empty. It traffics in feelings and platitudes but certainly not the grace of God.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the sort of humility Marvin is proposing is actually an attack on the very core of the Christian message. God became a human being, a particular one in a particular place and time. As a human being he lived, taught, was persecuted, died, and rose again from the dead. The apostles saw it with their own eyes, and their experiences are related to all humankind today in the Holy Scriptures. Salvation comes to humankind by believing it.
But modern man says to these apostles, the ones who actually knew Jesus firsthand, and says "I like this loving one another business very well, but surely you can't have gotten matters right." And it seems very odd to me that people who did not know Jesus should question those who did know him. This modern man goes on to say, if only implicitly "The apostles didn't really know God in Jesus, and no one does or ever will. Not for sure anyway."
And just like that Christianity becomes completely empty. It traffics in feelings and platitudes but certainly not the grace of God.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Well people are so much cleverer nowadays than they were in the days of the Apostles, aren't they Zach82?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
So what exactly do you think the holy spirit has been doing the last 2000 or so years - does it inspire *only* the institution of the Roman Catholic church ? That seems rather limited for a deity.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Assuming you are baptized, the Catholic Church considers you a Christian with an impaired relationship to the Church. Very few mainstream Catholic theologians these days would say all non-Catholics are certainly damned, but I don't think that's a matter of dogma either way. At any rate, it IS a matter of dogma that it would better for you to join up with the Real Deal.
Thanks, Zach82; this seems fair enough to me (but - thanks too, Matt Black - the official position pre-1965 was that all non-Catholics are damned?) and indeed I might well say the same thing in reverse, if pressed for my opinion. [EDIT - I mean, I might say someone would be better off joining my church. I don't mean my church is the Real Deal, One True Church!]
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...there seems to be an awful lot of mistaking the Body of Christ - with Christ as the Head - for the human institutionalizing of Christianity. People are the Body of Christ - not doctrines, traditions or institutions.
...Administratively, organization and detail obviously needed to be added to a growing religion - particularly after Constantine's support sent it viral (so to speak!). In short, too much power, wealth and spiritual influence was at stake to leave such a religion in the hands of local pastors or groups.
But that this should be viewed as being very much more than a typical worldly method of ensuring the Christian Church PLC was brought under control, is deluded.
Incidentally, it also rather patently proves that the Church - as an institution - most certainly did and does change. Rather radically.
Hear hear, Anselmina. I don't understand this argument that the Church (whichever church is meant) has remained unchanged in all important facets since the time of the Apostles. It's clearly changed enormously, and any attempt to wave away those changes as being of secondary importance is begging the question, IMO.
[ 22. March 2013, 01:15: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
(but - thanks too, Matt Black - the official position pre-1965 was that all non-Catholics are damned?)
While that belief was more popularly believed in the past (its popularity actually began declining long before 1965), it was never the dogmatically defined position of the RC Church.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
(but - thanks too, Matt Black - the official position pre-1965 was that all non-Catholics are damned?)
While that belief was more popularly believed in the past (its popularity actually began declining long before 1965), it was never the dogmatically defined position of the RC Church.
Well... people could certainly be forgiven for thinking that the RCC had held other dogma prior to VII. The footwork of that pastoral council is certainly quite fancy as it dances around Catholic dogma previously defined. Even so, people base their opinion mostly on not having read Lumen Gentium, which does contain statements like "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." So... ecclesiology now has turned into epistemology. Do you know that the Catholic Church (and rest assured, the RCC means the RCC by that) was made necessary by Christ? Because if so, then you are indeed doomed as non-RC (according to the RCC, including mark VII).
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
I quite agree -- as an Anglican, I stand on the three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason.
I don't mean to sound petulant about this, but I'm coming to find that "But the three legged stool!" almost always seems to be a completely empty phrase. What does it mean? What is its relevance? Is it actually a Christian source of authority as employed but its invoker? It's never clear to me.
It seems to be a misreading of Richard Hooker. quote:
Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this succeedeth that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.
--The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, V:8:2
All three of you—Zach82, Fr Weber, and Richard Hooker—warm the cockles of my stone cold heart.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Tradition shouldn't be viewed as something separate from or parallel to scripture. Tradition is the scriptures realised in the life of the Church, in the ancient liturgies and canons, the creeds and in the lives of the saints.
Another thing, the Church does not change. The Church today is the same Church of the Apostles and will be till the day of the Lord, the same faith preserved by the Holy Spirit unadulterated, no sleights of hand but the faith delivered once to the saints. Growth there is but nothing new.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...I'm sure I can also remember a thread that got onto discussing which pronoun to use for the Holy Spirit. The usual argument, with which I profoundly agree, is that he is not 'it'. Although the Holy Spirit does not have gender in the way the other two persons of the Trinity do, in English 'it' so strongly conveys 'thinghood' or 'non-personhood', that to use 'it' is more seriously misleading than allocating a gender to one who is a person but is neither male nor female.
For the same reason, 'it' implies that one doesn't really take seriously that the Holy Spirit is Consubstantial and Co-eternal with the Father and the Son.
In "ye olde english" much of the time "men" could mean men and women, "dear sir" was a correct formal way to address a letter to a man or a woman (if you didn't know.) So "he" for the Holy Spirit wouldn't have insisted on a gender. Sadly, we have "progressed" since then... (apologies in advance for all the "scare quotes."
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the sort of humility Marvin is proposing is actually an attack on the very core of the Christian message. .....
But modern man says to these apostles, the ones who actually knew Jesus firsthand, and says "I like this loving one another business very well, but surely you can't have gotten matters right." ...... And just like that Christianity becomes completely empty. It traffics in feelings and platitudes but certainly not the grace of God.
I'll let Marvin answer for himself because - like the apostles - he knows better what he means by what he says!
But in general I don't think anyone - at least on this thread - is suggesting that the disciples did not know Jesus well enough, or that they misunderstood him so much at the time of the incarnation, that they didn't know how to effectively establish the Church that followed from Christ's teaching. That certainly wouldn't be my view.
And Mark Betts's comment following Zach's post is misleading in some ways. As it tends to highlight that false dichotomy between how 'right' everything was then, over and against how 'wrong' any apparently new stuff must be in our current claimed experience of God. 'New' being defined - usually - as anything taken after the rise and establishment of the ascendant Church power.
(And yes, Mark Betts, in some ways people are so much cleverer today than they were back in the times when the sun went round the earth! One just needs to exercise a little discernment and common sense to know in which ways 'cleverer'.)
And it is wrong, I think, to raise that as an issue somehow peculiar for today, in a way that it never was before. Do we seriously believe that Peter and John and James and Andrew etc, would really have recognized the post-Constantine Church as being faithfully consistent with their own experience of Christ's message and ministry? No doubt they would have found a place in such a Church - but not as prelates, or cardinals, or popes or bishops.
If we so value the authenticity of the apostles' experience of Christ - and believe we have observed it so well in our traditional Church establishments - why did the successors of Peter live in palaces? Why did certain Churches lead armies, raze towns, capture wealth, impose the 'faith' in a way barely indistinguishable from terrorism? (Ironically, despite carrying the burden of huge wealth, the modern Papacy - arguably minus the Curia - is probably closer now to the original character of a Petrine ministry than it has been for almost as long as it has existed.)
And, equally, the signal failure of the various reformations was in the doomed-to-fail-from-the-start idea of returning to a pristine Church. Even house churches, and cell churches etc, can only claim partial alliance with how the New Testament churches really followed Christ. We all claim the apostolic authority in some shape or form. But in a way that the apostles themselves would hardly recognize as belonging to their own firsthand experience of Christ.
The only way we can possibly be at peace with this, is in acknowledging that the Church(es) have been moving away from that authentic expressison of apostolic mission, probably since Polycarp went under the ground. And that the natural political changes of power, kingdoms, religion and the human sciences obviously shaped the institution of the Church from century to century. For good and for bad. That isn't to say that the message has been inauthentic. Not always, at any rate. Otherwise the churches' institutions would not have survived.
We may have closed the book of scriptural revelation, and closed down further possibilities of ecclesiastical revelation - and I totally agree with those who say there must be defining authority outside of one's mere conscience - but the human experience of God is not closed and settled; any more than our human knowledge of God is complete and settled.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
In "ye olde english" much of the time "men" could mean men and women, "dear sir" was a correct formal way to address a letter to a man or a woman (if you didn't know.) So "he" for the Holy Spirit wouldn't have insisted on a gender. Sadly, we have "progressed" since then... (apologies in advance for all the "scare quotes."
The only scare quote to apologise for is 'progressive'. Unless you think it a regressive step for women to be acknowledged, in terms of language and culture, in their own right?
As for the Holy Spirit. He/She/it. I know for some people it's an important issue. But I'm equally content for any of these pro-nouns to be used.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...(And yes, Mark Betts, in some ways people are so much cleverer today than they were back in the times when the sun went round the earth! One just needs to exercise a little discernment and common sense to know in which ways 'cleverer'.)
"Cleverer" is the wrong word - we have more knowledge about the physical world, but that doesn't make us smarter concerning the things of God, although many seem to think it does. How easy it is for all this new knowledge and smartness to turn into vanity. When it boils down to it, we are probably in agreement here, but we need to be very careful about our terminology.
One example is, concerning our knowledge of God, what difference does it really make whether the Sun goes around the earth or vice-versa?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Ad Orientem
It may be that a part of your difficulty in engaging with conversation here is that you think folks do not understand the bases of Orthodoxy. Many of the regular contributors do, but we just dissent from some of them. Which makes us un-Orthodox.
I guess you have to decide for yourself whether engagement with the un-Orthodox is worth your while. But it may help you to know that you're not in general correcting ignorance here, just criticising the bases for our Protesting and dissent.
Thinking about the three legged stool, it's just a metaphor. All Christians of whatever persuasion use tradition, scripture however you see it incorporated in or guarded by tradition) and reason in making sense of our faith. The only real differences are the various balances we give to the three factors.
Using the metaphor, I think that in all our communities, and maybe for all of us, the legs are of different lengths.
A Traditionalist will say as a matter of obedience that Tradition trumps everything else. Reason and scripture have their place but are in the last resort subordinate to it. We check out our reasoning and our reading of scripture by reference to what Tradition tells us. At its extreme, Tradition is sacrosanct.
A sola scriptura type will say that scripture trumps everything else. It can be used to examine critically the Traditional record, using reason, but ultimately, both reason and Tradition are subordinate to Scripture. And at its extreme, Scripture is sacrosanct.
A reasoning type will argue that Tradition and Scripture are the rich deposit of our faith. We should use reason to make sense of them and not be afraid to apply critical methodologies to both the content and conclusions to be found in them, At its extreme, reason and the critical processes are sacrosanct.
If I may put it this way, in our different denominations the acceptable ranges of leg lengths are different. People get into trouble with "orthodox" or "normal" understandings within denominations because they step outside of the "normal" range. The discussions re Steve Chalke and evangelicalism have demonstrated very well the validity of that sort of picture.
What happens here on SoF is that dialogue between Christians of different denominations works best if these existing leg-length differences are appreciated and understood. We find some common ground which we may not have realised was there, and we can find ways of illuminating our differences which educate but do not polarise. That does sometimes happen. Other times we just row, repeating old arguments, retreating behind the parapet of what is "normal" for us. For me, that's the fun and delight of the conversations here. I've never come across anything like it anywhere else.
What I hope for the relationship between Anglicanism and the new Pope is that the dialogue will take the different leg lengths as given (though not above criticism) there will be some fresh exploration of common ground, and the differences can be illuminated in ways which do not polarise. Basically, the reiterations of "you must cross the Tiber" or "you must cross the Bosphorus" in either direction are just sterile. To use a Jesus metaphor, when we do that we are like children calling to one another across a market place.
We need to close the differences, find touching places. I hope Archbishop Welby and Pope Francis can be friends, and by their friendship despite continuing differences, model something we all need to learn. How to live in greater harmony despite our differences. To get fresh glimpses of the unity which is our ultimate destiny.
[ 22. March 2013, 07:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The only scare quote to apologise for is 'progressive'. Unless you think it a regressive step for women to be acknowledged, in terms of language and culture, in their own right?
As for the Holy Spirit. He/She/it. I know for some people it's an important issue. But I'm equally content for any of these pro-nouns to be used.
I wasn't thinking about women's roles at all here - just old english grammar, and sometimes how we re-interpret things to make problems which aren't really there at all.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Barnabas62
In Orthodoxy, we see Holy Scripture as a part of Holy Tradition - some might say the most important part. So consequently, we end up not with a three legged stool but a two legged stool. Having said that, we don't put much emphasis on reason either, so our two legged stool will have one very long leg and one very short leg (if it exists at all.)
So wonder no more why the Orthodox usually stand throughout their services.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
"Cleverer" is the wrong word - we have more knowledge about the physical world, but that doesn't make us smarter concerning the things of God, although many seem to think it does. How easy it is for all this new knowledge and smartness to turn into vanity. When it boils down to it, we are probably in agreement here, but we need to be very careful about our terminology.
One example is, concerning our knowledge of God, what difference does it really make whether the Sun goes around the earth or vice-versa?
Sadly, it made enough difference in those times to be labelled as theologically unsound and ungodly; and for the proponents of such science to be persecuted by the Church, imprisoned, prevented from further study, excommunicated etc. Galileo has already been mentioned. And while I agree it wasn't just a Church vs. Science issue (some churchmen validated the science eg), it was most definitely a Papacy vs. Science issue.
And if the sun were to go round the earth, nobody would have any problem with what effects it would have on our relationship with God. Because there wouldn't be an earth, and there wouldn't be an 'us' to worry about it!
Still, with ref to your first para. We're certainly not as clever as we think we are. But that makes it very probable that we weren't as clever as we thought we were 2000 years ago, either. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Cadfael (# 11066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thinking about the three legged stool, it's just a metaphor. All Christians of whatever persuasion use tradition, scripture however you see it incorporated in or guarded by tradition) and reason in making sense of our faith. The only real differences are the various balances we give to the three factors.
Using the metaphor, I think that in all our communities, and maybe for all of us, the legs are of different lengths.
A Traditionalist will say as a matter of obedience that Tradition trumps everything else. Reason and scripture have their place but are in the last resort subordinate to it. We check out our reasoning and our reading of scripture by reference to what Tradition tells us. At its extreme, Tradition is sacrosanct.
A sola scriptura type will say that scripture trumps everything else. It can be used to examine critically the Traditional record, using reason, but ultimately, both reason and Tradition are subordinate to Scripture. And at its extreme, Scripture is sacrosanct.
A reasoning type will argue that Tradition and Scripture are the rich deposit of our faith. We should use reason to make sense of them and not be afraid to apply critical methodologies to both the content and conclusions to be found in them, At its extreme, reason and the critical processes are sacrosanct.
If I may put it this way, in our different denominations the acceptable ranges of leg lengths are different. People get into trouble with "orthodox" or "normal" understandings within denominations because they step outside of the "normal" range. The discussions re Steve Chalke and evangelicalism have demonstrated very well the validity of that sort of picture.
What happens here on SoF is that dialogue between Christians of different denominations works best if these existing leg-length differences are appreciated and understood. We find some common ground which we may not have realised was there, and we can find ways of illuminating our differences which educate but do not polarise. That does sometimes happen. Other times we just row, repeating old arguments, retreating behind the parapet of what is "normal" for us. For me, that's the fun and delight of the conversations here. I've never come across anything like it anywhere else.
What I hope for the relationship between Anglicanism and the new Pope is that the dialogue will take the different leg lengths as given (though not above criticism) there will be some fresh exploration of common ground, and the differences can be illuminated in ways which do not polarise. Basically, the reiterations of "you must cross the Tiber" or "you must cross the Bosphorus" in either direction are just sterile. To use a Jesus metaphor, when we do that we are like children calling to one another across a market place.
We need to close the differences, find touching places. I hope Archbishop Welby and Pope Francis can be friends, and by their friendship despite continuing differences, model something we all need to learn. How to live in greater harmony despite our differences. To get fresh glimpses of the unity which is our ultimate destiny.
I think this lovely post speaks to all of us. It's not only patient, kind and eirenic, it also beautifully explains the difference between discussion and dialogue.
[ 22. March 2013, 07:30: Message edited by: Cadfael ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Barnabas62
In Orthodoxy, we see Holy Scripture as a part of Holy Tradition - some might say the most important part.
Yes, that's a given for me, which is why I used the "however incorporated" phrase - and got the brackets wrong to boot ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
.
The picture of the Orthodox standing to worship on one long leg and one very short leg made me smile.
Cadfael
Thank you. It was an attempt to paint a complex picture as best I understood it. I'm not quite sure which leg I was hopping on at the time ..
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ad Orientem
It may be that a part of your difficulty in engaging with conversation here is that you think folks do not understand the bases of Orthodoxy. Many of the regular contributors do, but we just dissent from some of them. Which makes us un-Orthodox.
I guess you have to decide for yourself whether engagement with the un-Orthodox is worth your while. But it may help you to know that you're not in general correcting ignorance here, just criticising the bases for our Protesting and dissent.
Well, I can only go on past experience and it is my experience that most people know little or nothing about Orthodoxy. In the mind of the West the Christian East is but a long lost memory to the point that it is often ignored altogether. There is an example in this thread where someone has replied to me and made constant reference to the RCC as if I spoke for it, even though I have mentioned many times that I speak from an Orthodox perspective. Nevermind, I should be used to it. It happens all the time. If people on this forum are better informed, however, that is a good thing, of course.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've never thought of the Holy Spirit as "Some vague spiritual sensibility," but that's me.
Your original phrase was "what we feel in our hearts". The Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts. Ergo I'd say the two are - or at least can be - the same.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thinking about the three legged stool, it's just a metaphor. All Christians of whatever persuasion use tradition, scripture however you see it incorporated in or guarded by tradition) and reason in making sense of our faith. The only real differences are the various balances we give to the three factors. Using the metaphor, I think that in all our communities, and maybe for all of us, the legs are of different lengths.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that that is the key difference at all. Within Roman Catholicism, you will find pretty much any combination of lengths of those legs, on the individual level and on the institutional level. In many cases it is enough to mention a name to evoke certain expectations concerning that: Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans, Carmelites, Carthusians, Benedictines, Charismatics, Thomists, Molinists, ... One can engineer stools that work as stools with all manner of weird legs. The fundamental question for RCs is where you place your stool: on quicksand or rock. That will determine what happens when you sit down. That you do not look at the ground, but go on about the stool, is already the Protestant move. Because it already places the basis of evaluation in the human mind, and hence in the individual (perhaps individuals of like mind, but still). Roman Catholicism primarily rests on the sacrament of episcopal ordination. Divine power flows through human hand from person to person in history. All the rest, even the question of what tradition may say about this or that, rests on first establishing the Church in and through a group of people: the apostles and their successors. Tradition, like all history, is a story about the past told by the living. It never is what was. Scripture, like all written text, is open to interpretation. It never speaks unequivocally. Reason, like all human powers, is fallible and finite. It can never go all the way to God. The Church cannot rest on your stool, unless that stool rests on something else. It is Protestant to have forgotten the one basis that Christ gave to us. (It is Orthodox to do the more or less right thing by force of habit...)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ad Orientem
It may be that a part of your difficulty in engaging with conversation here is that you think folks do not understand the bases of Orthodoxy. Many of the regular contributors do, but we just dissent from some of them. Which makes us un-Orthodox.
I guess you have to decide for yourself whether engagement with the un-Orthodox is worth your while. But it may help you to know that you're not in general correcting ignorance here, just criticising the bases for our Protesting and dissent.
Well, I can only go on past experience and it is my experience that most people know little or nothing about Orthodoxy. In the mind of the West the Christian East is but a long lost memory to the point that it is often ignored altogether. There is an example in this thread where someone has replied to me and made constant reference to the RCC as if I spoke for it, even though I have mentioned many times that I speak from an Orthodox perspective. Nevermind, I should be used to it. It happens all the time. If people on this forum are better informed, however, that is a good thing, of course.
It's some and some of course. But a bit of the history of this place can help. A few years ago we used to refer to the "Orthodox Plot™ ", which was a nod in the direction of mousethief, Josephine, Father Gregory and others for their vigorous contributions to discussions here.
I was pretty ignorant about Orthodoxy when I joined. I knew more about Catholicism, but not nearly as much as I thought I did. Shipmates like Trisagion and Triple Tiara helped a lot with that.
So far as Orthodoxy goes, I read and got much out of Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Way" and listened to some online homilies which were very good. I've looked at the liturgies, read quite a lot of St John Chrysostom on line, and discovered a new personal hero, Fr Alexander Men. That plus the vigorous discussions here has given me a better appreciation of some of the richness to be found in Orthodoxy. I could paint a similar picture over Catholicism and have similar gratitudes.
There's a lot to be said for exploring and informing yourself. I'm a better informed and less polarised nonconformist as a result. More peaceful in my stroppiness, I think.
[ 22. March 2013, 09:25: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Ok. Cheers, Barnabas.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Roman Catholicism primarily rests on the sacrament of episcopal ordination. Divine power flows through human hand from person to person in history. All the rest, even the question of what tradition may say about this or that, rests on first establishing the Church in and through a group of people: the apostles and their successors. Tradition, like all history, is a story about the past told by the living. It never is what was. Scripture, like all written text, is open to interpretation. It never speaks unequivocally. Reason, like all human powers, is fallible and finite. It can never go all the way to God. The Church cannot rest on your stool, unless that stool rests on something else. It is Protestant to have forgotten the one basis that Christ gave to us. (It is Orthodox to do the more or less right thing by force of habit...)
It's not my stool, is it? It's just a modest attempt to picture a complicated metaphor.
Actually, I accept all of the above. I'm just less sure than you are about which hands have been legitimised by God to hand down the Truth once given.
It's a fundamental difference between us of course. But the legitimation of the human hand is a central part of Holy Tradition within Catholicism. As I said, in the extreme, in the last resort, it trumps everything else. It's why you think I'm wrong.
But you'd be quite wrong to assume that, as a result, I don't accept the fallibility of reason, or the equivocal nature of both Tradition and Scripture. These mark out the ground where God wrestles with us, and we do with Him.
Part of my wrestling is that I do not accept Catholicism as the sole Christian authority over faith and morals. The basis of my dissent is not just the direction in which my fallible reason points. in all conscience, I think some of the dogmatic positions are unjustified and have bad effects.
That may make me "without the Law, or the fold" from your perspective. But I'm not a law unto myself. I just have different accountabilities and it doesn't bother me that Catholicism declares them to be unauthorised. I've learned to trust them. I don't have the same trust for all the teachings of catholicism, though I 'nods me head' without difficulty to many of them.
Such choices are of course more important than life and death. But here I stand. I can do no other, I'm afraid. Actually, I'm not afraid.
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
Interesting to compare the messages given to ++Justin Welby by both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict. Do ignore the bitchy tone of the comments underneath - I've neither the time or the inclination to tackle that particular nest of vipers.
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict on new ABC
It's not the substance of their points, which are made well, but the tone is different. Dare I suggest that the lamenting the secular world ignoring the lament of the Pope Emeritus may not actually capture the hearts of the hitherto lukewarm or indifferent?
[ 22. March 2013, 11:26: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Some Christians seem to almost demonize the secular world. This seems absurd to me. OK, there are aspects of it that can be criticized, but to say that it is bad because it is secular seems short-sighted to me. Do I want a theocratic state? - as much as I want boils on my arse.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
But the secular world and Christianity are more at odds than ever and that continue to grow even more in the future. I always got the feeling that most just didn't "get" Pope Benedict. Much of what he had to say concerning the secular world can be summarised thus: we are leaving the Constantinian era and are entering into a similar situation the Church was in during the first three centuries; let's confirm our orthodoxy by getting in touch with Tradition and be a light in the darkness.
[ 22. March 2013, 13:32: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
It is possibly quite different in Scandinavia, but certainly with regards to the English-speaking world Christianity is still very dominant, at least culturally. Secularism (in these countries at least) has given Christians more religious freedom, not less - albeit we do not have the right to impinge on others' religious freedom, as is quite right. Worldwide, Christians are being martyred in theocracies and dictatorships, not secular Western democracies.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I don't buy this "secular world and Christianity more at odds with each other" stuff, to be honest. Many of the societal moves over the last few decades - equal ops, increasing marginalisation of racist attitudes, seem to me to be very positive. There are many, many ways that I prefer the society of the 2010s to that of say the 70s or even 80s. As for the Victorian period...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
In fact, secularism can protect religion, and stop one religion imposing on others or the non-religious, or vice versa.
I'm a secularist, and I think many Christians are today. A theocratic state - no thanks.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Western secular society is not only at odds with Christianity, it is openly hostile to it. Better not to have anything to do with it and instead be a light in the darkness.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Western secular society is not only at odds with Christianity, it is openly hostile to it.
No it isn't.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Western secular society is not only at odds with Christianity, it is openly hostile to it.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Western secular society is not only at odds with Christianity, it is openly hostile to it.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
Tell you what - your assertion was the first, so why don't you back yours up. Then I'll back up mine.
Or we can imitate a pantomime. Your choice
It's behiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind you!
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Secularism (in these countries at least) has given Christians more religious freedom, not less - albeit we do not have the right to impinge on others' religious freedom, as is quite right.
I think there's a distinction to be made between secularism as political compromise designed to remove unnecessary religious discrimination to the good of all affected, and secularism as a goal of eradicating religion.
The term seems to be used in both senses and there's obviously going to be some overlap but anybody with even a passing knowledge of history should agree that the first version of secularism is a good. It's the second version that gets some of us worried, once again in the light of history, and probably tars the first with the same brush.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Western secular society is not only at odds with Christianity, it is openly hostile to it. Better not to have anything to do with it and instead be a light in the darkness.
Unless one becomes a hermit, it is impossible to not have anything to do with Western secular society if you live in Western secular countries. Could you please give some evidence as to how Western secularism is openly hostile to Christianity? It's hostile to Christian theocracy which is not the same thing at all, and since Jesus didn't exactly encourage theocracy either I'm quite OK with that.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've never thought of the Holy Spirit as "Some vague spiritual sensibility," but that's me.
Your original phrase was "what we feel in our hearts". The Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts. Ergo I'd say the two are - or at least can be - the same.
You can't work out "Jesus Christ is risen from the dead" in your heart any more than you can work out "the first moon landing by a human was in 1969." You have to be told about it, and you have to believe the person telling you.
Whatever you want to make of what you feel in your heart, it's not enough for the Christian message.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Western secular society is not only at odds with Christianity, it is openly hostile to it.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
Tell you what - your assertion was the first, so why don't you back yours up. Then I'll back up mine.
Or we can imitate a pantomime. Your choice
It's behiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind you!
I'd point you to Pope Benedict as he spoke about this many times, but as I said, most people just didn't get him. Western secular society actively seeks to exclude Christianity from the public sphere and impose its dictatorship of relativism on society.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Western secular society is not only at odds with Christianity, it is openly hostile to it.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
Tell you what - your assertion was the first, so why don't you back yours up. Then I'll back up mine.
Or we can imitate a pantomime. Your choice
It's behiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind you!
I'd point you to Pope Benedict as he spoke about this many times, but as I said, most people just didn't get him. Western secular society actively seeks to exclude Christianity from the public sphere and impose its dictatorship of relativism on society.
You mean it won't give you special treatment as of right? Good. I don't want society giving special privileges to any religious group - that's what you get in Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Western secular society is not only at odds with Christianity, it is openly hostile to it.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
Tell you what - your assertion was the first, so why don't you back yours up. Then I'll back up mine.
Or we can imitate a pantomime. Your choice
It's behiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind you!
I'd point you to Pope Benedict as he spoke about this many times, but as I said, most people just didn't get him. Western secular society actively seeks to exclude Christianity from the public sphere and impose its dictatorship of relativism on society.
You mean it won't give you special treatment as of right? Good. I don't want society giving special privileges to any religious group - that's what you get in Saudi Arabia and Iran.
No, that's not what I meant at all. GreyFace in his last post seems to understand. Check it out.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If you really want to know what I believe then it is this. I believe that the Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded. This is, if you like, a federation of local Churches in communion with one another because they all confess the same faith under an orthodox bishop. There are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church. The Church, however, is not limited by jurisdiction but is defined first and foremost by the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit act outside the bounds of jurisdiction though? Certainly, but where is difficult to say.
Don't you see then that if the action of the Holy Spirit outside the visible jurisdiction of the Church is salvific and there is no salvation outside the Church, then the bounds of the Church can't be the same as the jurisdictional boundaries of the visible Orthodox Church? You then have to say, it seems to me, that you believe you know where the Church is but you don't know where it is not and you have some concept of the invisible Church.
But the thread's moved on and as you said it's not a particularly helpful tangent, so I apologise for kicking it off.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Ah right. I'll check back when I find any evidence that "secular society" is trying to eradicate religion. Last time I checked we still had bishops in the House of Lords and an institutional church, so I think that time's some way off yet.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Secularism (in these countries at least) has given Christians more religious freedom, not less - albeit we do not have the right to impinge on others' religious freedom, as is quite right.
I think there's a distinction to be made between secularism as political compromise designed to remove unnecessary religious discrimination to the good of all affected, and secularism as a goal of eradicating religion.
The term seems to be used in both senses and there's obviously going to be some overlap but anybody with even a passing knowledge of history should agree that the first version of secularism is a good. It's the second version that gets some of us worried, once again in the light of history, and probably tars the first with the same brush.
But where in the West is the second version happening? The UK government seems in no hurry to get the CoE disestablished and is happy for faith schools to exist, and the US is clearly very religious and has a Christian President and Vice President. The installation of the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury have both been shown live on BBC1 and have both gained a lot of interest even from non-religious people. The only place I can think of that is secular in the second sense in the West is France, which to be honest is more Islamophobic than anything else.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
Satan isn't known as Rex Mundi for nothing.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If you really want to know what I believe then it is this. I believe that the Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded. This is, if you like, a federation of local Churches in communion with one another because they all confess the same faith under an orthodox bishop. There are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church. The Church, however, is not limited by jurisdiction but is defined first and foremost by the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit act outside the bounds of jurisdiction though? Certainly, but where is difficult to say.
Don't you see then that if the action of the Holy Spirit outside the visible jurisdiction of the Church is salvific and there is no salvation outside the Church, then the bounds of the Church can't be the same as the jurisdictional boundaries of the visible Orthodox Church? You then have to say, it seems to me, that you believe you know where the Church is but you don't know where it is not and you have some concept of the invisible Church.
But the thread's moved on and as you said it's not a particularly helpful tangent, so I apologise for kicking it off.
Know where it is (Orthodoxy) and not know where it isn't? Yeah, that sounds about right. That's why I said that the Church is defined first and foremost by the Holy Spirit not jurisdiction. I would say though that if a person has such knowledge, to remain outside of visible communion is risky.
[ 22. March 2013, 14:38: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If you really want to know what I believe then it is this. I believe that the Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded. This is, if you like, a federation of local Churches in communion with one another because they all confess the same faith under an orthodox bishop. There are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church. The Church, however, is not limited by jurisdiction but is defined first and foremost by the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit act outside the bounds of jurisdiction though? Certainly, but where is difficult to say.
Don't you see then that if the action of the Holy Spirit outside the visible jurisdiction of the Church is salvific and there is no salvation outside the Church, then the bounds of the Church can't be the same as the jurisdictional boundaries of the visible Orthodox Church? You then have to say, it seems to me, that you believe you know where the Church is but you don't know where it is not and you have some concept of the invisible Church.
But the thread's moved on and as you said it's not a particularly helpful tangent, so I apologise for kicking it off.
Have you never heard the expression "we know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The only place I can think of that is secular in the second sense in the West is France, which to be honest is more Islamophobic than anything else.
No no, as e.g. Eutychus will tell you, it goes much deeper than that.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If you really want to know what I believe then it is this. I believe that the Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded. This is, if you like, a federation of local Churches in communion with one another because they all confess the same faith under an orthodox bishop. There are no Holy Mysteries outside the Church. The Church, however, is not limited by jurisdiction but is defined first and foremost by the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit act outside the bounds of jurisdiction though? Certainly, but where is difficult to say.
Don't you see then that if the action of the Holy Spirit outside the visible jurisdiction of the Church is salvific and there is no salvation outside the Church, then the bounds of the Church can't be the same as the jurisdictional boundaries of the visible Orthodox Church? You then have to say, it seems to me, that you believe you know where the Church is but you don't know where it is not and you have some concept of the invisible Church.
But the thread's moved on and as you said it's not a particularly helpful tangent, so I apologise for kicking it off.
Have you never heard the expression "we know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Yeah - could you and Ab Orientem get together and decide the answer to the first question, then we can all get with the programme?
Thanks.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But where in the West is the second version happening?
Only, I think, in the general mind of the non- or weakly-religious majority. If I had to put money on it, I'd say the mind of the British public was that religion's acceptable as long as it doesn't actually get in the way of anything in the real world. Now, this isn't the second form of secularism (though it might end up that way) but it's not the first either.
I don't think this spirit's gained much of a foothold at the level of politics precisely because most if not all of our politicians understand that western democracies are not generally pleasant places to be as a consequence of them being democracies (people elect corrupt leaders, or theocratic governments etc) but rather because there's a general commitment to tolerance - backed up by the baseball bat of free elections, of course.
So no, I don't see an atheist plot to end Christianity hiding behind every bush. I think it's important that we remind people what secularism really should be about though, about freedom, and tolerance, getting on with people with different views. It's not about suppressing religion, or reducing religious influence as the so-called National Secular Society aims, it's about enabling freedom for people of all religions and none.
That's my take, anyway.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Don't you see then that if the action of the Holy Spirit outside the visible jurisdiction of the Church is salvific and there is no salvation outside the Church, then the bounds of the Church can't be the same as the jurisdictional boundaries of the visible Orthodox Church? You then have to say, it seems to me, that you believe you know where the Church is but you don't know where it is not and you have some concept of the invisible Church.
But the thread's moved on and as you said it's not a particularly helpful tangent, so I apologise for kicking it off.
Don't apologise, because that's exactly what some Orthodox DO say - certainly Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy Ware) has said this almost exactly to your words.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Don't apologise, because that's exactly what some Orthodox DO say - certainly Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy Ware) has said this almost exactly to your words.
Well spotted - I'd not deliberately quoted him without attribution but I have a couple of his books on the shelf behind me and I don't doubt he was the source of my words.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
..But where in the West is the second version happening?
Unfortunately, because the second type often masquerades as the first type, we have no way of knowing until it manifests itself.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yeah - could you and Ab Orientem get together and decide the answer to the first question, then we can all get with the programme?
Are you saying a Council of two random Shipmates is infallible? Great, can I have a second for anathema on sermons longer than ten minutes?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yeah - could you and Ab Orientem get together and decide the answer to the first question, then we can all get with the programme?
Are you saying a Council of two random Shipmates is infallible? Great, can I have a second for anathema on sermons longer than ten minutes?
No, but I was hoping to establish which of the Catholic and Orthodox churches was the One True Church. It'd be so useful to know.
They weren't chosen randomly
[ 22. March 2013, 15:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...No, but I was hoping to establish which of the Catholic and Orthodox churches was the One True Church. It'd be so useful to know.
They weren't chosen randomly
OK Karl, I'm not usually so candid, but I'll let you in on it - it's the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, but I was hoping to establish which of the Catholic and Orthodox churches was the One True Church. It'd be so useful to know.
My friend Fr Hart likes to refer to them as the Two One True Churches.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
We all know there is no salvation outside of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands. Duh.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
This thread is Exhibit A for why Anglicanism is a Good Thing.
Oh. And, wasn't it J2P2 who had something to say about the Two Lungs of the Church.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Don't apologise, because that's exactly what some Orthodox DO say - certainly Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy Ware) has said this almost exactly to your words.
Well spotted - I'd not deliberately quoted him without attribution but I have a couple of his books on the shelf behind me and I don't doubt he was the source of my words.
Kallistos takes the tag extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) and counters it with ubi salus, ibi ecclesia - where salvation is, there is the Church.
He's not unequivocal about it, but he does consider it a possibility.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm afraid that my tiny sect in Cirencester has proved itself to be the one true manifestation, or, as we say in these parts, we have well and truly smacked the pig's bottom. I won't bore you with scriptural and hermeneutic proofs; but rest assured that when the world is ready for them, they will emerge, as sure as the pig's farts.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Interesting to compare the messages given to ++Justin Welby by both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict. [..]
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict on new ABC
Thanks for posting this. Benedict XVI and Francis are different men, with different personal styles, and it's not surprising that their messages reflect this.
Each message makes veiled references to the well-known fact that there are differences between Rome and Canterbury (and not only on Dead Horse subjects), yet rejoices in the fact that we share much, and can work together on that basis, whilst accepting that the road to working out those last differences will not be an easy one.
Neither message indicates any kind of shift in the recent Catholic position with respect to the Church of England or the wider Anglican communion, and I don't think anyone would expect them to.
I do find it interesting that Benedict XVI, a serious theologian and a careful, precise man, used the word "apostolate" in reference to the calling of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but I think that over-thinking his use of this one word would be a mistake.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
This thread is Exhibit A for why Anglicanism is a Good Thing.
Oh. And, wasn't it J2P2 who had something to say about the Two Lungs of the Church.
Yeah, and it just goes to show how mixed up his ecclesiology is. If an RC say something like that I would answer "Leave me alone, I'm not your missing lung."
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We all know there is no salvation outside of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands. Duh.
Is that really so? Darn! ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We all know there is no salvation outside of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands. Duh.
Is that really so? Darn!
Be comforted my brother. Only the Lord himself knows who truly is and is not a member of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands!
And he has known it since before the creation of the world!
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
(but - thanks too, Matt Black - the official position pre-1965 was that all non-Catholics are damned?)
While that belief was more popularly believed in the past (its popularity actually began declining long before 1965), it was never the dogmatically defined position of the RC Church.
Indeed. Back in the 1950s and 1960s my very devout Catholic mother and ultra-devout Irish Catholic grandmother communicated quite the opposite to me. And the nuns in the Catholic schools i went to never communicated that to me, either. (Of course, the fact that it was 3rd and 4th grade elementary school, the nuns may have thought that the subject was too deep for us wee kiddies. Although i seem to recall a nun one time talking about an Anglo-Catholic church in the area, and informing us that it was not a real Catholic Church even though it looked like one.)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Even so, people base their opinion mostly on not having read Lumen Gentium, which does contain statements like "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."
That statement is saying is that if one truly believes that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be, and yet, in the light of their belief, deliberately goes against it, one is sinning. Just like the case where one who believes in their heart that murder or stealing or coveting are sins and yet murders or steals or covets. ISTM that the Lumen Gentium statement would not apply to sincere people of other religious bodies since they sincerely wouldn't believe that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I noted apostolate as well. It means the office, duties and/or mission of an apostle, I think.
But I doubt there has been any real change over the question of what makes an office holder fully legitimate. Less-than-fully legitimate installing and occupation do not rule out a rich harvest, but there's a lot of room for different views about what constitutes a rich harvest as well.
Clever man, the Pope Emeritus.
[ 22. March 2013, 20:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the word apostolate - and that's not simply to pour cold water on high hopes here.
In Catholic parlance "apostolate" simply means "ministry". So, for example, Apostolicam Actuositatem, is the Second Vatican Couincil's decree on "the apostolate of the laity".
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Triple T is right: I have a nice letter from the Nuncio blessing my apostolate, but it doesn't mean I'm a bishop.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
You learn something new every day.
At the risk of being accused of nitpicking, I think I'll give it another spin though. My curiosity is aroused.
Triple Tiara, it strikes me as quite odd to use it for a ministry outside the Catholic fold. Given normal Catholic verbal precision (something I admire BTW), I can understand how the term apostolate came to mean any ministry within Catholicism, since they are all apostolically authorised i.e. legitimate by means of the authority to given to the Catholic church and faithfully "handed down".
But that doesn't apply to Archbishop Welby, does it? Or any other ministry outside the fold. So why not just call his vocation a ministry? Not like the Pope Emeritus (of all men) to be inexact. So far as Archbishop Welby is concerned, ministry would have been a perfectly acceptable term.
Happy to be put right. It's a nice verbal courtesy of course, and perhaps it slides over a difficulty or two, but it does look a bit odd.
[ 23. March 2013, 01:55: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Part of my wrestling is that I do not accept Catholicism as the sole Christian authority over faith and morals. The basis of my dissent is not just the direction in which my fallible reason points. in all conscience, I think some of the dogmatic positions are unjustified and have bad effects.
Your conscience is not an automatic dispenser of eternal truths. Some truths written on your heart are, but that's at the "do good, avoid evil" level ("synderesis"). The applied bits you worry about here are however largely entrained. Someone told you what is right and what is wrong, and you learned it. Whether you learned the right thing is a circular question, if you use your own conscience to judge that.
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
ISTM that the Lumen Gentium statement would not apply to sincere people of other religious bodies since they sincerely wouldn't believe that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be.
It is a general trend to use these kind of "sincere mistake" caveats to essentially totally destroy these sorts of rules. Who after all would willingly go against his clear and decisive moral knowledge? (Even being driven by impulses can be interpreted as a lack of full freedom to choose evil.) I'm afraid I do not believe it. These rules do not just apply to an empty set of absolutely determined evildoers. The "knowing" involved here will be somewhere between the mere "having heard about it once somewhere" and the extreme "being totally convinced about it on account of plentiful information". Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
Posted by Cadfael (# 11066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[qb]Part of my wrestling is that I do not accept Catholicism as the sole Christian authority over faith and morals. The basis of my dissent is not just the direction in which my fallible reason points. in all conscience, I think some of the dogmatic positions are unjustified and have bad effects.
Your conscience is not an automatic dispenser of eternal truths. Some truths written on your heart are, but that's at the "do good, avoid evil" level ("synderesis"). The applied bits you worry about here are however largely entrained. Someone told you what is right and what is wrong, and you learned it. Whether you learned the right thing is a circular question, if you use your own conscience to judge that.
That seems to imply that no-one can get beyond a received deontological ethical position. There seem to be three problems with this:
1) It ignores the fact that people can reframe their normative ethical position by entertaining ideas about how a virtue ethics or consequentialist position might lead to different conclusions.
2) It assumes that people do not change their mind about what is right or wrong, nor lose trust in an instructional authority (parents, church, state - etc), based on experience. Failure in one principle leads others to be questioned. There is plenty of empirical evidence for this kind of judgement, from the personal scale to the tumult of the reformation. I speculate that the results of this kind of judgement involve point 1 above.
3) It assumes that people are (or should be) closed minded to the views and experience of others. That might be a part of some received ethical frameworks, but certainly not all. Some would accept that (moral) formation is a permanent condition, not something once-received, and requires continual engagement with the other.
In short, the innate human potential for reflexivity and the application (and evaluation) of certain ethical principles can lead to a spiral of moral development rather than a closed circle. A moral framework may itself provide the tools that allow the framework to be unpacked or surpassed, especially when it allows for development from experience and encounter.
One's conscience can then be seen as a deliberate commitment to continuing, personal moral formation. That is the kind of conscience that I see in Barnabas' writing, anyway.
[ 23. March 2013, 09:04: Message edited by: Cadfael ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
Worried about what specifically?
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
In short, the innate human potential for reflexivity and the application (and evaluation) of certain ethical principles can lead to a spiral of moral development rather than a closed circle. A moral framework may itself provide the tools that allow the framework to be unpacked or surpassed, especially when it allows for development from experience and encounter.
One's conscience can then be seen as a deliberate commitment to continuing, personal moral formation. That is the kind of conscience that I see in Barnabas' writing, anyway.
Well spoken, Cadfael. I too read Barnabas' writings this way, and I fully agree with your process perspective on moral development.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thanks IngoB, Cadfael and Desert Daughter for your thoughts.
Curiously enough I am reminded of a line from a Beatles song. "A long and winding road that leads to Your door".
Life is learning and pilgrimage. I travel hopefully and openly, but not alone.
quote:
From IngoB:
The applied bits you worry about here are however largely entrained. Someone told you what is right and what is wrong, and you learned it. Whether you learned the right thing is a circular question, if you use your own conscience to judge that.
Well of course there are many sources, many "someones" who tell us what is right and what is wrong. Many voices. Which ones stick? It's a good question.
Now here I am personally influenced not just by the strong sense of personal responsibility which I learned from my parents, but the remarkable insight of Ezekiel. The fathers may have eaten sour grapes but the children's teeth are not necessarily set on edge. Don't say that. Instead consider this. The soul that sins is the one which will die.
My pathway, in common with all of us, is to take personal responsibility for my choices, for my companions on the journey, for my own fallibility, and hope to learn on the way. But I am neither the captain of my ship, nor the master of my soul. There is an Author of my life and I am learning the part He has written for me. I am a beggar, learning from other beggars where food is to help with the journey. So I hear Jesus saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and "follow me". Which is what I try to do. But never on my own. I don't trust myself that much.
Here's a bit from a hymn I like, slightly modified by the Northumbria Community, for whom the term "companion" has a particular significance. (Interestingly, it's a dispersed ecumenical community which was founded by and contains nonconformists and Catholics.)
"We are pilgrims on a journey
We're companions on the road
Help us now to help each other
Walk a mile and bear the load"
I have found some very good companions on the way. Not infallible ones, of course. We stumble about and wind a bit. But it feels like a well-spent journey so far, it isn't over, and I'm still learning.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
I cry total and utter foul on any and all claims for certainty. We all, without exception, see through a glass darkly. We cannot discern accurately the motions of the holy spirit, we cannot reliably feel the prompting of Christ's companionship and we cannot hear well the voice of God. We are, in St. Paul's terms, necessarily children, and this injunction includes 2000-year-old institutions. Only when we meet God face to face shall we know and be known.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Some fine posts on this thread.
A total tangent, but have the Northumbria Community really changed
We are here to help each other
Walk the mile and bear the load.
to
Help us now to help each other
Walk a mile and bear the load.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I stand corrected, hatless. Just double checked. I've heard it sung both ways and both have something to say. The "authorised" we are here to help, emphasises personal responsibility, the "help us now" reminds us that we need the help of God in such helping.
Actually, the last few posts have all been a tangent. I suppose they illustrates both the challenges and difficulties of putting ecumenical hope into practice, given different "leg lengths". But I'm not an Anglican, not a Catholic. Mine is a nonconformist view from the side - or outside if you like!
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
I cry total and utter foul on any and all claims for certainty.
Indeed. The claims of "certainty" voiced by Rome are problematic. These are voiced by many quite reasonable RC theologians not because the supposed other end of the continuum would be "relativism", but because of a somewhat exclusivist stance inherent in much of RC thought but not shared by everyone in their fold.
I think the Orthodox approach of Apophatic Theology has a lot going for it...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Who's demanding certainty beyond a doubt here?
Edit:
quote:
I think the Orthodox approach of Apophatic Theology has a lot going for it...
Oh Lordy, the old chestnut sitting on top of the three-legged stool.
[ 23. March 2013, 13:07: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
]Oh Lordy, the old chestnut sitting on top of the three-legged stool.
no, not even the stool, dear...
I don't like the three-legged stool analogy. I prefer my walking sticks.
Enough of this sophistry.
[ 23. March 2013, 13:17: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
A lot to be said for the apophatic approach, I reckon. It can help to keep us humble. When we get too kataphatic we seem to move to scratching each others eyes out after a while. Even though we know we shouldn't do that.
Mind you, it takes practice, and practice doesn't make perfect either. I'm on the nursery slopes ..
[ 23. March 2013, 13:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The only scare quote to apologise for is 'progressive'. Unless you think it a regressive step for women to be acknowledged, in terms of language and culture, in their own right?
As for the Holy Spirit. He/She/it. I know for some people it's an important issue. But I'm equally content for any of these pro-nouns to be used.
I wasn't thinking about women's roles at all here - just old english grammar, and sometimes how we re-interpret things to make problems which aren't really there at all.
But, and speaking as a male, i can see where at least some women might get weary of hearing the masculine gender always being used as the default in English, and i can see where they might legitimately get tired of this weariness not even being acknowledged as being as legitimate as old english grammar conventions. I second Anselmina's very measured comments.
[ 23. March 2013, 14:00: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
ISTM that the Lumen Gentium statement would not apply to sincere people of other religious bodies since they sincerely wouldn't believe that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be.
It is a general trend to use these kind of "sincere mistake" caveats to essentially totally destroy these sorts of rules. Who after all would willingly go against his clear and decisive moral knowledge? (Even being driven by impulses can be interpreted as a lack of full freedom to choose evil.) I'm afraid I do not believe it. These rules do not just apply to an empty set of absolutely determined evildoers. The "knowing" involved here will be somewhere between the mere "having heard about it once somewhere" and the extreme "being totally convinced about it on account of plentiful information". Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
Ingo, could you clarify that statement a little for me. I just want to make sure I follow your reason accurately and I'm getting a bit tangled and am not sure exactly that i do follow it. I mean that with no disrespect to you. It's just that poor dense me sometimes gets a bit lost around some of the more high-level theological discussion on this Ship. (And that doesn't even apply to you since I find you usually express your views pretty concisely.)
Although your statement "Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO" concerns me a tiny bit.
[ 23. March 2013, 14:15: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It seems pretty obviously true to me that absolute certainty is not a prerequisite for moral culpability for our decisions. Some people seem to make the leap from "we can't be certain of what the true Church is" to "then it doesn't really matter which one we join up with."
[ 23. March 2013, 14:25: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
I think the Orthodox approach of Apophatic Theology has a lot going for it...
There is a perfectly respectable current in Catholic theology called the via negativa that St Thomas reminds is is a necessary correlative to positive theology.
I think that the other aspect of Orthodoxy that those who laud its apophasis rarely seem to consider is that it requires an enormous and disciplined commitment to those kataphatic expressions Orthodoxy does recognise. Try and be creative with how you seek to express the Trinitarian and Christological
doctrines in the presence of an Easterner and you'll encounter something quite as condemnatory as any Western exercise of Magisterial authority. Apophatic theology/via negativa is certainly not an expression of the "we just don't know so let's just be friends" that many who seem so much to admire it present it as.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
All true, Trisagion. I guess the difference between us is that what I perceive as "too kataphatic" is an illustration of me being "not kataphatic enough" from your POV.
But I know the risk and the possibilities of an easy misunderstanding. Folks who start on any of the contemplative processes purely out of curiosity can end up the garden path. As best I recall, in my case it was the appreciation of a lack, an unease, of something missing, which spurred me and stirred me.
On the main theme of this thread - which currently seems a long way away - there seems to me to be a good deal of mileage in looking at common contemplative ground. Any approach which leads folks to pray more, listen more, keep silence more, seems to me to have a great deal going for it.
[ 23. March 2013, 15:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
All true, Trisagion. I guess the difference between us is that what I perceive as "too kataphatic" is an illustration of me being "not kataphatic enough" from your POV.
That wasn't the point I was making. I have no idea what is enough and what is too much in this context. What I was getting at was two points:
1. Western Catholics who think apophatic theology is the province of Orthodoxy ought to know better; and
2. The theological discipline that goes with the Orthodox practice of apophasis is in no way similar to the approach of those who hereabouts hold it up as a nice way of getting over that awful Latin habit of making positive distinctions.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The theological discipline that goes with the Orthodox practice of apophasis is in no way similar to the approach of those who hereabouts hold it up as a nice way of getting over that awful Latin habit of making positive distinctions.
Heavens, I hope I did not give the impression that we obtuse Westerners are pretending to fathom any degree of the depth of the Orthodox practise...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thanks Trisagion. My personal readings on contemplation, which of course lead inexorably to considerations of apophatic theology, include Catholic, Orthodox and even a few Protestant sources. My first introductions to the importance of the theme for Christian discipleship was via the Cloud of Unknowing, which I read for the first time about 15 years ago on the advice of a good friend. That may seem very late in my journey, but that's probably a consequence of a typically activist nonconformist protestantism. We're great "doers".
I like the Latin habit of making positive distinctions and I understand the avoidance point.
Contemplative prayer practices and disciplines are not at all an easy option; certainly I don't find them so. Nor is the via negativa in any way a taking refuge in vagueness. That is a given with me at least.
(xpost)
[ 23. March 2013, 18:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
That seems to imply that no-one can get beyond a received deontological ethical position.
It implies exactly the opposite, hence your further points are basically moot.
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
It ignores the fact that people can reframe their normative ethical position by entertaining ideas about how a virtue ethics or consequentialist position might lead to different conclusions.
Of course they can. That's the problem. If we all were stuck with some normative ethics, we wouldn't have any discussions about morals whatsoever. To talk about morals would be like talking about water being wet.
The problem is that making up your own morals and convincing yourself of them is pretty damn simple. Moral building and evaluation really is a largely circular exercise in practice. One could have the hope that as a community we could make some "progress" through the usual means of trial and error and mutual correction, at least over time. As a Christian, one cannot have that hope though. Humans are damaged goods, they fell off a lorry - or at least out of paradise. It may be theoretically possible to read off much of proper morality from nature, and it may be theoretically possible to stick with proper morality by natural reason and natural will power. In practice though, the rot will start immediately.
All this talk about morals from experience and consideration is just enlightenment optimism. The one and only thing of interest about that is how, how soon and how terribly it will fail.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
Worried about what specifically?
Strange, I thought I expressed myself rather clearly? Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular.
Of course, it is nowadays considered ecumenically incorrect to say anything of this sort, and by and large it indeed doesn't tend to help. But my expectation is that after sex, teachings on ecclesiology will be the second biggest source of millstones.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My pathway, in common with all of us, is to take personal responsibility for my choices, for my companions on the journey, for my own fallibility, and hope to learn on the way. But I am neither the captain of my ship, nor the master of my soul. There is an Author of my life and I am learning the part He has written for me. I am a beggar, learning from other beggars where food is to help with the journey. So I hear Jesus saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and "follow me". Which is what I try to do. But never on my own. I don't trust myself that much.
I don't know how to cut through that verbiage. Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Ingo, could you clarify that statement a little for me.
It would help if you indicated what part you did not understand. My point is simple. Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate and complete consent. The latter two are often understood in such an exalted manner as to make mortal sin near impossible. The slightest vagueness and/or uncertainty is taken to destroy full knowledge, and the most minuscule impulse or the weakest habit is taken to remove deliberate and complete consent. In the end, nothing anybody can ever do really is a mortal sin, unless the sinner explicitly intends to "achieve" eternal damnation through the gravely sinful act. Only then can he exhibit the singleminded clarity of evil that is supposedly required for damnation. Unfortunately, I think the real bar will be set a lot lower...
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Although your statement "Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO" concerns me a tiny bit.
Well, you are off to a good start then.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My pathway, in common with all of us, is to take personal responsibility for my choices, for my companions on the journey, for my own fallibility, and hope to learn on the way. But I am neither the captain of my ship, nor the master of my soul. There is an Author of my life and I am learning the part He has written for me. I am a beggar, learning from other beggars where food is to help with the journey. So I hear Jesus saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and "follow me". Which is what I try to do. But never on my own. I don't trust myself that much.
I don't know how to cut through that verbiage. Sorry.
Ah well. It's a bit hard to sum up 40 years pilgrimage in under 150 words. Maybe I shoudn't have bothered to try and paint a word picture?
Try this as a more analytical comment instead. There is a paradox between taking personal responsibility and living one's life in submission to the call of Christ. Obedience is called for, but not slavish obedience. That would be a denial of our freedom in Christ. Our Christian lives explore the poles of that paradox by the way we choose how to live every day. That's what I've been trying to live out, with the help of God and good companions.
You can also get some of the flavour in this old hymn
quote:
1 Make me a captive, Lord,
and then I shall be free;
force me to render up my sword,
and I shall conqueror be.
2 I sink in life's alarms
when by myself I stand;
imprison me within thine arms,
and strong shall be my hand.
3 My will is not my own
till thou hast made it thine;
if it would reach a monarch's throne,
it must its crown resign.
4 I only stand unbent
amid the clashing strife
when on thy bosom I have leaned
and found in thee my life.
That any better?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
Worried about what specifically?
Strange, I thought I expressed myself rather clearly? Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Am I supposed to regret having asked you to clarify one of your posts? Or feel crushed by your implication that I'm too stupid to understand your dogmatic assertions?
'How strange' - 'I thought I had expressed myself rather clearly'. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Whatever your message about the RCC is, IngoB - and it would appear you don't think any of what you say requires clarification - nothing about your faith, or the Church you believe in will ever speak more loudly than your attitude to your fellow human beings.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Most people here are in danger of burning eternally in hell? Bloody hell. Surely I have a get-out clause, I support Man Utd.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Am I supposed to regret having asked you to clarify one of your posts? Or feel crushed by your implication that I'm too stupid to understand your dogmatic assertions?
Whatever makes you feel better, I suppose. I was simply expressing my surprise, given that I thought I had expressed myself rather clearly.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Whatever your message about the RCC is, IngoB - and it would appear you don't think any of what you say requires clarification - nothing about your faith, or the Church you believe in will ever speak more loudly than your attitude to your fellow human beings.
I also torture cute puppies for entertainment. ... Well, I don't, but I wouldn't want to deprive you of your righteous indignation.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Most people here are in danger of burning eternally in hell?
That goes without saying, obviously. But I did point to a specific reason, which makes the statement slightly less trivial.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
So, Ingo, am i to take it that your primary motivation for professing the specific religious beliefs you profess is fear of otherwise burning in hell?
BTW, re what part of your previous statement that i requested clarification on, Ingo, it was the whole paragraph that i had difficulty following, but your re-statement was much clearer for me to follow. Thank you.
[ 24. March 2013, 03:23: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Am I supposed to regret having asked you to clarify one of your posts? Or feel crushed by your implication that I'm too stupid to understand your dogmatic assertions?
Whatever makes you feel better, I suppose. I was simply expressing my surprise, given that I thought I had expressed myself rather clearly.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Whatever your message about the RCC is, IngoB - and it would appear you don't think any of what you say requires clarification - nothing about your faith, or the Church you believe in will ever speak more loudly than your attitude to your fellow human beings.
I also torture cute puppies for entertainment. ... Well, I don't, but I wouldn't want to deprive you of your righteous indignation.
This, from the poster who posts how 'strange' it is, and how surprized he is, because one of his statements needs clarifying. And who thinks that being told his way of communicating speaks more plainly than the message he's asserting, is on a par with being accused of torturing cute puppies. (Where does that even come from ?!)
But as the man said, 'whatever makes you feel better'. My 'righteous indignation' (and I admit I can sound that way at times ) makes a great diversion from whatever is your problem with debating respectfully. 'Strange'? 'Surprizing?' To be asked - on a debating thread - to elaborate on something you post? Did you think you were giving a lecture? Or leading a seminar?
Posted by Cadfael (# 11066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point is simple. Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate and complete consent. The latter two are often understood in such an exalted manner as to make mortal sin near impossible. The slightest vagueness and/or uncertainty is taken to destroy full knowledge, and the most minuscule impulse or the weakest habit is taken to remove deliberate and complete consent. In the end, nothing anybody can ever do really is a mortal sin, unless the sinner explicitly intends to "achieve" eternal damnation through the gravely sinful act. Only then can he exhibit the singleminded clarity of evil that is supposedly required for damnation. Unfortunately, I think the real bar will be set a lot lower...
(Emphasis added...)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The problem is that making up your own morals and convincing yourself of them is pretty damn simple.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
Worried about what specifically?
Strange, I thought I expressed myself rather clearly? Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular.
Well, I have no problem with a smug writing style and a lack of politicll or ecumenical correctness, in fact I quite enjoy them myself sometimes.
But as much as Ingo is entitled to his own views I wish to say to non-RCC shipmates is that the concept about non-RCs being in danger of burning eternally in hell is not something shared by all RCs.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Recognising my own part in the meandering, I think we might nevertheless be in danger of further de-railing this thread at this point. There have been some good diversions, but critical examination of the posting styles of participants looks like a meander too far.
Given the points about the fires of Hell, some of you may want to remember we have our own preliminary version of it, to be used when conflicts of style and content become too much.
That's probably too prolix for a Host, but I'm trying to correct "in love".
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
But as much as Ingo is entitled to his own views I wish to say to non-RCC shipmates is that the concept about non-RCs being in danger of burning eternally in hell is not something shared by all RCs.
I wonder if it is shared by the new pope?
Here we are on the Ship - fully aware of RC doctrine, yet not rushing to join. Would the new pope be telling us we are in danger of burning in eternal agony?
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
taking up Barnabas's hostly admonition we might consider Boogie's question to be transferred to the Pope thread, and the rest for a nice bonfire in Hell.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Shouldn't think it will feature all that highly on the Welby-Francis meeting agenda.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
So, Ingo, am i to take it that your primary motivation for professing the specific religious beliefs you profess is fear of otherwise burning in hell?
Well, no. I profess my beliefs primarily because I think that they are true. And unless I first believed it to be true that certain deeds could land me in hell, how could that scare me into anything? What you presumably mean is that I'm obedient to certain norms of faith and morals primarily because I fear hell fire. I don't think that that is quite the right way of putting it. Fear of hell is more like a last line of defence when other motivations have failed. So if I focus on my ubiquitous failings in faith and morals, then probably fear of hell features quite prominently in some statistical sense. More often than not just as the last thing being pushed aside, but still. However, fear of hell is repulsive, not attractive. It can contribute to keeping me away from things, but it doesn't really make me go anywhere. At best it maintains a kind of minimal standard. On the rare occasion where I make progress in faith and morals in some sense, it hence really doesn't feature much at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
'Strange'? 'Surprizing?' To be asked - on a debating thread - to elaborate on something you post? Did you think you were giving a lecture? Or leading a seminar?
No. I simply thought that I had expressed myself rather clearly in the relevant series of posts.
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
(Emphasis added...)
Except that it is precisely my point that I follow an external moral standard, which I have not chosen primarily because I evaluated it to be the best moral standard based on my own insights.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
But as much as Ingo is entitled to his own views I wish to say to non-RCC shipmates is that the concept about non-RCs being in danger of burning eternally in hell is not something shared by all RCs.
But I am not simply saying that this is my "own view". And if you are RC, then you cannot simply hold your own view over and against Lumen Gentium. As much as you would like to make this a mere matter of opinion, it isn't. At least not on RC terms.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I wonder if it is shared by the new pope? Here we are on the Ship - fully aware of RC doctrine, yet not rushing to join. Would the new pope be telling us we are in danger of burning in eternal agony?
That's unlikely. The new pope is a Jesuit, after all. If he is doctrinally sound on this matter (a rather big "if" on contemporary Jesuit standards), he's unlikely to make big noises about it. He also stands in the grand tradition of Jesuit failure to get their job done. As the old joke has it:
quote:
What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?
They were both founded by Spaniards, St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits.
They were also both founded to combat heresy: the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants.
What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?
Well, have you met any Albigensians lately?
Posted by Cadfael (# 11066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point is simple. Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate and complete consent. The latter two are often understood in such an exalted manner as to make mortal sin near impossible. The slightest vagueness and/or uncertainty is taken to destroy full knowledge, and the most minuscule impulse or the weakest habit is taken to remove deliberate and complete consent. In the end, nothing anybody can ever do really is a mortal sin, unless the sinner explicitly intends to "achieve" eternal damnation through the gravely sinful act. Only then can he exhibit the singleminded clarity of evil that is supposedly required for damnation. Unfortunately, I think the real bar will be set a lot lower...
(Emphasis added...)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The problem is that making up your own morals and convincing yourself of them is pretty damn simple.
I don't seem to have made my point clear with this last time. Ingo, if there is more than one way of understanding mortal sin:
1) Whose position are you critiquing?
2) How do you arrive at your own thinking on where "the real bar will be set"?
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The danger of burning in Hell applies to all of us,not just to those who are not RC.'Burning in Hell' may be figurative language to describe the anguish of those who realize only too late that they have deliberately chosen to follow the wrong path and have not repented of it.
I have never understood RC teaching to say that all RCs are automatically saved and all others will automatically be damned.If anything I would say that more might be asked of RCs in the way of accepting Jesus as Saviour and following His way of life.
The Church does teach that those who are convinced of the truth of the church's message and yet choose to remain outside are in danger.
However KNOWING about the doctrine of the RC church and BEING CONVINCED OF THE TRUTH OF THE MESSAGE are two quite different things.
Some of the posters here, for example,probably have a better than average understanding of the teachings of the Catholic church,but do not seem to me to be convinced of the truth of the message of the Catholic church.If that is the case they are not endangering their immortal soul by refusing to enter the Church.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The modifier to all this is that we are all in danger of burning for something, even Anglicans. The offer of grace is, as far as I can tell from the scriptures, a profoundly urgent one, one worthy of more discernment and striving than some of the posts on this thread have made it sound.
Our response to that (in terms of finding the Real Deal, anyway) has to be reading the scriptures carefully, and to pray for the grace of discernment and honesty. It's as simple as doing the best we can, while keeping in mind that the vast majority of us can probably do better. The argument here, from me anyway, is against complacency.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
In response to Ingo's Jesuit joke and Zach's warning against complacency (with which I agree), here is another joke:
quote:
The Holy Trinity wants to go on a holiday and they try to decide where to go.
-"I'd love to go to the desert", says the Holy Spirit, "I can roam freely there".
-"Well, I don't know", says the Father, "I've been trekking through that desert for decades with the people of Israel, and it was hard work. Why don't we go to Jerusalem instead?"
-"Please no, " says Jesus', "I don't have good memories of that town, last time I went there it ended badly for me. But how about going to Rome?"
-"Great!, " says the Holy Spirit. "I've never been to Rome".
For the record, I heard this joke from a Jesuit friend
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Oh dear. Where do I stand in IngoB's scheme of things? That's a rhetorical question by the way, just in case anyone wants to tell me in too blunt terms.
In CofE/Prod terms, I'm pretty orthodox. I believe the scriptures and the classic creeds, accept the first 7 Councils, the 39 Articles etc. When it comes to what happens at Consecration, I identify with Queen Elizabeth I.
I find the Catholic catechism of 2003 a very impressive document. However, I'm not Catholic even by a CofE understanding of the term. I couldn't give the 100% assent to everything RC that the RCC demands of its converts, rather than those born into it - a lot of whom clearly don't accept everything lock, stock and barrel.
One of my significant hesitations about the RCC is its take on papal authority. Another though is its reasoning process, the way historically it has tended to do theology. The approach that clearly inspires IngoB, CL and the late Evelyn Waugh (great novelist though he was) has the opposite effect on me. I just don't think it either works or leads to the well.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Another though is its reasoning process, the way historically it has tended to do theology.
I feel the same.
Believe me Enoch, it gives the creeps to some RCs too, although they would not qualify as "true" RCs by the very people who favour this approach.
We aren't all clericalists and we don't all sleep with Lumen Gentium under our pillows.
Precisely because, as you say, it does not really lead to the well.
[ 24. March 2013, 14:31: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As the old joke has it:
quote:
What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?
They were both founded by Spaniards, St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits.
They were also both founded to combat heresy: the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants.
What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?
Well, have you met any Albigensians lately?
How very droll, IngoB! Do you know many such jokes about who the Catholic Church has or hasn't managed to slaughter?
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Oh dear. Where do I stand in IngoB's scheme of things? That's a rhetorical question by the way, just in case anyone wants to tell me in too blunt terms.
In CofE/Prod terms, I'm pretty orthodox. I believe the scriptures and the classic creeds, accept the first 7 Councils, the 39 Articles etc. When it comes to what happens at Consecration, I identify with Queen Elizabeth I.
I find the Catholic catechism of 2003 a very impressive document. However, I'm not Catholic even by a CofE understanding of the term. I couldn't give the 100% assent to everything RC that the RCC demands of its converts, rather than those born into it - a lot of whom clearly don't accept everything lock, stock and barrel.
One of my significant hesitations about the RCC is its take on papal authority. Another though is its reasoning process, the way historically it has tended to do theology. The approach that clearly inspires IngoB, CL and the late Evelyn Waugh (great novelist though he was) has the opposite effect on me. I just don't think it either works or leads to the well.
Indeed. The notorious "zeal of the convert" would unchurch most of us born RC. Why do you think Rome created the Reservation, I mean the Ordinariate? It's a long way from Cardinal Kasper's appreciation of Anglican Cathedral Liturgy.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
On the Albigensians 'joke' - somebody was complaining about the lack of Christian comedy - well, here it is. We can even make genocide seem comical!
[ 24. March 2013, 15:03: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
What happened to the Albigensians is no laughing matter. Reminds me of Montaigne's famous aphorism.
"After all, it is rating one's conjectures at a very high price to roast a man alive on the strength of them".
This is Wiki
quote:
However, since most Cathar parfait (male) or parfaites (female) refused to recant and embrace orthodox Catholic doctrine they were burnt to death as a matter of course. And this was specifically as a result of their religious beliefs as judged heretical by the Dominican Inquisition - not due to revolt against the temporal order. The latter resulted in thousands more being executed as at the siege of Béziers in 1209 - 7000 in total amounting to the entire population. Arnaud Amoury, the Cistercian abbot-commander wrote to the Pope:
"Today your Holiness, twenty thousand citizens were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."
And the Catholic Encyclopedia article which is at variance with the Wiki article over some of the facts, nevertheless says this.
quote:
Properly speaking, Albigensianism was not a Christian heresy but an extra-Christian religion. Ecclesiastical authority, after persuasion had failed, adopted a course of severe repression, which led at times to regrettable excess. Simon of Montfort intended well at first, but later used the pretext of religion to usurp the territory of the Counts of Toulouse. The death penalty was, indeed, inflicted too freely on the Albigenses, but it must be remembered that the penal code of the time was considerably more rigorous than ours, and the excesses were sometimes provoked.
I'm rather glad the Jesuits were set on our tails, rather than the Dominicans. The words of Elizabeth Bennet to Mr Darcy come to mind, after he had confessed that his good opinion, once lost, was lost for ever.
"That is a failing indeed ... but I really cannot laugh at it."
But I do not think Justin Welby will bring that up either.
Seriously, there are aspects of both Protestant and Catholic history which are much more a matter for shame than for jokes. Another thing on which I suspect Archbishop Welby and Pope Francis will have little difficulty agreeing.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
One of the problems the Church of England has (not, perhaps, Anglicanism generally) is that there's a tendency to look at other religious traditions and to see what is attractive. So, for instance, we look at Pope Francis and we see a charismatic servant-leader who preaches a gospel for the poor and washes the feet of prisoners.
The problem is that finding it attractive, we're inclined to believe that attractiveness has something to do with truth. Now, I happen to agree wholeheartedly with what (I think) IngoB says in this regard. If you believe that Roman Catholicism is true, then for the sake of your own salvation, you must become a Roman Catholic. Wilfully to remain outside Christ's flock, which is under the care of Christ's vicar on earth, is to risk damnation. That is a central claim of the Roman Catholic Church.
But a few hundred years ago, our Anglican ancestors believed that "the Church of Rome hath erred ... in matters of faith". They believed that the moral imperative lay in the opposite direction: to part from an erring community in search of truth. It should not matter one jot whether the Pope is a nice man or a monster; whether we happen to agree with him on certain matters (even important matters) or not; whether Catholic liturgy is noble, or beautiful, or whatever; whether we like our Catholic neighbour and their charming priest, or not. No: the thing that matters, the only thing, ultimately, that matters, is - Where is truth?
I believe that in Christian faith, everything, ultimately, must be sacrificed for the answer to that question. And if you find truth in the Church of Rome, then for the sake of your soul, that is where you must be. And I believe it's considerations such as this that must necessarily define the relationship between Anglicanism and Rome. I think it was Paul Avis who said that ecumenism in the 70s and 80s was like papering over the cracks, and then drawing attention to the attractiveness of the wallpaper. For the sake of what's true, let's not do that.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The use of 'we' in these discussions is problematic. Maybe 'we' look at the new Pope favourably, as he seems a nice chap. But then again, some of 'us' also still query the ban on contraception and abortion, and the proscription of gay sex. And other things of course.
So I don't think 'we' are singing a universal paeon to the Pope.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Oh dear. Where do I stand in IngoB's scheme of things? That's a rhetorical question by the way, just in case anyone wants to tell me in too blunt terms.
It is indeed the teaching of the RC Church that remaining outside of it while knowing it is the Real Deal merits damnation, but the judgement that most of the ship is culpable for remaining outside of the Real Deal is IngoB's judgement. Whether you in particular are guilty of it is between you and God, to be worked out "in fear and trembling," as the Scriptures say.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I sort of agree with Adeodatus, except that surely 'truth' and 'attractiveness' (in the sense, any rate, of someone like the Pope living out Christian virtues) must be related. It's an example of 'by your fruits you shall know them.' Like many here, and presumably like Adeodatus, I part company with +++Francis on the Dead Horse issues and doubtless on many other doctrines. But I recognise the presence of Christ's truth in the RCC as in my own Anglican communion. I suspect the difference is that unlike the (official?) Catholic position I see the Church as a community of seekers after the truth rather than the possessor of the truth.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
Ingo, if there is more than one way of understanding mortal sin: 1) Whose position are you critiquing?
I'm not aware that there is more than one way. Hence I'm not critiquing false principle, but simply false application.
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
2) How do you arrive at your own thinking on where "the real bar will be set"?
Concerning details, largely by following various official documents of the RC magisterium. It's been a while since I last had access to a RC priest who actually bothered discussing sin in anything but soothing generalities...
However, my real point here is more a philosophical principle. I do not believe that any doctrine of the RCC is taught in vain. But if the usual excuses about Church membership are to be believed, then the doctrine that rejecting the RCC can be a mortal sin is in vain. For we can always argue that the rejection itself demonstrates that the person doing the rejecting has insufficient knowledge and consent. The way this is usually considered, nothing less than a full declaration of rebellion against God by virtue of rejecting His Church would rise to the level of mortal sin. But of course, nobody ever does that. The error of rejection is always projected onto the RCC: one rejects the RCC because one is unhappy with this or that doctrine, or this or that institutional feature. Hence in practice this doctrine is pushed aside, as it applies to nobody. I say however that no RC doctrine is empty, hence that some real people in their actual actions are in significant danger of burning in hell due to their rejection of the RCC. The details of that I do not know, but since the doctrinal fudge is invariably carried out by arguing against full knowledge and consent, some of these arguments must be wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
'Burning in Hell' may be figurative language to describe the anguish of those who realize only too late that they have deliberately chosen to follow the wrong path and have not repented of it.
Proper Christianity is incarnational and sacramental, hence I expect that the "anti-sacrament" of hell fire has the same weird properties of being a real symbol that actualises its meaning. Or in other words, while I'm not sure what really awaits the doomed, I doubt that their anguish will be a theoretical metaphor.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
If anything I would say that more might be asked of RCs in the way of accepting Jesus as Saviour and following His way of life.
Nice sales pitch... maybe I should become Protestant to avoid such challenges? Anyway, this ignores the entire sacramental order and assumes that more knowledge means more danger for salvation, rather than less. This is inimical to the Christian message of truth setting us free, and is precisely based on believing that "ignorance" will always excuse sin.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
However KNOWING about the doctrine of the RC church and BEING CONVINCED OF THE TRUTH OF THE MESSAGE are two quite different things.
This is the central doctrinal fudge, as I keep saying. It is not limited to this specific case, but a quite universal mechanism. So the RCC says that fornication is wrong, but I'm not convinced of that message, no matter how often I hear it. Therefore, fornicating is not sinful for me, since I'm ignorant of its sinfulness. And I happily fornicate as much as I want. Really? That's how it works? Or does there come a time when I start being responsible for not listening to the RCC on this matter? Likewise, there must come some point where rejecting the RCC actually becomes the responsibility of the person doing the rejecting. Otherwise, the doctrine becomes empty. We can always find excuses, but they do not always count.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Another though is its reasoning process, the way historically it has tended to do theology. The approach that clearly inspires IngoB, CL and the late Evelyn Waugh (great novelist though he was) has the opposite effect on me.
That's a pretty lame excuse. The modern RCC can hardly be accused of rampant Thomism. Just because I'm a frequent poster here does not mean that my positions dominate Catholic thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
How very droll, IngoB! Do you know many such jokes about who the Catholic Church has or hasn't managed to slaughter?
Nope. But this one is pretty funny in a black humour sort of way. As it happens, the Albigensian crusade is further demonstration that when religion and politics mix, people tend to get hurt. It was basically a war of conquest of the French Crown against the Crown of Aragon, hidden under the fig leaf of driving back the Cathars provided by the pope.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
No: the thing that matters, the only thing, ultimately, that matters, is - Where is truth? I believe that in Christian faith, everything, ultimately, must be sacrificed for the answer to that question.
Spot on. But the question I'm raising is when a "honest mistake", which does excuse falsehood, turns into a "hardening of heart" which doesn't. I think people often project negligence and even rebellion onto ignorance. That's a dangerous game.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It is indeed the teaching of the RC Church that remaining outside of it while knowing it is the Real Deal merits damnation, but the judgement that most of the ship is culpable for remaining outside of the Real Deal is IngoB's judgement.
I was a bit more cautious than that: "Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular."
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Isn't there an inherent theological problem with aspiring to be more catholic than the pope ? Or priests not repudiated by him ?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Isn't there an inherent theological problem with aspiring to be more catholic than the pope ? Or priests not repudiated by him ?
This hits the nail on the head. IngoB is not an RC, he is the RCC itself, the only one with real infallibility. His motto, to borrow from Tom Lehrer's song about the John Birch Society, is "There's no-one left but me and thee - and we're not too sure of thee".
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Isn't there an inherent theological problem with aspiring to be more catholic than the pope? Or priests not repudiated by him?
No, that's not a "theological" problem. Popes are not God. Clearly, one can be more Catholic than a pope. It isn't even particularly difficult to be more Catholic than some of the historical popes, and just because we had a fairly good crop of popes recently doesn't mean that it will stay that way indefinitely.
The only problem there is one of prudence and discernment: what is it to be Catholic? And here something very interesting has happened. Vatican II actually was revolutionary, just not in the idiotic "all is up for grabs" hippy version. Rather, the magisterium turned "open access". Many important documents are now just a click away, and still there is more being added all the time. And because the magisterium in its self-understanding requires consistency across its entire range and throughout all history, this means everybody with a brain and internet access can have a reasonable shot at answering that question.
And therefore the silliness of this comment
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
IngoB is not an RC, he is the RCC itself, the only one with real infallibility.
becomes readily apparent. For everybody can play my game. One does not even have to be RC, one simply has to care enough to go online, search, read, think and then argue. And if one doesn't do one's "homework", then typically one simply ends up looking like a fool. All opinions are not equal any longer, since it has become simple to get a clue.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Gee Dee
Your post ignored this.
If you really want to pull IngoB's posting style or character to bits, let me reiterate. Try your luck in Hell. Not here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
(xposted)
[ 24. March 2013, 22:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
But IngoB does that then not open up the issue of people being able to interpret as they wish ? Which, as I understood it, was what you were objecting to in the first place.
You can effectively write your own encyclical.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
But IngoB does that then not open up the issue of people being able to interpret as they wish ? Which, as I understood it, was what you were objecting to in the first place.
Sure. But the magisterium generally has the intention to nail certain things down, and it is accumulative. There is a lot less flexibility there than say in interpreting scripture. And there's an interesting dynamic insofar as (lay) interpretations can trigger clarifications, i.e., the classical "heresy - anathema" cycle is much hastened and at the same time less crass. I'm objecting to people basically ignoring the magisterium. And they have to do that, because there is not enough leeway otherwise to make their claims.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You can effectively write your own encyclical.
No, that's precisely what you cannot do. Just like a lawyer does not make law. (Unless you are making a subtle point there insofar as that an encyclical has only limited authority.) You always have to borrow authority. Still, I think the system has become a lot more interactive. The range of possibilities has become much clearer as the constraints have become explicit and accessible.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Doublethink, it might be worth while (and certainly might have entertainment value) if I give you an outsider's view.
IngoB is a member of the Catholic laity. So far as I'm aware, as a layman, he can be an everyday minster of the faith; he can do theological reasoning, figure out what it is to be a Catholic, pass that on either as he sees fit or in accordance with any specific guidance from his priest.
So far as I'm aware also, he's not in any sense a licensed Catholic theologian, but that doesn't stop him being free to do theology under his usual pastoral oversight and guidance. As he says, all the key authoritative documents are available these days. Anyone with a brain can have a go.
[ 25. March 2013, 00:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
PS, for anyone who ever wants to check IngoB's "sums", here's a useful link.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Doublethink, my dear Barnabas ...
[ 25. March 2013, 00:27: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Whoops, edited, not quite the "entertainment" I had in mind.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
B62, I had rather hoped that I'd picked up Doublethink's comments. My apologies if I transgressed.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thanks Gee D. If you'd like a further explanation, feel free to either send me a PM, or ask a question in the Styx.
[ 25. March 2013, 06:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But the magisterium generally has the intention to nail certain things down, and it is accumulative. There is a lot less flexibility there than say in interpreting scripture. And there's an interesting dynamic insofar as (lay) interpretations can trigger clarifications, i.e., the classical "heresy - anathema" cycle is much hastened and at the same time less crass.
This further tangent intrigues me. Might be worth a PM exchange or a separate thread but I'll leave that to you.
Is there a formal feedback loop in the mechanism for updating the Magisterium? For example, could you (or even I) send a message to whoever has the authority to update/answer consistency questions/pass on questions, saying this or that part of the Catechism appears to be out of kilter with another part - or with a published encyclical? How does that work? I can see an obvious first stage feedback - you just ask your priest and leave any follow up "up the line" to him. But there's probably more to it than that.
quote:
I'm objecting to people basically ignoring the magisterium. And they have to do that, because there is not enough leeway otherwise to make their claims.
Of course you're free to object. And I think you are right to assert that the Magisterium shows a high degree of internal consistency. As a matter of practice, those of us, Anglicans and others, who are outside the Catholic fold, do not see ourselves as bound by its contents either in principle or in detail, even when we agree with a lot of its content. We are in practice bound by whatever authority prevails in our particular neck of the woods, insofar as we are submitted to it. All Christians see ourselves as bound by the Lordship of Christ, but we vary in our understandings what that means and how it works.
So far as SoF discussion is concerned, there's no harm in any of us quoting and asserting the written authorities which bind us, but the discussion is not bound to follow the contents we bring into play. Folks can debate on the ground we lay out, or ignore it if they want, stick to the point as they see fit. That might be frustrating sometimes, but those are the debating freedoms here, under the 10Cs. That's my understanding but the point can go to the Styx if you like.
Back finally to the main point of the thread, I've no idea what sort of agenda will be agreed between the new Archbishop and the new Pope, but I'd doubt whether they'd spend too much time discussing the ongoing "rebellion" of the Anglicans against the Magisterium. There's enough common ground to stand on first and probably some good friendship-making "skiing" to be done together on the "nursery slopes" of the journey to unity. It always gets difficult the higher up the mountain you go.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is there a formal feedback loop in the mechanism for updating the Magisterium? For example, could you (or even I) send a message to whoever has the authority to update/answer consistency questions/pass on questions, saying this or that part of the Catechism appears to be out of kilter with another part - or with a published encyclical? How does that work? I can see an obvious first stage feedback - you just ask your priest and leave any follow up "up the line" to him. But there's probably more to it than that.
No, for now the mechanisms are rudimentary. You are of course at liberty to talk with/write to your priest/bishop, but there is no systematic feedback mechanism in place. There are real problems there, having to do with limited personnel and of course the same "Dead Horse" noise that SoF faces. But it is early days. A bishop could for example have a once a month online chat session. Many in the hierarchy have take to blogging already, and I think that the internet will slowly impose its own dynamics on the interaction with the laity. For example, people doing "faith videos" on YouTube may in fact become more influential than a bishop who doesn't. So far this is mostly still done by clergy (e.g., Fr Barron), but there is nothing that stops lay people from doing these things and potentially winning an audience of millions.
Until usage of the new technology sorts itself out, I think we will still see changes to the Magisterium mostly in a protective and reactive mode. Imagine a video blogger with a large following starting to make problematic statements about the faith. That might force a reaction. But down the track I like to think that all this will open up significantly.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As a matter of practice, those of us, Anglicans and others, who are outside the Catholic fold, do not see ourselves as bound by its contents either in principle or in detail, even when we agree with a lot of its content.
Sure. That comment was aimed at other RCs, the situation with non-RCs is different. My point is that it is basically game over for comments like this one:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
We aren't all clericalists and we don't all sleep with Lumen Gentium under our pillows.
It has become very easy to call RCs on their fudging. I precisely do not have to have Lumen Gentium under my pillow. It takes just seconds to find it, and minutes to find within it appropriate content. And I precisely do not have to be a "clericalist", because I don't have to run to my nearest priest/bishop to get guidance. By making accessible what they base their decisions on, in some sense they have taken themselves out of the picture. I now only have to have a belief that the RCC actually has the power to "bind and loosen", how she has done it I can look up myself. And if RCs deny this power outright, then they are simply not RCs.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That might be frustrating sometimes, but those are the debating freedoms here, under the 10Cs. That's my understanding but the point can go to the Styx if you like.
I don't know where this is coming from. Just about the last thing I would want is to restrict discussion here to the Magisterium. The whole fun of this place is precisely the clash of opinion. I do object to RCs ignoring the Magisterium, but even those objections are at the level of Purgatory not Styx. It's something that I will attack other RCs on, not something that I expect a H&A to enforce.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thank you B62, but I accept your ruling and shan't take it further.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Cheers IngoB, I hadn't realised the Magisterium comment was just addressed to other Catholics.
Perhaps I can say that as a matter of personal courtesy, I do often try to argue on the basis of the grounds set out? It helps me understand better where other Shipmates are coming from. Strikes me as a good discipline. There's a lot to be said for trying on "other folks' moccasins".
[ 25. March 2013, 09:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point is that it is basically game over for comments like this one:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
We aren't all clericalists and we don't all sleep with Lumen Gentium under our pillows.
It has become very easy to call RCs on their fudging. I precisely do not have to have Lumen Gentium under my pillow. It takes just seconds to find it, and minutes to find within it appropriate content. And I precisely do not have to be a "clericalist", because I don't have to run to my nearest priest/bishop to get guidance. By making accessible what they base their decisions on, in some sense they have taken themselves out of the picture. I now only have to have a belief that the RCC actually has the power to "bind and loosen", how she has done it I can look up myself. And if RCs deny this power outright, then they are simply not RCs.
Oh well, I think I can just live with that.
[ 25. March 2013, 10:40: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
No: the thing that matters, the only thing, ultimately, that matters, is - Where is truth?
All Churches have some of it, no Churches have all of it.
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point is that it is basically game over for comments like this one:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
We aren't all clericalists and we don't all sleep with Lumen Gentium under our pillows.
It has become very easy to call RCs on their fudging. I precisely do not have to have Lumen Gentium under my pillow. It takes just seconds to find it, and minutes to find within it appropriate content. And I precisely do not have to be a "clericalist", because I don't have to run to my nearest priest/bishop to get guidance. By making accessible what they base their decisions on, in some sense they have taken themselves out of the picture. I now only have to have a belief that the RCC actually has the power to "bind and loosen", how she has done it I can look up myself. And if RCs deny this power outright, then they are simply not RCs.
Oh well, I think I can just live with that.
And I also stand over my "unchurching" comment. As I plainly don't have anything else to add here, I'll get me coat, for the time being.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
I suspect God cares rather more about the kind of people we are than about what we believe about him/her/it/them. Except, of course insofar as what we believe about God affects the kind of people we are. (Typical woolly-minded Anglicanism, I suppose.)
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I suspect God cares rather more about the kind of people we are than about what we believe about him/her/it/them.
-- agree. But not to worry, there are many RCs who live their pilgrimage without, or in spite of, the details of the magisterium . Is this still "Roman"? Ingo and some others think not. Fine. But then I'm a suspect kind of Catholic to those types anyway (I am subscribed to The Tablet )
For the record, I must say it breaks my heart to see how many Orthodox and many Anglicans take a dim view on Roman Catholicism. But reading some of the less savoury parts of Lumen Gentium, and reading the Thomist sophistry produced by some shipmates, I really cannot blame them.
To get back on the track of this thread, I sincerely pray for a rapprochement (if not in the letter then in spirit, which is, after all, much more important) between Archbishop Welby and Pope Francis.
We need the Anglicans and their theology, because they are close to us but so much freer than we (or at least our Theologians) are.
[ 25. March 2013, 12:29: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on
:
Sometimes when I think about my own fear of Hell and all the floundering and unfaithfulness over 30 years as a Catholic, I am also reminded of the passage from Flannery O'Connor's story Revelation, where Mrs Turpin sees the saved going up to enter heaven, with the notorious sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes going ahead, the last coming first:
"And bringing up the end of the procession was a tribe of people whom she recognized as those who, like herself and Claud, had always had a little of everything and the God-given wit to use it right. She leaned forward to observe them closer. They were marching behind the others with great dignity, accountable as they had always been for good order and common sense and respectable behavior. They alone were on key. Yet she could see by their shocked and altered faces that even their virtues were being burned away..."
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...I now only have to have a belief that the RCC actually has the power to "bind and loosen", how she has done it I can look up myself. And if RCs deny this power outright, then they are simply not RCs.
That's simply not up to you to say. Even by your own terms.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...I do object to RCs ignoring the Magisterium...
And that's really none of your business either, unless you can persuade me otherwise. You're a convert, aren't you? Do you not think you ought to show a bit more humility towards people who have grown up in the faith, and who know far more about actually being a Roman Catholic than you do?
[ 25. March 2013, 12:50: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
To return to the OP, I suspect a healthy relationship between Pope Francis and Anglicanism. We have heard recounted how the pope when an archbishop had frequent meetings with Archbishop Venables (Anglican) and in one expressed his dislike of the Ordinariate.
Much actually depends on the shared characteristics of the leaders. There was an unparalleled relationship between Rowan Williams and Pope Benedict, entirely without precedent. Both were scholars interested in Augustine; both respected each other's spirituality hugely; both had read each other's books. The pope invited Rowan to address the Roman Synod of Bishopsnot as a gesture, but because it was Rowan Williams and he had something to say. Observers recalled that the assembled bishops were very impressed and the pope was beaming. It has been speculated that Rowan Williams was one of only a tiny handful who were aware of the pope's desire to retire, something he rightly kept a secret as it had been told him by Benedict himself.
Pope Francis and Archbishop Justin Welby are also two intelligent and shrewd bishops. Both are very media savvy, and dislike frills and know how to turn this to media advantage. Both are fairly conservative doctrinally. Both have an interest in social teaching - the archbishop of Canterbury being a particular fan of papal social teaching and Rerum Novarum .
However, it has to be acknowledged that although leaders may admire each other, throw their arms up and even laugh together behind closed doors, it does not necessarily draw communions together at a more constitutional level. That said, friendship, respect and co-operation at the highest level does enable some quite significant surprises. The generosity of Pope Francis may surprise all our expectations.
The pragmatist in Rome and Canterbury also realises the necessity of Christian co-operation, as their real European common enemy is Secularism.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular."[/i]
Your statement above, and elsewhere, sounds, in a way, delusional. Unless you're more than a human being, IngoB, you aren't in any position to say what 'most people' on SOF are or are not. You are in no position to know even a faction of the hearts of a fraction of the people here, with regard to their real relationship with God. So any judgement of 'honest mistakes' and 'hardening of hearts' is and never will be within your remit. Even a priest at confession - or a spiritual director - would know to tread carefully in that area.
I know that in all sincerity you're only applying what you believe about the Church's rules, and that these are the only conclusions you genuinelly think you can come to. But the apparent absence of any self-doubt in your approach to faith coupled with your absolute belief in the total righteousness of the RCC system of organized religion, seems to me to be a negation of the ability God gives you to interact dynamically with him and his Church (however one sees it).
You can't be blamed (totally), because you belong to a Church community that has, for so long and for so many reasons, claimed a spiritual and earthly exclusivity, that can only ever lead to the kind of, well, dead-end conclusions you make. And until that claim of self-referencing authority is seen for the basic error it is, the debate will never go further. And God's movement in that direction will forever be stymied.
Becoming a member of your Church community is not and for many of us will never be a choice. Roman Catholicism is not so much rejected as simply never on the agenda. And why should it be. Many of us know, experience and love God - and are loved in return - in the place where we found him - or rather where he found us; in that part of the Body of Christ that exists where God wills it to exist and where the Spirit brings it into being.
And he brings us on from there, if we let him. Some people may even be led to your particular corner of Christendom. But wherever he leads, it's God that leads. Not the institution - or at best it is God within the institution, should it be so blessed to be used by him in that way. And it's by his grace we find ourselves belonging to him; whoever owns the pew where we park ourselves on a Sunday morning (if any!).
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I'm sure that IngoB is a very intelligent person and that what he has to say is indeed one way of looking at the doctrines of the RC church.
However I don't think that many of the reputed 1.2 billion Catholics will be able to look at things in the same way.
A Catholic writer a long time ago said that the task of the Church is to 'get the maximum to do the minimum for salvation'. The Church must be there to remind people that God loves us,that he has created all of us out of love and he wants us to respond to this love by loving both him and our neighbour in return.It's easy to say this but not easy always to do this.Everything which the Church does must be in pursuit of this message.There must be reminders of what happens if we deliberately refuse God's love,namely that we will find ourselves cut off from him through our own free choice.The pain of that separation will be severe,when we realize what we have lost and it may be compared to burning in Hell.
Of course those who are convinced of the truth of the Catholic church's claims are obliged to enter the Church or to remain in it.I'm sure that Ingo has investigated these claims very thoroughly and has these convictions,but he only has to talk with fellow Catholics to realize that few of the reputed 1.2 billion,myself definitely included, have the same academic knowledge as he has.Often we see through a glass darkly and need the help of those who can point us towards the love of God. I'm glad that the new bishop of Rome is using his influence in the Petrine ministry to remind us that God will never tire of forgiving us,if we only ask and that we should never give in to despair but rather live in Christian hope.Although the pope did not specifically say so,I'm sure his message was not directed only towards Catholics.From the little that I know about him,I cannot see that he would be deliberately discourteous towards the Ordinariate.
To me it is certainly not any fudge of the claims of the Catholic church to recognize that all of humanity are beloved children of God,that makes all Christians as well as people of other religions and none our brothers and sisters..From those to whom much has been given,much will be expected.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It's all well and good to reject the infallibility of the pope and his magisterium, I say. But we can't rush to throwing out authority altogether. Conscience, one hopes, is not a mere feeling in one's heart. It's the rational application of universal ethical norms to concrete situations.
So where do we find those universal norms to apply rationally in our judgements of faith and morals? I would hope the Bible, but it seems we have an issue here of accepting anything as authoritative. Better, far better, to trust the magisterium than our vague, self-serving feelings.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But we can't rush to throwing out authority altogether.
Sure we can
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But we can't rush to throwing out authority altogether.
Sure we can
"If we have a prejudice against arbitrary, self serving ethics and beliefs," that is.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But we can't rush to throwing out authority altogether.
Sure we can
"If we have a prejudice against arbitrary, self serving ethics and beliefs," that is.
I'm pretty sure most beliefs are arbitrary and self-serving. The magisterium certainly do quite well out of promoting theirs...
And if I have to choose between my arbitrary, self-serving beliefs and their arbitrary, self-serving beliefs, then I may as well choose mine.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Not everyone rejoices in how arbitrary and self-serving his judgements are like you apparently do, Marvin.
The magisterium is at least taking into account 2,000 years of Christian experience and the Word of God in the Holy Scriptures. We can be certain that whole, literal volumes of dialogue go into its pronouncements. There is at least an attempt to be rational and systematic. If anyone is going off arbitrary, self-serving feelings, it's certainly not the magisterium.
[ 25. March 2013, 16:06: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The magisterium is at least taking into account 2,000 years of Christian experience and the Word of God in the Holy Scriptures. We can be certain that whole, literal volumes of dialogue go into its pronouncements.
Someone wrote those volumes in the first place. Even going back to the people who wrote the books of the Bible itself. Am I supposed to believe that none of them were writing down their own arbitrary, self-serving beliefs?
I'm just an old cynic. I don't trust people I don't know well, especially if they're in positions of power and influence. And double especially if the beliefs they're telling me to sign up to are the very thing keeping them in those positions of power and influence.
[ 25. March 2013, 16:16: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The magisterium is at least taking into account 2,000 years of Christian experience and the Word of God in the Holy Scriptures. We can be certain that whole, literal volumes of dialogue go into its pronouncements.
Someone wrote those volumes in the first place. Even going back to the people who wrote the books of the Bible itself. Am I supposed to believe that none of them were writing down their own arbitrary, self-serving beliefs?
I'm just an old cynic. I don't trust people I don't know well, especially if they're in positions of power and influence. And double especially if the beliefs they're telling me to sign up to are the very thing keeping them in those positions of power and influence.
It would be interesting to work out which beliefs serve the institutions/people in power well and which don't. Did they hold on to any which don't?
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
I don't think (most of) the magisterium is either arbitrary or self-serving.
But for many (R?)C's it is not the centre on which everything hinges, and parts of it not all of us agree upon.
For some it is, though. That's the way it is.
But I firmly deny the claim that belonging to the RCC is a binary issue (as in 'you only belong if you tick all these boxes'). But I am sure some people will be able to dig out some church document to tell me otherwise
The only problem I have is with some people using a smug style and glib sophistry to tell people whether or not they are RCs or not.
But that's an issue for hell.
So I better shut up.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
In one sense we cannot trust anyone and that includes ourselves.This is where faith comes in.
I,for one,have no wish to reject the infallibility of the pope,when he is speaking ex cathedra.I am happy to respect the teaching authority of the magisterium.It doesn't mean that I think any less of other Christians who are unable to share that faith.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
A wise person once said to me: 'It is a great mistake to be infallible. It means you can never change your mind.'
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's all well and good to reject the infallibility of the pope and his magisterium, I say. But we can't rush to throwing out authority altogether. Conscience, one hopes, is not a mere feeling in one's heart. It's the rational application of universal ethical norms to concrete situations.
So where do we find those universal norms to apply rationally in our judgements of faith and morals? I would hope the Bible, but it seems we have an issue here of accepting anything as authoritative. Better, far better, to trust the magisterium than our vague, self-serving feelings.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there is NO authority required for belief. And as for your last sentence, well, I agree. Half a loaf is better than none, if that's the whole of the choice God gives us. But it isn't.
Who is being asked to trust to their 'vague, self-serving feelings'? And is there/was there nothing self-serving in a Church administration that formulated its own infallibility, its own 'ark of salvation' status?
The RCC magisterium may (debateably) be a safe place - intellectually and spiritually - for those not wishing to risk an error of conscience, or a mistake in personal judgement. Though by virtue of being human alone, it's hard to believe these can truly always be avoided. But surely God's judgement is a safer place to be, if the seeker is truthful, even though mistaken?
I grant you, finding the yard-stick by which to measure legitimate authority is for many the big question. Maybe that's why Christ himself made such statements as 'by this will people know you belong to me, that you love one another....' and 'by their fruits you shall know them...' and 'not everybody who cries, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom....' And so on.
Not because behaviour - either alone or even in conjunction with faith - is the infallible measuring rod - but because it nevertheless gives a reality to whether there is an authentic presence of Christ's truth going on inside the belief system of the one doing the behaving.
And whether God just automatically saves everyone who assents, and acts according to magisterium claims because they are orthodox, but he is less sure what to do with the 'outsiders' who may live with a genuine knowledge of Christ in their hearts but who don't care about purgatory, transubstantiation, personal auriculur confession etc - well, I can't see it myself.
I can't make any authentically authoritative claim to why I believe this, outside of my own theologizing (and those who may have influenced me); but I really don't think the Lord is going to have any difficulty deciding who belongs to his adoptive family and who doesn't.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Marvin: Have you read Roman Catholic theology? Or, for that matter, much theology at all? There is a lot of work and rational discourse that goes into real Christian theology.
But like I said upstairs, Christianity is founded on the idea that God has spoken to humankind, and that we can know Him and His truth if we believe. We don't have to believe that, but then we don't have to be Christians either. So obviously my points here only apply to those who want to make Christian judgements.
Edit: Cross posted with Anselmina
Edit 2: and lots of others...
[ 25. March 2013, 16:29: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there is NO authority required for belief.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But we can't rush to throwing out authority altogether.
Sure we can
I stand corrected!!
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
That's simply not up to you to say. Even by your own terms.
Of course it is, that's for each and every RC to say. If RCs deny the authority of the RCC on faith and morals, then they simply put themselves beyond the pale without further ado. We have a name for such people in RC circles. They are called "Protestants".
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
And that's really none of your business either, unless you can persuade me otherwise.
First, I can object to whatever I want and I have no need to persuade you personally of anything. Second, it is blindingly obvious that the RC hierarchy will object to RCs ignoring their Magisterium. So at a minimum, the target of my objection will have official sanction.
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
You're a convert, aren't you? Do you not think you ought to show a bit more humility towards people who have grown up in the faith, and who know far more about actually being a Roman Catholic than you do?
Here's the deal. Every religion has plenty of aspects that are intangible. How am I supposed to know how "holy" the guy next to me in the pew is? However, RCism has also aspects that are tangible, and objectively so. It specifies rules of faith, morals and worship. It has definite official teachings on certain matters. Hence as far as RCs speak to or act in this tangible domain, I can judge them objectively. And the simple truth is that "cradle Catholics" are not invariably shining examples of faithfulness in that domain. It could of course still be that intangibly they are all super-saints, but I wouldn't bet on that.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Unless you're more than a human being, IngoB, you aren't in any position to say what 'most people' on SOF are or are not. You are in no position to know even a faction of the hearts of a fraction of the people here, with regard to their real relationship with God.
But I am in a sense more than a human being here, because I'm applying a Divine rule (a statement made by an ecumenical council). Of course, I am quite fallible in applying the Divine rule. But probably not egregiously so, because this does not actually involve any close inspection of the human heart. Note that my argument was that Divine rules cannot be empty, and hence that the "knowing is not the same as being convinced" excuse must be limited. At some point, one becomes responsible for not listening.
Let me put it this way: assume for the sake of argument that you finally meet your Maker and He tells you that indeed, all that stuff about the RCC was true. Can you honestly say that there never was the slightest chance whatsoever for you to come to that conclusion? And I don't mean that you would get a sudden epiphany, just that there would have been the tiniest doubt in your mind that with time could have blossomed into more. Some culpability may attach then your choices. (Incidentally, if this is not clear: some culpability for a mortal sin typically results in a venial sin. Thus I did not claim that most Shipmates will burn in hell over their denominational choice.)
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Becoming a member of your Church community is not and for many of us will never be a choice. Roman Catholicism is not so much rejected as simply never on the agenda. And why should it be.
That's a bit simplistic, isn't it? If you are polyamorous, and monogamy is never even a choice for you, not on your agenda at all, is your adultery immediately excused? Is it enough to simply not listen to people proposing monogamy as the appropriate state for your life? Does playing deaf maintain your inculpable ignorance about your adultery?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...Christ himself made such statements as 'by this will people know you belong to me, that you love one another....' and 'by their fruits you shall know them...' and 'not everybody who cries, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom....' And so on.
Not because behaviour - either alone or even in conjunction with faith - is the infallible measuring rod - but because it nevertheless gives a reality to whether there is an authentic presence of Christ's truth going on inside the belief system of the one doing the behaving.
And whether God just automatically saves everyone who assents, and acts according to magisterium claims because they are orthodox, but he is less sure what to do with the 'outsiders' who may live with a genuine knowledge of Christ in their hearts but who don't care about purgatory, transubstantiation, personal auriculur confession etc - well, I can't see it myself.
Well said, Anselmina. So much of the New Testament material on who is 'in' and who is 'out' takes behaviour as the key indicator. Jesus, in particular, seems remarkably unconcerned about what we believe (in the intellectual sense) and far more bothered about our actions - do we put others' needs before our own, do we feed the hungry and so on.
I simply don't see how a belief that there is a 'correct' church which we must all be a member of (or else run the risk of damnation) can be squared with what Jesus and the NT writers apparently thought.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But like I said upstairs, Christianity is founded on the idea that God has spoken to humankind, and that we can know Him and His truth if we believe. We don't have to believe that, but then we don't have to be Christians either. So obviously my points here only apply to those who want to make Christian judgements.
I can believe that God has spoken to people without having to believe that those people then passed the message on to the rest of us without any omissions, additions or revisions.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm applying a Divine rule (a statement made by an ecumenical council).
Contradiction in terms. Unless you assume that the ecumenical council speaks ex cathedra
But this discussion is leading nowhere. Roma locuta est, causa finita ('Rome has spoken, so shut up & sit down, you naughty child'), at least it is causa finita for some. Oh well...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm applying a Divine rule (a statement made by an ecumenical council).
Contradiction in terms. Unless you assume that the ecumenical council speaks ex cathedra
I'd never assume that any group of humans is comparable to God like that. Even if you gather up my personal spiritual heroes from the last 2000 years, they're still just human and their rules are still human rules.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But like I said upstairs, Christianity is founded on the idea that God has spoken to humankind, and that we can know Him and His truth if we believe. We don't have to believe that, but then we don't have to be Christians either. So obviously my points here only apply to those who want to make Christian judgements.
I can believe that God has spoken to people without having to believe that those people then passed the message on to the rest of us without any omissions, additions or revisions.
Jesus is not some spirit we feel in our hearts. He was a particular person in a particular place and time. If you see no reason to believe what the apostles have spoken about Jesus, you thereby deny the possibility of knowing about Jesus at all- lacking film strips and newspapers we have no other way of knowing about him. In denying the credibility of the Scriptures you deny the possibility of being a Christian. Jesus' life avails nothing, and we have nothing left to guide us but our feelings and sophistry just as we did as pagans.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm applying a Divine rule (a statement made by an ecumenical council).
Contradiction in terms. Unless you assume that the ecumenical council speaks ex cathedra
I'd never assume that any group of humans is comparable to God like that. Even if you gather up my personal spiritual heroes from the last 2000 years, they're still just human and their rules are still human rules.
Except that the RC magisterium does just that. And it seems that we are supposed to grant infallibility to the ecumenical councils, too. I share your reserve, but, well, I'm just a cradle Catholic and therefore a crypto-protestant, as I just learned.
To be fair, I've heard similar claims of "absolute divine truth" made by some Orthodox, accusing RCs of not being "real" Catholics. Do figure. So I get the flak from both sides
Well, I'd better go and book my ticket for Canterbury
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
As I understand Roman Catholicism, the very very best that an RC can ever say of a member of another Church is that they are honestly mistaken. This is because they cannot admit that the RC Church is ever mistaken on matters of faith and morals. It is impossible that the RC Church be mistaken, because, according to the RC Church, God guarantees its teaching.
If I've got that right, then really IngoB is doing the rest of us a favour by being honest about it. The RC priest who says, for example, "nudge, wink, hey we all know you Anglican clergy are the real thing really" is doing nobody any favours at all - because that is not the teaching of the RC Church and it is wrong for an RC priest to claim it is. It is a straight fact that the RC Church believes Anglican clergy to be, in fact, lay people - and dubiously baptised lay people at that. And if Pope Francis is to meet Archbishop Justin, then if Pope Francis is a good Roman Catholic, that's the basis on which their meeting will be conducted.
Now, the rest of us can look on with dumbfounded horror if we want to. We can call this position arrogant if we want to. I prefer to call it mistaken, because I honestly and after much consideration believe that "the Church of Rome hath erred ... in matters of faith". But IngoB cannot believe it mistaken or arrogant and still call himself a thorough-going Roman Catholic. And on that point there is not the slightest chance of rapprochement, ever.
Have I got that right, RC Shipmates?
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
if Pope Francis is a good Roman Catholic, that's the basis on which their meeting will be conducted.
If Pope Francis is a real Catholic, he will see through this and approach Archbishop Justin as a fellow Christian traveller. I still hope not all of the RCs apply the Magisterium indiscriminately, even though we are supposed (by some human beings, again) to submit out intellect and will to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And on that point there is not the slightest chance of rapprochement, ever. Have I got that right, RC Shipmates?
Yes, for the traditionalists, you got it right. (**sigh**)
[ 25. March 2013, 17:48: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
The issue is not really about whether the Magisterium is divine truth or not.
The fallacy lies in the argument, which is based on "western" logic and goes something like this:
A is true.
B is not A.
Therefore, B is not true.
But I'm afraid this logical stand is too weak for the weight of the issue it claims to carry.
I firmly believe that there is a "both-and" here. So the Magisterium may (may!) contain divine truth, but that does not make all other approaches untrue or outside the divine truth.
Yes, I know, I've been too much around the Jesuits... and Indian Jesuits at that...
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Adeodatus has got it wrong if he thinks that the Catholic church considers other Christians and their clergy as 'lay people' and 'dubiously baptised' at that.
Anglican clergy are,however,not Catholic priests in the sense that Rome understands it,as they are not under the authority of a Catholic bishop.They have not been given a mandate by a Catholic bishop to act in his name.It doesn't mean that the RC church does not recognise them as Anglican priests - which is surely what they want to be.Not only are they not in communion of faith with the successor of St Peter but there is no guarantee that they believe what the Catholic church teaches about the priesthood.Their ministry as Anglicans can be affirmed and respected,which again is surely what they want.
Why talk abouit 'dubious baptism' if it can be clearly shown that they wer baptised according to the norms of the Church ? And why speak so dispaagingly about 'lay people' for that matter ?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
The fallacy lies in the argument, which is based on "western" logic and goes something like this:
Oh, good grief.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I am in a sense more than a human being here, because I'm applying a Divine rule (a statement made by an ecumenical council).
I won't do the predictable thing and make it sound like you're trying to claim something for yourself that you're not. Because I know what you mean, and I can see that would make sense from where you are. But I do think you're wrong in your application of how you regard RCC claims to authority, councils etc.
quote:
Let me put it this way: assume for the sake of argument that you finally meet your Maker and He tells you that indeed, all that stuff about the RCC was true. Can you honestly say that there never was the slightest chance whatsoever for you to come to that conclusion? And I don't mean that you would get a sudden epiphany, just that there would have been the tiniest doubt in your mind that with time could have blossomed into more. Some culpability may attach then your choices. (Incidentally, if this is not clear: some culpability for a mortal sin typically results in a venial sin. Thus I did not claim that most Shipmates will burn in hell over their denominational choice.)
Well, let's assume that most improbable and unlikely of Catholic fantasies was to happen! So God has a face-to-face opportunity to tell me what he and I have known all along, that I'm a sinner. And he further tells me that all that haranguing from other Christians about how wrong I was to be the kind of Christian I was, was his will and purpose for everybody's life, not just mine. Yes - sure. I wouldn't be able to deny that I had ever heard of the RCC and its teachings. I would have to admit that - apparently sinfully - I didn't understand the meaning of it all. I'd have to rely on him to tell me how blameworthy I am for that, however. I honestly have never been in a position to see the RCC as being even a rational choice for the expression of my faith; in fact, ironically the more I learn about it, the less it appeals to me. So it appears we're back to where we were before. I'm a sinner.
But the sin in this case, is in not receiving my salvation from a Roman Catholic Jesus. And so perhaps every syphilitic, simoniacal, meglomaniac murdering pontiff of orthodox belief gets into heaven (no objection to that - hooray for the grace of God!), while poor little me, with my tiny failed attempts at living the best way with Christ, as I can, gets the door slammed in my face? Mmm.
IngoB, if that is your religion - you are heartily welcome to it; and I'd rather die an atheist and trust to the mercy of whatever kind of God really is out there, than to your RCC vision of him. I said above 'half a loaf, better than none' - but I'm not sure even that is true any more. Not if the half-loaf is only ever on offer to those who use the right cutlery.
It's not that I think God is some liberal universalist kind of guy. I think he holds us to account for what we do with what he gives us - even if our lives are already safely 'hidden with Christ'. But I really would like the God who spoke to me at all, to have some passing resemblance to the 'Abba, Father', that Christ spoke of and taught about.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Becoming a member of your Church community is not and for many of us will never be a choice. Roman Catholicism is not so much rejected as simply never on the agenda. And why should it be.
That's a bit simplistic, isn't it? If you are polyamorous, and monogamy is never even a choice for you, not on your agenda at all, is your adultery immediately excused? Is it enough to simply not listen to people proposing monogamy as the appropriate state for your life? Does playing deaf maintain your inculpable ignorance about your adultery?
I see what you're trying to do - but it's failing because you've chosen the worst possible analogy. Comparing the coming to faith in Christ of someone who is not a Roman Catholic, to an adulterer 'playing deaf' to the lure of monogamy. That doesn't even begin to fly .
I appreciate you believe the RCC is THE bride. But, as you know, I think you're wrong about that. If I came to salvation in Christ through the words of an ugly talking toad, it would still be salvation; because my response, if truly genuine, can only ever be to God's invitation.
And I honestly don't think God is going to remove the blessing he gives because, in addition to trusting in Christ, I refuse to believe in the superiority of a bigger and uglier toad, who wants me to believe that the only pond worth swimming in is his pond; and the only moths worth eating are his moths. Even if God were to finally say - well, that's my best and only toad, and all other toads are mere froglets; you'd have to ask God what was going on when he quite clearly used other toads to achieve the one thing he set out to do by sending Jesus among us. And it would take the most tortuous casuistry to come up with an answer where it's the fault of the punter and not God's!
I don't mean to make things sounds simplistic. I know they're not. But sometimes things are really much much simpler than we make them.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
Anselmina, this is brilliant:
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Anselmina, this is brilliant:
Amen.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I liked Pope John Paul II on the subject. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, he said that Christians who were not Roman Catholic are also saved. Of course, he also finessed it by saying that since the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church, all Christians are really under its umbrella whether they know it or not. But he didn't make any distinction on whether these non-RC Christians had or had not been exposed to the doctrine that the RCC was the one and only true Church and thus mortally responsible for their decision not to convert.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...
Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular.
...
Considering what I know of the teachings of Jesus, unmediated through a magisterium or a Pope, I believe myself to be safer from the fires of hell outside the Roman Catholic Church than I would be within it. AFAICT the RCC promulgates the teachings of men as equal to the commands of God, which is a fault, when identified in the Pharisees, which brought forth Jesus's wholehearted condemnation.
Angus
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...
Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular.
...
Considering what I know of the teachings of Jesus, unmediated through a magisterium or a Pope, I believe myself to be safer from the fires of hell outside the Roman Catholic Church than I would be within it. AFAICT the RCC promulgates the teachings of men as equal to the commands of God, which is a fault, when identified in the Pharisees, which brought forth Jesus's wholehearted condemnation.
Angus
Wait, Angus, you forgot to add an apposite quote from The Two Babylons ...
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Personally, I know that I am safer from the fires of hell outside the Catholic Church. Given my propensity to be a Complete Bloody Know All who is Always Right if I was given the option to become one of God's Unofficial (But Strangely Infallible) Interpreters Of The Magisterium on the basis of half an hours Google-Fu on any given subject my overweening pride would be such that Nemesis would be down on me like the proverbial ton of bricks.
Much safer, all things considered to remain Some Anglican Guy With Broadband.
[ 25. March 2013, 22:00: Message edited by: Gildas ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Anselmina, this is brilliant:
I agree.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you see no reason to believe what the apostles have spoken about Jesus,
Not unquestioningly, no. That doesn't mean I don't believe a word of it, of course, just that I don't take every single word they wrote as the Absolute Literal Truth.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
And it seems that we are supposed to grant infallibility to the ecumenical councils, too. I share your reserve, but, well, I'm just a cradle Catholic and therefore a crypto-protestant, as I just learned.
Are you trying to make my point for me? Apparently, as "cradle Catholic" you are ignorant of the fact that ecumenical councils are indeed considered infallible when they define on faith and morals. And as "cradle Catholic", you couldn't spend ten seconds to google yourself a clue. Heck, never mind Church documents, even secular Wikipedia knows better... But yeah, apparently I must humbly listen at your feet, just because your parents had you baptised long ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Adeodatus has got it wrong if he thinks that the Catholic church considers other Christians and their clergy as 'lay people' and 'dubiously baptised' at that.
Anglican clergy are,however,not Catholic priests in the sense that Rome understands it,as they are not under the authority of a Catholic bishop.They have not been given a mandate by a Catholic bishop to act in his name.It doesn't mean that the RC church does not recognise them as Anglican priests - which is surely what they want to be.
I don't know why Adeodatus is going on about "dubious baptisms". That is not an issue at least with most major Christian groups. But other than that, you are wrong and Adeodatus is right. Catholic priesthood is not simply some kind of pledge of allegiance to a bishop. Holy orders is a sacrament that leaves an indelible spiritual mark on the recipient. If you do not have it, then you are not a priest properly speaking, but a lay person. And Anglican orders have been explicitly declared "null and void" in the papal bull Apostolicae Curae. Consequently, Anglican priests who want to join the RC Anglican ordinariate need to be ordained. Because they are not really priests, but lay people. That said, first it is simply a matter of politeness to address someone from another religion or denomination in the manner that they see fit. So it is good practice to greet an Anglican bishop as bishop, without going on about what he "really" is. Second, clearly Anglican clergy are clearly not regular lay people in a practical sense. They are de facto pastors and overseers of their communities, and hence deserve the respect that people who are in charge get. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not just any random Anglican. Nevertheless, from a RC perspective he is a lay person in principle, and in consequence cannot provide those sacraments proper to the priesthood.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But the sin in this case, is in not receiving my salvation from a Roman Catholic Jesus. And so perhaps every syphilitic, simoniacal, meglomaniac murdering pontiff of orthodox belief gets into heaven (no objection to that - hooray for the grace of God!), while poor little me, with my tiny failed attempts at living the best way with Christ, as I can, gets the door slammed in my face? Mmm.
There's no particular reason why bad popes can't go to hell. But you are separating your choice of denomination from your attempt at living the best way with Christ. In reality though that is one of the most significant parts of living the best way with Christ. Following Jesus never was just do-gooding with a bit of prayer on top. Think about it, according to your take on Christianity, why did Jesus make such a big point of the twelve disciples? Why was His first move to gather His apostles around him? The Church was being instituted by Christ even before the crucifixion.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Comparing the coming to faith in Christ of someone who is not a Roman Catholic, to an adulterer 'playing deaf' to the lure of monogamy. That doesn't even begin to fly .
Sigh. The point there was to pick something that you consider gravely sinful, in order to show to you that your "not on my agenda" is not a sufficient defence. One cannot simply define away sin like that.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
But he didn't make any distinction on whether these non-RC Christians had or had not been exposed to the doctrine that the RCC was the one and only true Church and thus mortally responsible for their decision not to convert.
First, that book is a written interview with the pope, not a binding teaching document. Second, I assume you are referring to the section "Is Only Rome Right?" starting at page 73. And what does JPII quote? Precisely the words from Lumen Gentium 14 that I have quoted (using a translation variant: "For this reason men cannot be saved who do not want to enter or remain in the Church, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as necessity.") And for good measure he adds more from Lumen Gentium 14: "Therefore, if someone does not respond to that grace in thought, in word and in deeds, not only will that person not be saved, he will be even more severely judged."
What does he say then about salvation? "Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church." (emphasis mine) So, yeah. Of course, JPII's overall sales pitch here is to emphasise the openness of the Church, how swell Christians get along with each other, etc. Therefore it's no surprise that you do not remember these more difficult bits. And JPII is indeed not discussing how non-RCs can get into the sphere of salvation in practice. But at least he does quote the relevant bits of Lumen Gentium on which to base such a discussion. The same bits I've been using...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ sebby
I didn't want you to think that your thoughtful and on-the-point post had been overlooked in the melee. I think they will find common ground in the ministry to the poor and in simplicity.
I don't think we'll see anything radical over the validity of Anglican orders (that looks impossible given the explicitly infallible terms of the Papal Bull) or any of the obvious "Dead Horses topics" either.
I hope they can be friends and they will find a mutual respect. At the highest level of governance, we often discover that there is a keen mutual awareness of the impact of history and precedent, and the limits they put on what is possible; goodwill is expressed best of all by working amicably within those limits, even "pushing the envelope" a bit. Being prepared to "fly a few kites", paticularly early on.
My gut feel is that they will be able to do that rather well. It takes a certain amount of "getting out of the boat" and "not being afraid" to do that. I liked Justin Welby's first sermon. He strikes me on first impression as a very engaging personality; this aspect of his nature would appear to bode well for the personal relationship with Pope Francis.
[ 26. March 2013, 01:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
If we can't understand the reasoning behind Roman Catholic teaching, would it be too much to expect Christians to believe that a person who refuses to submit to baptism, even though he knows Jesus has made it necessary for salvation, will go to hell?
I entirely agree with Roman Catholic teaching on the necessity of the Church, disagreeing only on the identity of the Catholic Church.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
By way of double posting...
I object to IngoB's judgements because they seem to lead to the conclusion that there is a great chasm of damnation between hearing of the Gospel and becoming a Roman Catholic. After all, the more informed one is of the Gospel, the more opportunity one has to realize that Rome is the real deal, and the more culpable one becomes in not joining up. Jews would be more culpable than Amazonian animists because they are more informed through the Old Testament, and a Protestant would be more culpable than Jews and Muslims. An educated Protestant would be more culpable yet, and an Orthodox Christian, having the benefit of the traditions of the Church, would be even more culpable. It seems there would be hardly any hope at all for a lapsed Roman Catholic.
This doesn't make sense to me. A Protestant has more of the grace of the Christian faith than an Amazonian animist, and a Christian from a Church with valid sacraments has more more grace yet. And I must believe that this grace can be salvific if that faith is held sincerely, because that's what grace does.
Indeed, the more sincerely a person is a Protestant, the more likely he would become a Catholic if the truth of the Catholic Church were made obvious. So I would imagine anyway.
[ 26. March 2013, 02:16: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Thanks for the link, IngoB.
quote:
"For this reason men cannot be saved who do not want to enter or remain in the Church, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as necessity" (for salvation).
The problem is that most Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church don't know that "the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as necessity". They either "know" that they are part of the Body by faith and possibly baptism, or they "know" that they are part of the True Church that follows the Ecumenical Councils rather than haring off after the pronouncements of one, key metropolitan rather than Ecumenical consensus. And all the RCC's pronouncements on its exclusive salvic power don't make them all "know" better. Unless they do and convert. Like you.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
If someone accepts and knows the Catholic Church to be the ark of salvation, but refuses to enter, then their life will always be one of frustration, sadness and spiritual orphanage. Salvation is not just the end product but also the process of a lifetime. Not for nothing do people who become Catholics frequently speak of "coming home".
But alongside the excerpt from Lumen Gentium being discussed, one needs to remember also the following:
Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers and sisters, with respect and affection. For people who believe in Christ and have been truly baptised are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers and sisters by the children of the Catholic Church.
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Yes! This is what I understood JPII to be saying. Thanks, Fr. Triple Tiara.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There's no particular reason why bad popes can't go to hell. But you are separating your choice of denomination from your attempt at living the best way with Christ.
Really I'm not. I'm saying one's denomination is only ever as effective as it can be - in one's personal experience (as well as more broadly) if one is genuinelly in Christ.
I'm trying not to thump the Bible too much (as a liberal reader of scripture, I'm aware of my own inconsistencies!), but it does seem clear in scripture that God knows when hearts are turned towards him, for it's the heart he looks upon; and it seems equally clear that it doesn't matter if that heart resides in the body of an outcast or sinner, or the body of a respectably established religio with impeccable levitical pedigree.
It's not that one's Church/denomination is seperate or apart from one's life in Christ or some mere incidental, not at all. It's more that one's life in Christ is what makes the Church/denomination alive or authentic in its mission. We are the members of the Body - people - not the administrative or institutional sticky-tape that holds us (barely in some cases) together.
quote:
In reality though that is one of the most significant parts of living the best way with Christ. Following Jesus never was just do-gooding with a bit of prayer on top.
Well, we agree totally on something then. If it were, my life would be a hell of a lot easier! But it goes without saying, surely, that many of us who are buried deeply into the ways of our Church institutions are in no way always free from that accusation ourselves. In fact, I sometimes think that the institution - along with a rather lazy reliance on sacrament, liturgy etc - can take the place, for many of us, of actually bothering to be authentic in our following of Christ. A bit like plugging ourselves into the Body but hoping the exercise of the other members will keep us fit!
quote:
Think about it, according to your take on Christianity, why did Jesus make such a big point of the twelve disciples? Why was His first move to gather His apostles around him? The Church was being instituted by Christ even before the crucifixion.
Certainly. How could he possibly have done what he set out to do without building his gospel community around him? One could - and I would - say he was instituting his Church; but he wasn't instituting specifically your Church or the Orthodox Church, or Billy Graham's or Sammy the Snake-handler's. He was instituting his Body on earth for the spreading of the good news.
What followed from there has been - I truly believe - a real hit and miss operation. How could it be otherwise? Not even Christ and the original disciples healed and converted everyone. And we can see the faltering and failing of various New Testament churches getting bits wrong here, doing their theology wrong there. And it didn't suddenly get all better and 'fixed' after a few hundred years down the line, when one ecclesial community managed to negotiate a power-base in the heart of the world's biggest earthly empire, thereby transforming the Overseer of Rome, eventually, into an international sovereign.
Administratively - even arguably spiritually - that may have made good pragmatic sense. One can see the need for a growing religion to close down its received revelation, to control (not in a bad way) the claims made for it; to appoint unanimously agreeable guardians of the faith to keep the message truthful and maintain the unity of Christ's people.
But, arguably, it was also a radical departure from the original gospel mission, as established by Christ and his first followers. I would even go so far as to say that as an objective fact (whether for good or for bad), it's observably true that what Christ was building with his ministry and his followers bears in many ways little resemblance to what we have made of his ministry since.
But that's not to say, that the gospel wasn't preached, or that Christ's Body wasn't alive and at work. In many other ways there has been a deep resemblance - but only where we have been in Christ.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Comparing the coming to faith in Christ of someone who is not a Roman Catholic, to an adulterer 'playing deaf' to the lure of monogamy. That doesn't even begin to fly .
Sigh. The point there was to pick something that you consider gravely sinful, in order to show to you that your "not on my agenda" is not a sufficient defence. One cannot simply define away sin like that.
But I'm not defining sin away. If we had been discussing something morally relativistic or even merely institutional in church terms, fair enough. But we were referring to salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Which isn't actually sinful. Is it? So how can I take on board a line of argument that requires me to regard as sin what isn't sinful? Even for the sake of argument.
I didn't take offence at your analogy - I just thought it didn't work. Salvation is Christ's work after all, and is never partial (or at least I don't think it is), so trying to imagine a righteousness in Christ which is better in one Church than in another is impossible. It's like saying that biscuits baked in the same kitchen by the same cook taste better in your house than in mine!
But I know I'm probably being simplistic, in your view. And in a way I regret that we will never agree on so many things which both of us regard as essential. I can even understand if you regard this as a complete waste of your time! But for what it's worth, I don't. I appreciate genuinelly your engagement with this, IngoB. In fact, it's been very useful.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
And it seems that we are supposed to grant infallibility to the ecumenical councils, too. I share your reserve, but, well, I'm just a cradle Catholic and therefore a crypto-protestant, as I just learned.
Are you trying to make my point for me? Apparently, as "cradle Catholic" you are ignorant of the fact that ecumenical councils are indeed considered infallible when they define on faith and morals. And as "cradle Catholic", you couldn't spend ten seconds to google yourself a clue. Heck, never mind Church documents, even secular Wikipedia knows better... But yeah, apparently I must humbly listen at your feet, just because your parents had you baptised long ago.
For info, I did not look it up. How come you just assume that? But it was not foremost in my mind as I typed, for the simple reason that it has absolutely zero bearing on the way I live my faith.
And how dare you think I'm just a Catholic because my parents baptised me when I was a baby? You know, there are some other people who, baptised as babies, make, in later age, a conscious and often difficult decision to remain, or not, in their Church. And I really don't expect anyone to sit at my feet. I have enough experience with overzealous converts from my years in Finland to try and keep them well away from me.
Apart from that, I strongly object to you, or anyone else for that matter, daring to decide on what sort of a Catholic I am. This is plainly insulting and if you cared to look up from your musty church documents and switched on your brain (your own, not someone else's!), you would be a bit more humble about your position.
[ 26. March 2013, 07:33: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
God knows when hearts are turned towards him, for it's the heart he looks upon; and it seems equally clear that it doesn't matter if that heart resides in the body of an outcast or sinner, or the body of a respectably established religio with impeccable levitical pedigree.
Which is pretty much what all the prophets + Jesus said, time and again.
Why do we so often revert to the priestly view that correct theology is all that matters?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Triple Tiara quoted Lumen Gentium: quote:
Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers and sisters, with respect and affection. For people who believe in Christ and have been truly baptised are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.
Aren't words powerful? It is surprising just how good it is to read of 'respect and affection' for me and those like me - at least I assume and hope they extend all the way to the Baptists.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
Yes, I know, the people who wrote this are card-carrying members of Patronising 'Я' Us.
And sorry, mate, no salvation for you, since I assume you have access to Wikipedia, so you could, if you only wanted to, learn The Truth .
Now what is the middle-of-the-road, moderately enlightened, and eternally seeking and stumbling Christian to do? There are several groups who claim exclusivity, not just Ingo's brand of RC. The LDS do, AFAIK, so do some Orthodox, and some Born Again Christians.
So, if I want to be on the sure side (if there is one), where do I turn?
Who's got The Truth? I do not know. All I know is that it is impossible to have a decent conversation with those absolutists. And from personal experience I know that among the people I consider true friends in faith are an Anglican Priest (and yes, I do consider him a full priest!), a Sikh lady, a couple of Hindus, a Tibetan Buddhist lama and several laypeople, a Quaker lady, a secular Buddhist from Scotland, a number of German Lutherans plus two Cistercian religious, a Carmelite nun, and three Jesuits.
And if I had a chance to reunite these people around a table, I am sure we would get on splendidly and God would be in our midst. Misguided some of them? Exposed to only parts of the truth? How arrogant and petty-minded to assume so. They are all, without exception, honest seekers and bearers of the Truth, for the Truth this side of death can only reside in an honest, open, humble (!) pilgrimage.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
No. I didn't read it as patronising at all, and I wasn't being sarcastic. I genuinely appreciate the careful and generous way those words were written all those years ago. It's not what I have been used to hearing from Catholics.
As you say, one soon sees that not everyone's claim to have the only truth can be right, so you either stick a pin in a list of denominations or you wonder if truth might be a different sort of thing.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thank you Triple Tiara for those words.
Originally from IngoB:
Precisely the words from Lumen Gentium 14 that I have quoted (using a translation variant: "For this reason men cannot be saved who do not want to enter or remain in the Church, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as necessity.")
That passage from Lumen Gentium draws a clear distinction between the whole of Christ's Church in the first section, and then the Catholic Church in the last clause, as a division of that Church. There is no doubt the authors recognised the valid membership in the Church of all who have been baptised in the Name of the Triune God and choose to remain in that membership. I suspect that this broad use was chosen deliberately to recognise not just brethren in the Catholic Church, but of the various Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches,many of great antiquity, as well as those of us in other divisions of the Western Church: all were founded by God through Christ.
[ 26. March 2013, 09:52: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I object to IngoB's judgements because they seem to lead to the conclusion that there is a great chasm of damnation between hearing of the Gospel and becoming a Roman Catholic. After all, the more informed one is of the Gospel, the more opportunity one has to realize that Rome is the real deal, and the more culpable one becomes in not joining up. Jews would be more culpable than Amazonian animists because they are more informed through the Old Testament, and a Protestant would be more culpable than Jews and Muslims. An educated Protestant would be more culpable yet, and an Orthodox Christian, having the benefit of the traditions of the Church, would be even more culpable. It seems there would be hardly any hope at all for a lapsed Roman Catholic.
On one hand that is more or less true. On the other hand it is also true, or should be true, that the closer one gets to RCism, the more of the spiritual aids given by the Holy Spirit become available to one. The Orthodox have basically all Sacraments still properly available. A Protestant still has access to baptism, reads the bible and prays the Lord's prayer. Etc. So if we try to calculate a "total chance of salvation" somehow, then I don't rightly know how it will all pan out. Remember what I said above already, partial culpability can turn a mortal sin into a venial sin. I'm not going on about a "one strike and you are out" situation. I'm going on about a grave sin that is near universally being swept under the carpet (by RCs and non-RCs alike).
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Indeed, the more sincerely a person is a Protestant, the more likely he would become a Catholic if the truth of the Catholic Church were made obvious. So I would imagine anyway.
"In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end." (Lumen Gentium 15) But once more I ask: do we see that? And if not, whose problem is it? Because it tends to be a major problem if the promptings of the Holy Spirit get ignored. Am I personally guilty of this? Quite possibly, I tend to be weary of the various ecumenical moves of the RC hierarchy. That may be a point where "more Catholic than the pope" bites for me. But look at Anselmina's ferocious rejection of the RCC. I think there is a problem there, too. "Fair enough, she is a Protestant" does not quite cut it.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The problem is that most Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church don't know that "the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as necessity".
As I've said multiple times already, this excuse must have its limits. Otherwise the original statement is rendered meaningless. It is hence not the case that all "not knowing" is free of personal responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
But alongside the excerpt from Lumen Gentium being discussed, one needs to remember also the following:
In case anybody wonders, this is from Unitatis Redintegratio 3. And Triple Tiara decided to leave out the finishing part of that paragraph. So let's fix that:
quote:
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Yes! This is what I understood JPII to be saying. Thanks, Fr. Triple Tiara.
So, it doesn't really matter what JPII was actually saying, the important thing is that somebody confirms what you have imagined JPII said, because that fits your agenda better? Seriously?
Now, with respect to UR3 as quoted by Triple Tiara, as usual Church documents require careful reading so as to not jump to unwarranted conclusions. Here's the key bit again: "... quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation..." What this is actually saying then is that we can blame Martin Luther for the Lutherans separating off, but we cannot blame someone born into a Lutheran church for that today. This is then nothing but the rather uncontroversial principle that the sins of the parents cannot be blamed directly on the children (though the children may suffer from their parents' sins). Does this speak to the question what a Lutheran today must do concerning the RCC? No, it actually doesn't. It merely says that the Lutheran does not start in a massive debt of sin merely by being Lutheran. That debt is on Martin Luther's head (and certainly to some extent on the heads of his Catholic counterparts).
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, we agree totally on something then. If it were, my life would be a hell of a lot easier! But it goes without saying, surely, that many of us who are buried deeply into the ways of our Church institutions are in no way always free from that accusation ourselves. In fact, I sometimes think that the institution - along with a rather lazy reliance on sacrament, liturgy etc - can take the place, for many of us, of actually bothering to be authentic in our following of Christ. A bit like plugging ourselves into the Body but hoping the exercise of the other members will keep us fit!
We agree on that as well then. Except that I would say that this is in fact part of God's merciful design. Most people will not be heroic saints, and if salvation depended on that, 99.9% of humanity would be fucked. The Church is a bit like an ant heap. A single ant cannot do much, but get many of them working together and all those little contributions add up to one of the most successful super-organisms of the natural world.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But, arguably, it was also a radical departure from the original gospel mission, as established by Christ and his first followers. I would even go so far as to say that as an objective fact (whether for good or for bad), it's observably true that what Christ was building with his ministry and his followers bears in many ways little resemblance to what we have made of his ministry since.
I'm not going to do the usual dance on that one. Suffice to say that either you or me are very wrong about that one. (Or perhaps we are both wrong about it.) What interests me here is to what extent one of us (or both of us) is culpable for this.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But we were referring to salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Which isn't actually sinful. Is it? So how can I take on board a line of argument that requires me to regard as sin what isn't sinful? Even for the sake of argument.
No, we were not talking about "salvation outside of the RCC", which is obviously not sinful where it occurs (I'm certainly no stranger to hubris, but even I will stop short of calling God sinful...). We were talking about whether it is good enough for you to dismiss the RC option in these terms (your words): "Roman Catholicism is not so much rejected as simply never on the agenda." My point was that one does not automatically shed all responsibility for a sin by comprehensively ignoring all information about it. The only thing that you needed to accept there - at least for the sake of argument - is my basic claim that rejecting the RCC can be sinful.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
But it was not foremost in my mind as I typed, for the simple reason that it has absolutely zero bearing on the way I live my faith.
Obviously. It would be rather tragic if your faith had to be informed by the actual documents of Vatican II, or horror of horrors, the Council of Trent. Who knows what you would have to believe in? Well, you don't. That doesn't worry you in the slightest, does it?
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
And how dare you think I'm just a Catholic because my parents baptised me when I was a baby?
I'm sure your incessant practical charity makes St Francis weep tears of joy and the depth of your mystical spirituality makes St Theresa of Avila sing your praises before God. But you know, I can't judge that. I can only judge what you write here.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Apart from that, I strongly object to you, or anyone else for that matter, daring to decide on what sort of a Catholic I am. This is plainly insulting and if you cared to look up from your musty church documents and switched on your brain (your own, not someone else's!), you would be a bit more humble about your position.
Hmm. So if I'm not "insulting" you, who else will point out these rather serious flaws of your Catholicism to you? I have no particular illusions about my own pastoral abilities. It is quite likely that nothing I say will do anything for you. But what will? And which pastor will "gently rebuke" you to get you back on track?
Just to be clear about that, I'm not writing from the position of being a super-Catholic. I think I'm a pretty bad Catholic in several ways. It is quite possible that you have your personal and prayer life sorted in a much more Catholic way than I do. That's not saying much, frankly. However, this place, SoF and Purgatory specifically, by its nature puts an emphasis on facts and debating skills. And I'm decent at that sort of thing.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The problem is that most Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church don't know that "the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as necessity".
As I've said multiple times already, this excuse must have its limits. Otherwise the original statement is rendered meaningless. It is hence not the case that all "not knowing" is free of personal responsibility.
There's just one problem with that: it assumes that the statement "the (Roman) Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as necessity" is true.
But it isn't true. And that being so, the entire argument falls down.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
It is fascinating to me, as an charo-evangelical Protestant, to read IngoB’s certainties. I’ve heard exactly the same thing, except in reverse, from my stricter and more austere Protestant brethren, especially the more excitable fundies and also many Reformed Protestants. These folk share IngoB’s convictions, except the other way round – just as he believes a Protestant may be in danger of mortal sin through rejecting the RCC, they are just as certain that IngoB’s Church is the one through which nobody can expect to be taught, or receive, salvation. The RCC, in their eyes, is the Church which preaches a false gospel.
I have a more tempered view. The RCC has ancient credentials (duh). I respect the RCC in many ways and I’ve certainly met, and prayed with, some fine Catholics.
However, I am a Protestant for a reason, and it’s this: I will not subscribe to what I genuinely believe is extra-biblical baggage, stuff added onto the purity and simplicity of the original gospel, the wonderful message of salvation and freedom through Jesus. (And yes yes yes, everybody has baggage, including Protestants. Fine. But it's some of the specific RCC baggage which I cannot, in all conscience, accept.)
I do not believe that Martin Luther sinned when he rightfully challenged the RCC on the 16th century abuses all those centuries ago.
Far more grievous to me is Martin’s anti-Semitism. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
His challenge to the RCC of his day pales in comparison to that.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Thank you Father TT for elevating the tone of this thread. There are those of us who sincerely differ with one or another of the pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church Magisterium -- and of course the reverse is true. But i, for one, appreciate the Christian tone of your presentation of views, in the wake of some less fortunate presentating.
And to you, and to everyone -- a blessed Holy Week and a joyous celebration of the Resurrection of the One who reconciles all creation to God.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
If someone accepts and knows the Catholic Church to be the ark of salvation, but refuses to enter, then their life will always be one of frustration, sadness and spiritual orphanage.
Okay ... sincere question, is 'accepting and knowing but not doing anything about it' somehow worse than my position, i.e. respecting the RCC but not regarding it as the one and only ark of salvation? (Since I believe that Christ's Church is far bigger and richer than Catholic, Orthodox and all shades of Protestant.)
Again, I am fascinated that sincere Catholics really do sincerely believe that my spiritual life is likely one of frustration and orphanage. I'm not offended, but I am more than a bit puzzled. Not that sincere Catholics believe their church is the best way (I'm used to fellow evangelicals having a similar attitude). But that said sincere Catholics honestly believe that a happy, committed Protestant is somehow suffering, or lacking. Conversions can go both ways, of course.
Anyway, thanks for the Lumen Gentium quotes.
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
And to you, and to everyone -- a blessed Holy Week and a joyous celebration of the Resurrection of the One who reconciles all creation to God.
A hearty amen to that!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Yes, I know, the people who wrote this are card-carrying members of Patronising 'Я' Us.
And sorry, mate, no salvation for you, since I assume you have access to Wikipedia, so you could, if you only wanted to, learn The Truth .
Now what is the middle-of-the-road, moderately enlightened, and eternally seeking and stumbling Christian to do? There are several groups who claim exclusivity, not just Ingo's brand of RC. The LDS do, AFAIK, so do some Orthodox, and some Born Again Christians.
So, if I want to be on the sure side (if there is one), where do I turn?
Who's got The Truth? I do not know. All I know is that it is impossible to have a decent conversation with those absolutists. And from personal experience I know that among the people I consider true friends in faith are an Anglican Priest (and yes, I do consider him a full priest!), a Sikh lady, a couple of Hindus, a Tibetan Buddhist lama and several laypeople, a Quaker lady, a secular Buddhist from Scotland, a number of German Lutherans plus two Cistercian religious, a Carmelite nun, and three Jesuits.
And if I had a chance to reunite these people around a table, I am sure we would get on splendidly and God would be in our midst. Misguided some of them? Exposed to only parts of the truth? How arrogant and petty-minded to assume so. They are all, without exception, honest seekers and bearers of the Truth, for the Truth this side of death can only reside in an honest, open, humble (!) pilgrimage.
Nice post. One of my close friends is a Sufi, and another was in a Zen monastery for 10 years. Anyway, we get together in a meditation group, along with assorted Christians and atheists, and we have a good time, and we can talk to each other powerfully and movingly about what truth and reality are, as well as lots of more mundane issues. The exclusivity of some groups just makes me laugh. It seems infantile really, and a kind of diminution of what God is.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
We've got quite a long way from the OP, haven't we?
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Laurelin I am a person who tries to be a sincere Catholic and I do not think that your life is likely to be one of frustration.You say that you respect the Catholic church but cannot accept all that it teaches.That is not the same as accepting all that the Church teaches,accepting that it is the 'ark of salvation' and yet refusing to enter it.
Earlier on I said that Anglican priests are not priests in the sense that Rome understands it because they have not received a mandate from a Catholic bishop.I used the word 'mandate' as shorthand for ordination which comes from the bishop with the mandate to go out and celebrate the Sacraments and preach the Word of God.
Anglican priests will have received a similar mandate from their bishop,as indeed will Presbyterian ministers from their community.We as sincere Catholics can and should recognise their ministry to the Christian community.It is only if they come to see the Catholic church as that 'ark of salvation' and want to minister as a priest within that community that we would say ,well,yes, you have to start from the beginning of the formal ordination process,because you are not a validly ordained Roman Catholic priest.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
IngoB: quote:
So, it doesn't really matter what JPII was actually saying, the important thing is that somebody confirms what you have imagined JPII said, because that fits your agenda better? Seriously?
And you express no personal interpretation? Pot meet kettle. Obviously, the College of Cardinals missed a bet by only electing a New World pope and not a lay convert who has a hotline to God. Then all would be put to rights.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't know why Adeodatus is going on about "dubious baptisms". That is not an issue at least with most major Christian groups. But other than that, you are wrong and Adeodatus is right.
Merely that according to the RC Church, the normal minister of baptism is a bishop or priest. From that perspective, anybody else who has been baptised has been baptised by a layperson. So the baptism is valid, and possibly licit, but it's certainly irregular. Perhaps "dubious" was too strong a word.
It's nice to know my protestantism isn't merely a mistake on my part.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In case anybody wonders, this is from Unitatis Redintegratio 3. And Triple Tiara decided to leave out the finishing part of that paragraph. So let's fix that:
No need to fix anything that I posted. The succeeding paragraph of UR had nothing to do with the discussion: it addresses the unity of the Church, not the question of salvation. I have a fairly hefty reputation around here for addressing the defects of Anglicanism (in particular), especially with regards to validity of orders and "branch" theory. There is a big difference between lacking the fullness of unity and going to hell, however.
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
If someone accepts and knows the Catholic Church to be the ark of salvation, but refuses to enter, then their life will always be one of frustration, sadness and spiritual orphanage.
Okay ... sincere question, is 'accepting and knowing but not doing anything about it' somehow worse than my position, i.e. respecting the RCC but not regarding it as the one and only ark of salvation? (Since I believe that Christ's Church is far bigger and richer than Catholic, Orthodox and all shades of Protestant.)
Again, I am fascinated that sincere Catholics really do sincerely believe that my spiritual life is likely one of frustration and orphanage. I'm not offended, but I am more than a bit puzzled. Not that sincere Catholics believe their church is the best way (I'm used to fellow evangelicals having a similar attitude). But that said sincere Catholics honestly believe that a happy, committed Protestant is somehow suffering, or lacking. Conversions can go both ways, of course.
Anyway, thanks for the Lumen Gentium quotes.
No, I was saying something different, that is, not addressing your situation. If you are a "happy, committed Protestant" then clearly you are not suffering from the longing to belong to the Catholic Church but not actually doing anything about it. There are many in this latter condition, and often it is fear of the unknown, or even the admirable desire not to abandon their local community, which holds them back. For some it is an over concentration on aesthetics which keeps them away (we tend to be far less formal in Church and there has been a rather chaotic liturgical period in the last few decades).
Respect from a committed, different perspective is another matter though. There are many non-Catholics in that position. Them I also respect in return (and yes, hatless, that includes Baptists) while at the same time believing they are wrong. But they are very different from those who long to belong to the Catholic Church, or know in their hearts that is where they ought to be, but remain separated.
This reminds me of Oscar Wilde, who said the Catholic Church is an impossible Church to live in, but the only one to die in!
[ 26. March 2013, 16:30: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
If it is really true that amongst converts there are more "real" RCs than amongst us poor degenerated cradle catholics, then I wonder why it is that the most "radical" catholics of them all, the ones who took Holy Orders to become Priests, Monks, Nuns or members of apostolic congregations, dedicating their lives to it after often very deep and serious formation, do not, or only very seldom, voice the kind of literal, Rome-Centric "theology" proposed in some quarters of the Ship.
It is often precisely these people who have an open, non-dogmatic approach.
What I think is happening to many converts is what psychology calls "root shock", which then pushes them to grasp for certainties.
And of course some of them are just in it because they enjoy rhetoric hair-splitting and are in love with their own dialectical acrobatic tricks. Fair enough.
Converts will just need to put up with the fact that the House is already inhabited when they arrive, and that there are rooms prepared for them with a warm welcome, but we incumbents resent being treated like the poor degenerate relatives.
Because we are not.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Another aphorism which applies has just occurred to me: "God has many whom the Church has not, and the Church has many whom God has not". ( St Augustine De Baptismo, 5.38)
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
quote:
It is often precisely these people who have an open, non-dogmatic approach.
You and I (and I would imagine, you and IngoB) have clearly not been talking to the same persons in Catholic holy orders and religious life. My experience is that most are quite dogmatic when it comes to serious theology, and good on them for it.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
No need to fix anything that I posted. The succeeding paragraph of UR had nothing to do with the discussion: it addresses the unity of the Church, not the question of salvation.
Except where it explicitly talks about salvation, of course. But of more interest to me is this:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
If you are a "happy, committed Protestant" then clearly you are not suffering from the longing to belong to the Catholic Church but not actually doing anything about it. There are many in this latter condition, and often it is fear of the unknown, or even the admirable desire not to abandon their local community, which holds them back. ... Respect from a committed, different perspective is another matter though. ... But they are very different from those who long to belong to the Catholic Church, or know in their hearts that is where they ought to be, but remain separated.
So to be clear about it: the people that you see as being most in danger of burning in hell over their denominational choice are those on the verge of becoming RC, who for some reason or the other do not quite make the jump. Whereas the typical "thanks but no thanks" Protestant will be perfectly fine, salvation-wise. Did I get that about right?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
God knows, IngoB.
Pastoral care and evangelism are almost, but not completely, unlike solving simultaneous differential equations.
Or, put another way, If we perceive our faith as the big Truth, then the requirement appears to be to speak it with big Love.
The application of pastoral wisdom also seems to require an obedience and a submission to the sovereign role of the Holy Spirit, who will both teach us all things and convict the world of sin. (This is a major truth which I learned from a Billy Graham broadcast in the UK. At best we are messenger boys. Not only with our lips but with our lives.)
All conviction, all conversion, all truth, all "circumcision of heart" do appear to be, ultimately, the sovereign province of the guiding power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit breathes upon the word.
Put another way, we can make a complete rickets of our "lips and lives" proclamation, and yet the Spirit of God can effect the work of God nevertheless. That's not an excuse for carelessness, but it does suggest that the search for ultimate precision may not be as necessary as we sometimes believe.
[ 26. March 2013, 17:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
... Obviously, the College of Cardinals missed a bet by only electing a New World pope and not a lay convert who has a hotline to God. Then all would be put to rights.
Unfortunately, I think the lay convert of whom you might be thinking, is not only not-a-priest, but married.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So to be clear about it: the people that you see as being most in danger of burning in hell over their denominational choice are those on the verge of becoming RC, who for some reason or the other do not quite make the jump. Whereas the typical "thanks but no thanks" Protestant will be perfectly fine, salvation-wise. Did I get that about right?
Nope. The ones most in danger are those who decide who is and who is not going to burn in hell.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Snap!
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
... Obviously, the College of Cardinals missed a bet by only electing a New World pope and not a lay convert who has a hotline to God. Then all would be put to rights.
Unfortunately, I think the lay convert of whom you might be thinking, is not only not-a-priest, but married.
While any male RC could be elected, and then run through the three ordination hoops (or maybe just one or two, if per saltum), I wonder if the Camerlengo has the power to dispense from celibacy for the episcopate. Mind you, I'm not going to wonder very much, but this might serve as an annoying question on a canon law exam.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
This thread probably needs to become a little less personal.
Please forgive me my culpability in that direction.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Nope. The ones most in danger are those who decide who is and who is not going to burn in hell.
So, by virtue of this very statement, you yourself?
But, self-defeating rhetoric aside, I'm mystified by your reluctance to deal in a reasonable manner with these sentences from Lumen Gentium. Apparently, their meaning must not be discussed, for fear of ... what, precisely?
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
It is often precisely these people who have an open, non-dogmatic approach.
You and I (and I would imagine, you and IngoB) have clearly not been talking to the same persons in Catholic holy orders and religious life. My experience is that most are quite dogmatic when it comes to serious theology, and good on them for it.
From Wiktionary:
quote:
DOGMATIC (adj.)
1. (philosophy, medicine) Adhering only to principles which are true a priori, rather than truths based on evidence or deduction.
2. Pertaining to dogmas; doctrinal.
3. Asserting dogmas or beliefs in a superior or arrogant way; opinionated, dictatorial.
I think the priests to whom you refer probably have been dogmatic according to definitions #2 or maybe #1. I believe Desert Daughter was thinking of the term dogmatic as in definition #3.
[ 26. March 2013, 21:38: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Nope. The ones most in danger are those who decide who is and who is not going to burn in hell.
So, by virtue of this very statement, you yourself?
But, self-defeating rhetoric aside, I'm mystified by your reluctance to deal in a reasonable manner with these sentences from Lumen Gentium. Apparently, their meaning must not be discussed, for fear of ... what, precisely?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Nope. The ones most in danger are those who decide who is and who is not going to burn in hell.
So, by virtue of this very statement, you yourself?
But, self-defeating rhetoric aside, I'm mystified by your reluctance to deal in a reasonable manner with these sentences from Lumen Gentium. Apparently, their meaning must not be discussed, for fear of ... what, precisely?
Nope. I have not condemned anyone to hell.
I am not afraid to discuss the passage from LG. Indeed, I have addressed it directly. On two counts. First, from the perspective of salvation. You go straight to the end result of salvation, namely heaven or hell. I well remember discussing all this before. Salvation is also the process, not just the terminus ad quem. Secondly, whom does the LG passage address? I have spoken to this point as well: those who obstinately refuse to join the Catholic Church while interiorly acknowledging the truth of its claims spiritually orphan themselves - they cut themselves off from the fullness of the means of salvation. Does that result in hell? It's not for me to speculate, far less decide. But they are the ones whom Lumen Gentium addresses. Unitatis Redintegratio meanwhile talks of Christians not in communion with the Catholic Church as having a part in the mystery of salvation "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation". I find it hard to believe that they are both used by the Spirit as means of salvation but nevertheless destined for hell. But then again, that's not what the Church teaches so that's not what I believe.
[ 26. March 2013, 22:09: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
From Wiktionary:
quote:
DOGMATIC (adj.)
1. (philosophy, medicine) Adhering only to principles which are true a priori, rather than truths based on evidence or deduction.
2. Pertaining to dogmas; doctrinal.
3. Asserting dogmas or beliefs in a superior or arrogant way; opinionated, dictatorial.
I think the priests to whom you refer probably have been dogmatic according to definitions #2 or maybe #1. I believe Desert Daughter was thinking of the term dogmatic as in definition #3.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that IMHO working out ones theology wholly or predominantly by reasoning a priori is a bad way of doing it. So also is treating it as a form of philosophy.
[ 26. March 2013, 23:02: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
First, i need to apologise for forgetting to include the person whose post i was quoting, who was Jon in the Nati, who was responding to Desert Daughter.
Enoch, you make a good point. However my sole reason for posting the above 3 definitions of "dogmatic" was to make a comparison between the way Jon in the Nati and Desert Daughter were using the term "dogmatic".
Jon in the Nati was saying that, talking about the priests with whom he discussed theology etc. being "dogmatic", in his view, was a good thing. He was saying this in response to Desert Daughter, who thought it was a good thing that the priests to whom she referred were "non-dogmatic".
I was just trying to show that Jon in the Nati and Desert Daughter were thinking of 2 different things in using the term "dogmatic". I wasn't passing judgement about whether or not definitions 1 or 2 were good ways to develop dogma.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that IMHO working out ones theology wholly or predominantly by reasoning a priori is a bad way of doing it. So also is treating it as a form of philosophy.
I think I see what you mean, Enoch. I am not sure that ultimately a philosophy without a priori posits is possible (but I must say that I've been influenced a lot by the likes of Max Scheler and Peter Wust in my philosophical trekkings); I am very much open to counter-arguments (translation: I wished I had found it, but honestly I don't know).
Your point about treating theology as a philosophy: Agree wholeheartedly. At least if one takes philosophy as what is commonly considered "analytical" philosophy. What I found interesting is that in classical Indian thought, philosophy is subordinate to, but not bound or limited by, theology. But that's a tangent.
I think that if most (Western) Christian theology cannot do fully without the a-priori posits, then at the very least we should be careful where we place them. And I think the problem many RCs have with the magisterium is the level at which the a-priori is placed.
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Jon in the Nati was saying that, talking about the priests with whom he discussed theology etc. being "dogmatic", in his view, was a good thing. He was saying this in response to Desert Daughter, who thought it was a good thing that the priests to whom she referred were "non-dogmatic".
I was just trying to show that Jon in the Nati and Desert Daughter were thinking of 2 different things in using the term "dogmatic".
Yes indeed. Thank you Malik for having clarified this.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Nope. I have not condemned anyone to hell.
By the same measure, neither have I.
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
First, from the perspective of salvation. You go straight to the end result of salvation, namely heaven or hell. I well remember discussing all this before. Salvation is also the process, not just the terminus ad quem.
Actually, I was talking of the danger of going to hell. Such danger is considering the process, not the endpoint. But I am indeed evaluating everything with regards to the endpoint, because it is RC teaching that only the endpoint ultimately counts. In the positive, no matter how sinful your life, perfect contrition with your very last breath will get you to heaven. In the negative, no matter how holy your life, a mortal sin just before death will land you in hell. The process does not count for the eternal outcome, at least not at this "binary level". Of course, you can argue that someone deeply steeped in sin is unlikely to achieve perfect contrition and someone tremendously holy is unlikely to commit a mortal sin. But what you are doing then is projecting back the importance of the endpoint to prior states in a probabilistic manner. I'm doing nothing else, so where's your problem with what I say?
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Secondly, whom does the LG passage address? I have spoken to this point as well: those who obstinately refuse to join the Catholic Church while interiorly acknowledging the truth of its claims spiritually orphan themselves - they cut themselves off from the fullness of the means of salvation. Does that result in hell? It's not for me to speculate, far less decide.
So I will repeat the sentence that you deflected: "the people that you see as being most in danger of burning in hell over their denominational choice are those on the verge of becoming RC, who for some reason or the other do not quite make the jump." How precisely is that not a fair representation of your position, which you have just repeated again?
Now as far as deciding whether anybody goes to hell, clearly that's God's job. However, it very much is your job to speculate about that as priest. You are in many ways like a doctor working in a war zone. Refusing to do triage on the wounded being carried in is in no way praiseworthy, it is simply negligence of duty and refusal of responsibility. I very much assume that you are trying to invest your finite resources of time and energy so as to maximise the salvation chances of those in your care. There is no way of doing that though without de facto speculating about the state of their souls.
I think there's a wrong reluctance here. I cannot tell whether a rapist is going to hell. After all, he could repent of his deeds. Or perhaps (though I think people are overdoing this) the circumstances of his own life indeed make him inculpable enough for his crime. And then we do not know all the ins and outs of God's mercy. But I sure as heck can say that on average and all other things equal, rapists have a much higher chance of going to hell than non-rapists. Because rape is a grave sin. And such a judgement isn't at all "nasty" or "beyond human ken". It is prudent and informed. And while such judgement can be used for evil, it certainly can also be used for good. For example, I can conclude that rapists should not be deprived of spiritual care because they are likely in urgent need of repentance.
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I find it hard to believe that they are both used by the Spirit as means of salvation but nevertheless destined for hell. But then again, that's not what the Church teaches so that's not what I believe.
At a minimum, it is entirely possible Catholic opinion to assume that a good many of them are destined to hell. Why should that be different for them than for Roman Catholics? The RCC herself is made out of sinners and saints, and there never has been any claim that all her full members will be saved just because the Holy Spirit works among and through the RC faithful. Why should Protestants get a better deal?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Desert Daughter
Reflecting on the continuing fact that discussion on this thread has an amazing capability to produce fascinating tangents ...
I was intrigued by this observation, particularly the (Western) insertion.
quote:
I think that if most (Western) Christian theology cannot do fully without the a-priori posits, then at the very least we should be careful where we place them.
When considering relationships and reconciliation between Anglicanism and Catholicism (the main trend of this thread) ISTM that both do live under the general umbrella of "Western" Christianity. Which implies that both Catholicism and Reformed thought spring from a similar way of thinking about dogmatic truth.
As best I understand things from the Eastern Orthodox perspective (which frankly is not at at all well!) the word "theoria" has quite a lot to do with this. The dogma of the Trinity (which I believe is the central a priori posit of Christianity) was not seen by the Cappadocian Fathers as emerging from a kind of philosophical, purely reasoned and reasoning, reflection on the gospels and the faithful deposit of the apostles. Of course they reflected on the relationship between Christianity and prevailing philosophical thought. But I think "theoria" in this context was much more about profound contemplation of God, that the dogma emerged from encountering the divine in prayer and worship. Reflection in the presence of God is a different matter to reflection as a human process.
The whole essence and energies thing in Orthodoxy seems to have at its heart the great insight that God has not merely revealed truths about Himself he has chosen to reveal Himself (who is the Truth) to mankind in particular ways. And before that Truth, we had better be humble about the limits of our understanding. We'd better not get too "up ourselves" in thinking this can be all be worked out by drawing distinctions. "Face down" is a heck of a lot better than "here's a 'heads up'".
Actually I think both reconcilation in the West and reconciliation between East and West are very much helped by looking at things through that kind of viewer. The differences between us are of course rather different, but no matter. Personally, I place a great emphasis on the value of friendship and prayer.
There is this lovely quote which I found a few years ago in "The Orthodox Way" which has really spoken to my heart.
"As a friend talking with his friend, man speaks with God, and drawing near in confidence, he stands before the face of the One who dwells in light unapproachable (St Symeon the New Theologian)"
Considering how astonishing that is, the scope for increased friendship amongst ourselves should not be discounted, and the possibilities contained in increased friendship seem boundless to me.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
Barnabas,
Beautiful post, and I am grateful that you are taking the discussion to this level. I fully agree with you. Actually I too have read "The Orthodox Way" years ago and the discussion on this thread has led me to re-read it in the past days.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The dogma of the Trinity (which I believe is the central a priori posit of Christianity) was not seen by the Cappadocian Fathers as emerging from a kind of philosophical, purely reasoned and reasoning, reflection on the gospels and the faithful deposit of the apostles. Of course they reflected on the relationship between Christianity and prevailing philosophical thought. But I think "theoria" in this context was much more about profound contemplation of God, that the dogma emerged from encountering the divine in prayer and worship. Reflection in the presence of God is a different matter to reflection as a human process.
The whole essence and energies thing in Orthodoxy seems to have at its heart the great insight that God has not merely revealed truths about Himself he has chosen to reveal Himself (who is the Truth) to mankind in particular ways. And before that Truth, we had better be humble about the limits of our understanding.
(...)
Actually I think both reconciliation in the West and reconciliation between East and West are very much helped by looking at things through that kind of viewer.
Indeed. If we put the main a priori at the trinitarian mystery, then we can learn a lot from the Orthodox about that "viewer". Humility is key, and since we all need constructs to approach That which can never be fully grasped, I agree with you that Gregory Palamas' distinction between "Essence" and "Energies" is very helpful. At least it is to me.
This is, I think, a good and solid basis for dialogue between Anglicans, Orthodox and Romans. Actually, in another book I'm reading right now (Michael Amaladoss, Beyond Dialogue) the idea is put forward that one ought to go, as the title says, beyond a mere dialogue and communicate "heart-to-heart", going much deeper.
Another core Pan-Christian concept is that of kenosis , or self-emptying. Something we all need to (re-learn). If we weren't so obsessed with guarding our own little fortresses (much of it is simply a fear of the culturally 'other'), especially the Anglican-Roman-Orthodox triangle would yield a very fruitful and spiritually rich approach.
Personally, I much admire Rowan Williams' writings on Orthodoxy and I am curious to see how Justin Welby approaches this. And of course I look forward to Welby's meeting with Francis. I think the Pope has made it very clear that this sort of "trialogue of the hearts" is high on his agenda.
I pray for that.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
[quote]Originally Posted by IngoB
Why should Protestants get a better deal?
Has anyone ever given you an opening that was so good, you actually feel a little guilty about taking it? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
At a minimum, it is entirely possible Catholic opinion to assume that a good many of them are destined to hell. Why should that be different for them than for Roman Catholics? The RCC herself is made out of sinners and saints, and there never has been any claim that all her full members will be saved just because the Holy Spirit works among and through the RC faithful. Why should Protestants get a better deal?
The 'deal' for Protestants, Catholics and anybody else is this:
"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God."
Romans 5:1-2.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
The 'deal' for Protestants, Catholics and anybody else is this:
"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God."
Romans 5:1-2.
IngoB isn't one to appreciate it terribly much when people try to speak for him, but so far as I can tell he is arguing against this very attitude that goes "Well, God is merciful, so finding the Real Deal doesn't really matter so long as you love him in your heart."
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
IngoB isn't one to appreciate it terribly much when people try to speak for him, but so far as I can tell he is arguing against this very attitude that goes "Well, God is merciful, so finding the Real Deal doesn't really matter so long as you love him in your heart."
Well ... the Real Deal for me lies not in the Magisterium, or even the sacraments (as important as they are) but in the very nature of faith and grace and what faith and grace are and what they do.
People come to faith in Christ without the Magisterium to hand. Or even without a Bible to hand (which is where, for me, the authority and the teaching lies).
I believe that through Christ our salvation is assured. That doesn't mean I regard salvation as a ticket you can just punch into a slot and that gets you into heaven.
The thief on the cross had no time for theological niceties. His faith - the faith of a man dying horribly - got him 'in'.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Fair enough, Laurelin. I think you are wrong, but think it is better to grant you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know any better.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Fair enough, Laurelin. I think you are wrong, but think it is better to grant you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know any better.
Wrong about what, though? Wrong for placing the authority of the Bible above the authority of the Magisterium? Wrong for believing that anyone can come to Christ, totally independently of whether they've come across any church (so far)?
[If a Catholic regards me as 'saved' anyway, even though I'm not a Catholic and therefore in impaired communion with Rome, then I'm not sure why my soul is at stake (or not) ... I guess this is the interesting reversal of what I grew up with, the idea that Catholics could be saved, 'despite' the wrong teaching of their Church ...]
So, the thief on the cross. His faith in Christ assures him a place in Paradise. Are we agreed?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I long ago concluded that we are not saved by right theology. If we were, then God would have given us a doctrinal basis and a systematic theology, not the mess of contradiction, hagiography, metaphor, fiction and pseudo-history that is the Bible.
I don't know exactly what God is trying to impart to us through Scripture, but I do know that if he's trying to communicate hard and fast doctrines he's chosen an unbelievably inefficient and ambiguous means of doing so. Therefore I conclude that he isn't.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
I don't see the Bible as a 'mess'.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
I do agree that theology alone cannot save. One can believe 'all the right things' and be a complete [insert TOS violation here]. That is not the Way.
Orthopraxy really does matter. Dying thief again. He had it.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Wrong about what, though...
Wrong about your stopping point. The way IngoB has framed the issue to this point smacks of works righteousness to me. Instead of the life of faith being one of gratitude, one is left asking whether one has believed in the right things to the right degree to merit salvation. Maybe it's because he starts with the Church, I really don't know, but for my part I can't see why one would trust the Church if one doesn't first trust the promises Jesus made to the Church.
So I entirely agree with your starting point of faith in Jesus. But you seem to stop there. Much better, I say, to go on to ask how one can grow in this grace in gratitude for what Jesus has done. "Jesus has risen from the dead- how then should we live?" I see (according to the scriptures) the grace of salvation as offered specifically in the Church and its sacraments.
Now, it's no good to box God in and say that his grace can only be offered in the sacraments. I agree that the thief on the cross was saved just like Jesus said. But, if the thief had been taken down from the cross and lived, how would he have lived? That's the question.
And, if one discerns that the life of faith in Jesus leads to the Church, but refuses to enter that life, then can one really be said to be keeping faith in Jesus?
[ 27. March 2013, 12:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I don't see the Bible as a 'mess'.
Really? I wonder which one you're reading. Mine is. It's got the book of Proverbs telling me that if I do all the wise things it advises I'll be healthy, wealthy and successful, whilst Ecclesiastes tells me it makes no difference and I'm better off having a party, and Job telling me that it might work, but then it might all go away again because Satan got bored of just betting on the horses and he and God decided to play silly buggers with me to settle a bet.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
Zach ... thank you, that was a very helpful and clear reply.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So I entirely agree with your starting point of faith in Jesus. But you seem to stop there. Much better, I say, to go on to ask how one can grow in this grace in gratitude for what Jesus has done. "Jesus has risen from the dead- how then should we live?" I see (according to the scriptures) the grace of salvation as offered specifically in the Church and its sacraments.
I used to believe that us Protestants were all about grace and you Catholics were all about works. I know better now (thankfully)! Of course Catholics are into grace!
I still think there is a fundamental difference, though, in how we see grace operating. For you, it has to come through the sacraments. For me, I can go straight to Christ, sacraments or not. (Which is not to say they don't matter.)
quote:
And, if one discerns that the life of faith in Jesus leads to the Church, but refuses to enter that life, then can one really be said to be keeping faith in Jesus?
No, one cannot. I totally agree.
Where you and I differ is in how we see the Church. From my perspective (and I am not the only evangelical to take this line) believing Catholics are already 'inside' the fold. My Catholic brothers and sisters are alongside with me, in the Church. But the point is: I am not 'outside' it.
It's not that I deny that the RCC does have apostolic credentials. It's the 'add-ons' that I cannot, in all conscience, accept. Incidentally, my sister once told me I'd make a good Catholic. In a way, I guess. But there would be very serious theological hurdles for me to overcome for that to happen.
[Recently I've been pondering how very different church history might have been, had Jerusalem not fallen in AD70, and the centre of the Church remained there and not been relocated to Rome. We (I mean the Church) would not have avoided making some serious mistakes. That is, sadly, human nature. But we might have avoided making the kind of mistakes that we did make.]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I long ago concluded that we are not saved by right theology. If we were, then God would have given us a doctrinal basis and a systematic theology, not the mess of contradiction, hagiography, metaphor, fiction and pseudo-history that is the Bible.
I don't know exactly what God is trying to impart to us through Scripture, but I do know that if he's trying to communicate hard and fast doctrines he's chosen an unbelievably inefficient and ambiguous means of doing so. Therefore I conclude that he isn't.
This is as good a case for the Divine institution of the RCC in general and of the magisterium in particular as I could ever write... And the tragicomic thing is how your preconceptions about the role of the bible and the Church blind you so completely to what you are clearly advocating there.
(Mind you, we are indeed not saved by right theology. But it sure helps...)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I long ago concluded that we are not saved by right theology. If we were, then God would have given us a doctrinal basis and a systematic theology, not the mess of contradiction, hagiography, metaphor, fiction and pseudo-history that is the Bible.
I don't know exactly what God is trying to impart to us through Scripture, but I do know that if he's trying to communicate hard and fast doctrines he's chosen an unbelievably inefficient and ambiguous means of doing so. Therefore I conclude that he isn't.
This is as good a case for the Divine institution of the RCC in general and of the magisterium in particular as I could ever write... And the tragicomic thing is how your preconceptions about the role of the bible and the Church blind you so completely to what you are clearly advocating there.
(Mind you, we are indeed not saved by right theology. But it sure helps...)
Not at all. It only logically leads to the divine institution of the RCC and the magisterium if you assume a priori that God intends some means of transmitting a set of cut and dried doctrines. If he does, then of course he's going to need the magisterium, or Calvin's Institutes, or the 39 articles, or whatever, to do what the Bible clearly doesn't do.
But that's the "if". My suggestion is that God does not intend to provide us with a set of cut and dried doctrines at all - not because, as some suggest, we "have to work it out for ourselves" - what you might call "every man his own magisterium", but because it isn't what matters to God
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not at all. It only logically leads to the divine institution of the RCC and the magisterium if you assume a priori that God intends some means of transmitting a set of cut and dried doctrines. If he does, then of course he's going to need the magisterium, or Calvin's Institutes, or the 39 articles, or whatever, to do what the Bible clearly doesn't do.
Well, I'm glad that this so logical for you. I agree, but some people can be rather stubborn about this. Nevertheless, I don't need to assume anything a priori. The logic of my view is the other way around, after all. It starts with the historical Church and concluded to the doctrinal purpose. (Calvin's stuff, Anglican inventions, and the like do not qualify for that at all, of course. They are way too late.)
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But that's the "if". My suggestion is that God does not intend to provide us with a set of cut and dried doctrines at all - not because, as some suggest, we "have to work it out for ourselves" - what you might call "every man his own magisterium", but because it isn't what matters to God
Now, you are of course pulling that completely out of thin air. You have no independent evidence for your point of view. But there is plenty of historical evidence for the institution Church swinging into action very early on to provide just what you consider "logical" if God wanted to transmit a set of "cut and dried" doctrines.
So I don't have to accept anything a priori. I simply look at historical fact, and derive the logical consequences. The only thing missing in your case is that you have decided - a priori - that God wants His religion to be wishy-washy. Then you have to reject the historical data about the early Church as an "early corruption" of the wishy-washiness, and you have to reject one and a half millennia of Christian history as ever increasing falsification of Divine wishy-washiness, and you even have to reject the early Reformers who weren't particularly wishy-washy either, while thanking them for their destructive action which finally, perhaps in the last century or even less, made room for the religious wishy-washiness that you have decided God wanted all along.
Anyway, I congratulate you on having worked out the clear logic why regular Protestantism is indefensible. Maybe one day you will also appreciate the historical data as positive evidence. Then we should talk again.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, I congratulate you on having worked out the clear logic why regular Protestantism is indefensible.
This is so absurdly ludicrous it could almost be funny. Except it comes from someone who believes that when his Church invented purgatory, limbo, indulgences, relics, mariolatry etc, it was doing something not only on a par with scripture, but upon which - depending which Pope was sitting on the throne at the time - even one's own salvation depended.
Protestantism 'indefensible'? What does that even mean?! That it doesn't work, that it's the 'wrong' way to be a Christian? That it's second-hand salvation? That it's the name of those followers of his Son that God doesn't really like very much, unlike his favourites, the (how hard to say this without laughing) the oh-so-obviously-defensible RCC?
Thank God for Triple Tiara on this thread, to remind me that there's still something to find in the RCC to respect.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Much agree about Triple T, Anselmina. Hart is another shipmate whose posts i look forward (altho i don't think he's posted on this thread -- perhaps to preserve his sanity)
I have one teeny factual critique re "mariolatry". In fairness to the RCC, the magisterium doesn't teach mariolatry (worship of Mary) -- altho some elements of popular RC piety have likely strayed into that territory, especially in previous centuries.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Protestantism 'indefensible'? What does that even mean?! That it doesn't work, that it's the 'wrong' way to be a Christian? That it's second-hand salvation? That it's the name of those followers of his Son that God doesn't really like very much, unlike his favourites, the (how hard to say this without laughing) the oh-so-obviously-defensible RCC?
You tend to fly off the handle a bit, don't you? If you had actually followed the flow of argument between me and Karl, then you would know that I agreed with his analysis here. This analysis means that a doctrinal foundation of Protestantism, derived from the "authority of the bible" without the institution of an independent, normative, Divinely guided interpreter, is indefensible. Of course, Karl and I come to a different conclusion on where to go from there, but we agree that classical Protestantism simply lacks a sufficient foundation. One could argue that no text can fill the role that Protestants assign to the bible, but the actual bible certainly cannot. The bible just isn't a repository of clear doctrinal, moral and legal guidance. As soon as we turn to drawing meaning from its text, it becomes an essentially eisegetical exercise. You can see that SoF as much as anywhere: scripture alone never settles any serious disagreement on faith or morals, other than for the people who have joined the choir being preached to in the first place.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The original protestants just didn't think much of the track record of the independent, normative, Divinely-guided interpreter IngoB. Which of course makes them heretics in your eyes when in the end they refused to back down. Dissented from the view that the established authority was right. Obstinate bunch. If they can't see it the right way, silence them, lock them up, burn them. There are no Albigensians, but the Jesuits failed to be tough enough with the Protestants. Interesting view of history, even in a joke.
Anyways, we got going a few hundred years after the schism, which in its own way is not exactly the best advert for the notion of an ongoing, independent, normative, Divinely-guided interpreter.
I'm quite disarming about this really. It is a real shame that we don't have anything similar to the original ecumenical councils where differences can be thrashed out. I may not think too much of some of the consequences of those thrashings out, particularly anathematisation applications, but that's another matter. Called "how do we correct one another in love?". That doesn't detract from the value of trying to resolve "no small dissensions".
The world has got the UN, which hasn't exactly got a brilliant record of resolving global differences either. But some good, life improving co-operations have resulted.
By comparison, what have we got? Bottom-line intransigence, IngoB. My way or the highway. What will that do for global Christian work and witness? By all means keep your bottom line as an ultimate aim. And use it to protect all you hold dear, and believe we should hold dear.
Does that mean we shouldn't talk, try to find common ground, matters of mutual interest and support? If your answer to that is "no", fair enough. But if it is "yes", or "maybe", what sort of agenda should any such meetings have? Any serious ideas, other than negotiating the terms of our surrender?
[ 28. March 2013, 08:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The original protestants just didn't think much of the track record of the independent, normative, Divinely-guided interpreter IngoB. Which of course makes them heretics in your eyes.
No, that doesn't make them heretics. That's par for the course for Catholics of all times and places, and certainly there were times and places when bitching about the hierarchy was even more justified than usual. Catholicism has never relied on working well for its self-understanding. It's an idea, an ideology, but one aimed at practical realisation. It's more like "communism" or "capitalism" or "democracy" or "monarchy"... When these things fail, supporters do not typically say "well, that turned out to be a bad idea after all, let's try something else." Rather they typically assume that the failure stems from having realised the idea in a bad manner, from the wrong people getting involved, from adverse circumstances, .... and support having another go. Catholicism is like that, just that the whole thing has never truly collapsed. (That is, objectively, special - whether you attribute that to Divine guidance or not.)
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I may not think too much of some of the consequences of those thrashings out, particularly anathematisation applications, but that's another matter.
I think you do not allow for escalation (Matt 18:15-17), and confuse the maximum penalty with the process. If I go to my priest tomorrow and say "I don't think I believe in God any longer," will he respond with "piss off then, here's your writ of excommunication?" Probably not. In fact one can have any number of heretic, schismatic, and even atheist opinions, and stay Catholic year after year. This rises from the level of "pastoral concern" or "brotherly correction" really only when the person significantly escalates what they are doing. And the response to that is typically slow in coming. Just because an anathema applies to you does not mean that it will be applied to you in practice, at least on earth.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Does that mean we shouldn't talk, try to find common ground, matters of mutual interest and support? If your answer to that is "no", fair enough. But if it is "yes", or "maybe", what sort of agenda should any such meetings have?
Clearly, one can always talk about matters of practical charity. That's after all even true for other religions. With other Christians, clearly there are also matters of shared faith one can talk about. Finally, among Christians one can also talk about what could end at least some of the divisions. The problem I see is that there usually isn't much to talk about, really. But if you have committees dedicated to talking about something, they will. And that can lead to questionable results.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Any serious ideas, other than negotiating the terms of our surrender?
Excellent.
We cannot "stop" the exclusivists, whatever their denomination (they don't only lurk in the RCC).
But maybe an "alliance of the willing"? Was Assisi (especially the first meeting under JPII) a good start? It did not seem to me like a woolly "anything goes" sort of thing. I fear that in an era of mass media there is an increasing gap between what religious leaders, most of them deep, humble, thoughtful and sincere men of God, really feel, think and wish for, and what they know they can afford to let on in front of the cameras and an ever more radicalised part of their respective flock.
Maybe there is space for small, "bottom-up" initiatives here. Some RC monasteries are dedicated to it, like the Vita et Pax Olivetans at Turvey Abbey or the Benedictines at Minster Abbey, who organise RC/Orthodox dialogue. One step further are truly ecumenical communities. Taizé comes to mind (I personally don't like the style, I'm way too much of an introvert for that, but I deeply respect and admire them), as well as some of te ecumenical religious communities, like Bose (link here) or Chevetogne (link here) ; they are openly dedicated to ecumenism and it is worth quoting from their website:
quote:
Truly if it is necessary to know one another before there can be mutual appreciation, the first step to reconciliation is to learn from the other who he is. From the very beginning the community of Chevetogne has been committed to learning from the Christian East, particularly from the Russian Orthodox Church. The Liturgy is celebrated mainly in Slavonic, and sometimes in Greek.
Close relations with the Oriental Orthodox Churches, with the Anglican Communion and the Protestant Churches allow the monks in their daily prayer to be with all the disciples of Christ in the common supplication for the communion between the Churches.
Those of us who are willing to seek whatever sort of "communio" should not wait for the people at the top and the writers of church documents to come up with guidelines. To a considerable extent they are more bound and cobbled than we "foot soldiers" are. Christianity, and I think we all agree on this, implies, and indeed requires, initiative, courage, and maturity (a.k.a. discernment). We should go and seek out our neighbours, through communal initiatives like the ones listed above -and I'm sure there are more, do pm me if you know of others), or, simply, on our very own.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The original protestants just didn't think much of the track record of the independent, normative, Divinely-guided interpreter IngoB. Which of course makes them heretics in your eyes.
No, that doesn't make them heretics. That's par for the course for Catholics of all times and places, and certainly there were times and places when bitching about the hierarchy was even more justified than usual. Catholicism has never relied on working well for its self-understanding. It's an idea, an ideology, but one aimed at practical realisation. It's more like "communism" or "capitalism" or "democracy" or "monarchy"... When these things fail, supporters do not typically say "well, that turned out to be a bad idea after all, let's try something else." Rather they typically assume that the failure stems from having realised the idea in a bad manner, from the wrong people getting involved, from adverse circumstances, .... and support having another go. Catholicism is like that, just that the whole thing has never truly collapsed. (That is, objectively, special - whether you attribute that to Divine guidance or not.)
.....
I think you do not allow for escalation (Matt 18:15-17), and confuse the maximum penalty with the process.
For once in your life IngoB, I think you've overlooked something. My original post said this.
quote:
The original protestants just didn't think much of the track record of the independent, normative, Divinely-guided interpreter IngoB. Which of course makes them heretics in your eyes when in the end they refused to back down. Dissented from the view that the established authority was right. Obstinate bunch.
That acknowledges Matthew 18-type processes. There was a Matthew 18 process with Luther, of course. Opinions differ on the reasons for the obduracy of the final outcome.
So I think you have misread me. You put a full stop in your quote from my original post which wasn't there in the original.
I know all about the value and purpose of Matthew 18 processes. That's common ground. Matthew 18 processes are also a test of trust in the authority which is in charge of them.
Trust once lost is difficult to recover.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Malik 3000, yes, I appreciate your point about 'mariolatry'. As IngoB pointed out, I flew off the handle. And the RCC approach to the veneration of Mary often appears to me in that light. Not that it matters.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So I think you have misread me. You put a full stop in your quote from my original post which wasn't there in the original.
Quite so. My sincere apologies for that, in particular for the mis-quoting. My only excuse is that I've been in bed with severe flu since last weekend, posting in between fever bouts...
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Was Assisi (especially the first meeting under JPII) a good start? It did not seem to me like a woolly "anything goes" sort of thing.
Then you weren't paying attention. The whole point of Benedict undertaking Assisi II was as a necessary corrective to the godawful mess that was Assisi I.
[ 28. March 2013, 13:49: Message edited by: CL ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Laurelin if I have understood you correctly you say that people can come to faith without the(rc) magisterium to hand and even without the Bible to hand.They must surely however have heard of Jesus in some way before they can come to accept him as Saviour.Where do they hear of him if not in some way via the Magisterium or the Bible ?
I would say that for most Catholics the word 'magisterium' is certainly not an everyday word.It is a word which many will never have heard.
The Christian religion is a religion of love (I know that sound corny, but it is so.)
Most of us,but not all, learn about love within the context of our own communities.There is no one so selfish as a new born baby.Gradually the baby begins to understand the self sacrificing love of its parents (we hope) and begins to return that love.It is the same with our wider communities,which will often give us reasons to explain love and goodness.If our parents have shown us love and we trust them we will take on trust what they and the wider community tell us about God,the Creator or simply the world around us.To me it is from that that community around us that most of us make our choice of religion,each one refining,sometimes changing and sometimes even discarding completely what our parents have told us.
To me that wider community is the invisible Body of Christ which covers all of humanity.Grafted on to that community are all men of goodwill (and women !),all religions,including the Abramic faiths.Judaism ,Christianity and Islam and amongst the adherents of Christianity all those who have come to hear about and to accept as Lord ,Jesus Christ.
For reasons of upbringing and background as well as personal conviction I believe in all of the formal teachings of the Catholic church but the love of God can be seen all over in all shades of belief of peoples and that is what is important to me.
I happen to believe all that IngoB says,it's just that I would put it in a different way with different emphases.It is interesting and informative to read here of other people's understanding of the message of the Gospel and how we should live the Christian life.And yet I would normally leave it to Anglicans to explain their faith and to Lutherans to explain theirs rather than try to explain it for them
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My only excuse is that I've been in bed with severe flu since last weekend, posting in between fever bouts...
Interesting therapy, IngoB. Take care now. The occasional tot can help, provided you're not popping a lot of paracetomols.
And thanks for the sincere apology, much appreciated.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Purgatory-inappropriate comment to CL here...
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
Thanks, Kevin, this does indeed call for us to step outside (or downstairs, as it were )
See you all in Hell!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Having mostly moved on from this thread, I'll throw out the observation that we can get dozens and dozens of posts in a thread comparing Protestants and Catholics, but I would be shocked if we could get 10 posts on a thread comparing Christians and Hindus. For some reason, our ability to produce so much petty-fogging between us renews my love of my Catholic brothers and sisters in faith.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Having mostly moved on from this thread, I'll throw out the observation that we can get dozens and dozens of posts in a thread comparing Protestants and Catholics, but I would be shocked if we could get 10 posts on a thread comparing Christians and Hindus. For some reason, our ability to produce so much petty-fogging between us renews my love of my Catholic brothers and sisters in faith.
Freud referred to the 'narcissism of small differences', meaning that the smaller they are, the more bitterly they are fought over. Hence, in football, derby games are the really hot and heavy ones. Those bastards are just the other side of the city, and for some reason, they're in blue, but we're in red! Grr, grr. But it seems endemic throughout culture.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
Yes, small differences and a certain amount of having no life to get on with can create all sorts of bad blood.
But talking about big differences and trouble: I unfortunately know (and have experienced ) situations where fanatics under some sort of Hindu banner made life for the (large) Christian and Muslim minorities in their villages well-neigh impossible. Try being locked up in a compound for two weeks because you're too scared to get out...
This is, I hasten to add, an exception in what is otherwise an astonishingly well-functioning multi-faith society. I also hasten to add the reactions, and joint work, by the sequestered Christians and Muslims plus the majority (!) of the local Hindu population to restore order, repair shop windows, get children back to school etc.
But where it hits, it hurts and it certainly makes headlines.
It's just that these things don't get much on the radar in North America/ Europe, which is where most of the Ship's crew are based.
Hate in the name of faith should be a contradiction in terms, alas it is not. The effects of stupidity are the price we must pay for living in a diverse, democratic world.
[ 28. March 2013, 17:00: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm not sure those differences are all that large, are they? We tend to hate those who are close to us.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Oh, there are differences about really important matters. I'm not denying that. For example, I see much to disagree with in Baptist theology, but I can't conceive that God gave Baptists the grace of baptism just to catch them up in being part of the wrong sect.
Baptism is God's means of salvation, which without fail grafts a person into the Body of Christ. I accept that in faith, but accepting that means, alas, accepting a great many people as brothers and sisters whose ideas and lifestyles I find repellant, even if I can't accept the errors they bring with them.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Catholicism is like that, just that the whole thing has never truly collapsed. (That is, objectively, special - whether you attribute that to Divine guidance or not.)
What would a collapse look like? Lots of splinter groups each claiming to be truer to the pre-collapse ideals than the others?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
What would a collapse look like? Lots of splinter groups each claiming to be truer to the pre-collapse ideals than the others?
Primarily, it would require a total loss of apostolic succession. That could occur in a "hard" manner (like for Lutherans) or in a "soft" manner (like for Anglicans). But if you break the apostolic succession, then you have broken the sacramental Church. Another possibility would be combining an anti-pope crisis with a Great Schism. Imagine the East had not simply withdrawn, but successfully established its own pope (bishop of Rome). Then it would become really difficult to say where the one Church is at. That's perhaps not a "total collapse" of sacramental function, but of symbolic unity. Finally, it could simply mean that there are no believers any more. I don't know what life would look like in all these cases. It really depends on circumstances.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Primarily, it would require a total loss of apostolic succession. That could occur in a "hard" manner (like for Lutherans) or in a "soft" manner (like for Anglicans).
Anglicans, of course, would claim that they hadn't lost apostolic succession in any manner, whist covering up the question of what apostolic succession actually means with a healthy dose of Anglican fudge ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I wasn't aware that we had covered our understanding of apostolic succession with fudge or any other dessert.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Continuing in my same mellow vein, IngoB, I was wondering if I could ask a rather impertinent question. Do you think the truth of the Gospel and of the Roman Catholic Church is so obvious and simple to deduce to any honest mind that it is only possible for someone to disagree because of some defect of character? That does seem to be the implication of what you've been saying, and not only on this thread.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Continuing in my same mellow vein, IngoB, I was wondering if I could ask a rather impertinent question. Do you think the truth of the Gospel and of the Roman Catholic Church is so obvious and simple to deduce to any honest mind that it is only possible for someone to disagree because of some defect of character? That does seem to be the implication of what you've been saying, and not only on this thread.
Imagine a huge funnel, which is very shallow at the rim but becomes steeper and steeper towards the centre. If you place a ball at the rim, and it doesn't run off toward the centre, there's nothing too odd about that. It probably is just "natural friction" that keeps the ball from moving. But if you place the ball close to the centre so that it sits on a steep incline, and it doesn't move, then you have to wonder. Is the ball coated in glue? Is it being pulled up by a magnet? Now imagine thousands of balls being throw in the funnel at once, rushing about. What the case is precisely with every single ball is now hard to tell, as they ricochet off each other or get stuck in bunches. Also, momentum might make a ball rush in close and deep, just to rush out into the shallow again. Still, in an overall sense, we remain more surprised by balls close to the centre not falling further in than by balls far out in the shallow. And consider a couple of balls glued to the wall deep inside, which have a large number of balls stacked up on them. If we see such a clump of strange balls hugging the wall, it would be rash to say "they must all be bad balls". As it turns out that is not true. But we can validly conclude that something bad is going on there, and that at least some of the balls stuck there will be involved in it somehow.
I hope the analogy is clear. I do believe that there is a kind of pull of the Truth, and that it intensifies as one draws nearer to it. Still, not every resistance to that pull is an individual failure. Because we are not studying isolated individuals with independent histories and actions who make static decisions. Yet that we cannot typically point to the flaws of one person does not mean that we cannot make any judgements at all. Often the problems are more apparent to us at a collective than at an individual level.
Posted by Cadfael (# 11066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Continuing in my same mellow vein, IngoB, I was wondering if I could ask a rather impertinent question. Do you think the truth of the Gospel and of the Roman Catholic Church is so obvious and simple to deduce to any honest mind that it is only possible for someone to disagree because of some defect of character? That does seem to be the implication of what you've been saying, and not only on this thread.
Imagine a huge funnel, which is very shallow at the rim but becomes steeper and steeper towards the centre. If you place a ball at the rim, and it doesn't run off toward the centre, there's nothing too odd about that. It probably is just "natural friction" that keeps the ball from moving. But if you place the ball close to the centre so that it sits on a steep incline, and it doesn't move, then you have to wonder. Is the ball coated in glue? Is it being pulled up by a magnet? Now imagine thousands of balls being throw in the funnel at once, rushing about. What the case is precisely with every single ball is now hard to tell, as they ricochet off each other or get stuck in bunches. Also, momentum might make a ball rush in close and deep, just to rush out into the shallow again. Still, in an overall sense, we remain more surprised by balls close to the centre not falling further in than by balls far out in the shallow. And consider a couple of balls glued to the wall deep inside, which have a large number of balls stacked up on them. If we see such a clump of strange balls hugging the wall, it would be rash to say "they must all be bad balls". As it turns out that is not true. But we can validly conclude that something bad is going on there, and that at least some of the balls stuck there will be involved in it somehow.
I hope the analogy is clear. I do believe that there is a kind of pull of the Truth, and that it intensifies as one draws nearer to it. Still, not every resistance to that pull is an individual failure. Because we are not studying isolated individuals with independent histories and actions who make static decisions. Yet that we cannot typically point to the flaws of one person does not mean that we cannot make any judgements at all. Often the problems are more apparent to us at a collective than at an individual level.
Thank you, Ingo! I am embarrassed by my earlier comments on this thread, which kind of assumed that your contributions have no trace of humour. But this shows how wrong I was. This contribution is absolutely the last word in balls, and quite hilarious! Thank you again!
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
This thread is making me dizzy.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Catholicism has never relied on working well for its self-understanding. It's an idea, an ideology, but one aimed at practical realisation. It's more like "communism" or "capitalism" or "democracy" or "monarchy"... When these things fail, supporters do not typically say "well, that turned out to be a bad idea after all, let's try something else." Rather they typically assume that the failure stems from having realised the idea in a bad manner, from the wrong people getting involved, from adverse circumstances, .... and support having another go. Catholicism is like that, just that the whole thing has never truly collapsed. (That is, objectively, special - whether you attribute that to Divine guidance or not.)
The real difference is that we supporters of democracy understand that it is a human institution, and make no claims of anything beyond that.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The Christian religion is a religion of love (I know that sound corny, but it is so.)
Most of us,but not all, learn about love within the context of our own communities.There is no one so selfish as a new born baby.Gradually the baby begins to understand the self sacrificing love of its parents (we hope) and begins to return that love.It is the same with our wider communities,which will often give us reasons to explain love and goodness.If our parents have shown us love and we trust them we will take on trust what they and the wider community tell us about God,the Creator or simply the world around us.To me it is from that that community around us that most of us make our choice of religion,each one refining,sometimes changing and sometimes even discarding completely what our parents have told us.
Well said.
As we came out from church this Good Friday morning, in a beautiful blue sky a signwriter had drawn a cross, followed by an equals sing, then by a heart. The true message indeed.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...
Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular.
...
Considering what I know of the teachings of Jesus, unmediated through a magisterium or a Pope, I believe myself to be safer from the fires of hell outside the Roman Catholic Church than I would be within it. AFAICT the RCC promulgates the teachings of men as equal to the commands of God, which is a fault, when identified in the Pharisees, which brought forth Jesus's wholehearted condemnation.
Angus
Wait, Angus, you forgot to add an apposite quote from The Two Babylons ...
I take a response which consists of nothing but ridicule to be a tacit admission of defeat, in that there is no rational coherent contrary argument to be made.
And I was pleased to see Laurelin stating pretty much the position I hold:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
...
However, I am a Protestant for a reason, and it’s this: I will not subscribe to what I genuinely believe is extra-biblical baggage, stuff added onto the purity and simplicity of the original gospel, the wonderful message of salvation and freedom through Jesus. (And yes yes yes, everybody has baggage, including Protestants. Fine. But it's some of the specific RCC baggage which I cannot, in all conscience, accept.)
I do not believe that Martin Luther sinned when he rightfully challenged the RCC on the 16th century abuses all those centuries ago.
...
And I think I detect something of an inconsistency in IngoB’s views. Back in post #000451 he stated:
quote:
Your conscience is not an automatic dispenser of eternal truths. Some truths written on your heart are, but that's at the "do good, avoid evil" level ("synderesis"). The applied bits you worry about here are however largely entrained. Someone told you what is right and what is wrong, and you learned it. Whether you learned the right thing is a circular question, if you use your own conscience to judge that.
And then in post #000484
quote:
I profess my beliefs primarily because I think that they are true.
So IngoB, what was it that led you to think that your beliefs are true? Conscience, surely? And was it not your own conscience that led you to put yourself under the authority of the RCC in the first place, and to adopt its teachings as the truth in which you believe? Yet, if conscience cannot be relied on as an automatic dispenser of eternal truths, then your conscience-based decision to join the RCC may well be faulty, and the 'truths' in which you believe may be false. That the RCC maintains that its teachings are true because the church says they are, because of a line of apostolic succession of authority to ‘bind and loosen’ which the church has decided applies to itself is every bit as much a circular self-justifying argument as the argument that you criticise based on conscience.
My decision to not join the RCC is also based on personal conscience. (See the start of this post.) And my ecclesial tradition values continuing decisions of conscience for belief and practice. I think that the difference between members of the RCC church and members of the protestant churches is a preference or antipathy for being in an authoritarian environment, and for how much personal responsibility one wishes to have for discerning what one is going to believe and practice.
There are benefits and pitfalls from both approaches to faith. Conforming to the teaching of an authoritarian church may result in conforming to ungodly teaching, as one has to conform to the ‘whole package’. Being in a church which allows more freedom of personal conscience (sometimes dismissed as having ‘a Pope in every pew’) may result in one failing to conform to godly teaching. And I suspect that when challenged by God’s judgement, the defence of ‘I was submitting to the authority of the church, I was just doing what I was told, I simply followed orders’ is no more exculpating than the defence of ‘I did what my best-informed conscience prompted me to do’.
Angus
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I think that the difference between members of the RCC church and members of the protestant churches is a preference or antipathy for being in an authoritarian environment, and for how much personal responsibility one wishes to have for discerning what one is going to believe and practice.
I think the Catholic Church looks very authoritarian to those on the outside, especially to those of us who have given some consideration to converting to Catholicism. Being baptized into the Catholic Church as a baby means that if your faith grows, it likely grows in the church, and you don't have to make a huge decision as an adult to submit to the church. When you sign up as an adult, you consciously agree to a whole lot of things you're just not used to, things that simply feel uncomfortable because you didn't grow up with them. Rightly or wrongly, most cradle Catholics, at least the ones I know, seem to exercise just as much personal responsibility for their beliefs and practices that I do -- they're not idiots, and they're not children. The difference is that their faith was formed within the Catholic Church, while my spiritual formation took place elsewhere.
quote:
There are benefits and pitfalls from both approaches to faith. Conforming to the teaching of an authoritarian church may result in conforming to ungodly teaching, as one has to conform to the ‘whole package’.
This depends on the nature of the authority. I'll take the Catholic Church over any storefront Protestant church that commands devotion to the precepts laid out by some charismatic, self-promoting, self-appointed leader. And I think some people spend their lives on a fruitless "spiritual" search, trying to find themselves, or some such shit, when they'd be better off listening to and being advised by someone with spiritual authority or, yes, submitting to an ecclesial instutition. Re-inventing the wheel is a damned hard thing to do when you haven't the foggiest notion what a wheel might look like or what it should do.
quote:
Being in a church which allows more freedom of personal conscience (sometimes dismissed as having ‘a Pope in every pew’) may result in one failing to conform to godly teaching. And I suspect that when challenged by God’s judgement, the defence of ‘I was submitting to the authority of the church, I was just doing what I was told, I simply followed orders’ is no more exculpating than the defence of ‘I did what my best-informed conscience prompted me to do’.
I think the vast majority of us will have no defense at all, really, when confronted with the awful majesty of God. I'll be very fortunate if I have enough of my wits about me to beg for mercy.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
So IngoB, what was it that led you to think that your beliefs are true? Conscience, surely?
Conscience? What on earth makes you think that? Conscience was practically not at all involved in my conversion from Soto Zen Buddhism to Roman Catholicism, as it were. I didn't have any moral dilemmas to solve, and there was no external moral pressure on me either.
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
And was it not your own conscience that led you to put yourself under the authority of the RCC in the first place, and to adopt its teachings as the truth in which you believe?
Uhmm, no? I was mostly following through on contemplative experience and philosophical analysis, IIRC. Not, mind you, in a particularly systematic way. More in a "let's try this and see where it goes" way. And a lot of stumbling around later I was in a quite different place than I was before.
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Yet, if conscience cannot be relied on as an automatic dispenser of eternal truths, then your conscience-based decision to join the RCC may well be faulty, and the 'truths' in which you believe may be false.
My decision to join the RCC was not particularly "conscience-based". Unless you consider any following of perceived truth as an exercise of conscience. And of course the truths I believe in could turn out to be falsehoods. I am human. So what?
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
That the RCC maintains that its teachings are true because the church says they are, because of a line of apostolic succession of authority to ‘bind and loosen’ which the church has decided applies to itself is every bit as much a circular self-justifying argument as the argument that you criticise based on conscience.
There's nothing circular about claiming that a line of apostolic succession transmits the power to teach and govern authoritatively in the name of Christ. It only gets circular if one says that this claim is proven because it is made by those who stand in that apostolic line of succession, and hence teach authoritatively. But that's not why I believe it. I believe it because it is the only practical way that I can see for keeping a "deposit of faith" guarded and expounded through the ages.
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
My decision to not join the RCC is also based on personal conscience.
Is it? So you are saying that the RCC is doing immoral things that you cannot, in good conscience, support? Well, if so, then as far as I am concerned your conscience is letting you down. But maybe it's not so much an issue of conscience, but rather some non-moral disagreement about truth?
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I think that the difference between members of the RCC church and members of the protestant churches is a preference or antipathy for being in an authoritarian environment, and for how much personal responsibility one wishes to have for discerning what one is going to believe and practice.
I think this confuses a discussion about validity of sources with one about responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
And I suspect that when challenged by God’s judgement, the defence of ‘I was submitting to the authority of the church, I was just doing what I was told, I simply followed orders’ is no more exculpating than the defence of ‘I did what my best-informed conscience prompted me to do’.
Frankly, what you are describing there has very little to do with the practical issues of most Catholic spiritual lives. At least certainly so for the lay version. It just doesn't boil down much to blaming one's behaviour patterns on "just following orders". And as far as any of this ends up being a moral issue, and hence a matter of conscience, rather obviously "following orders" can be either part of or stand against following the promptings of one's conscience. There is no secondary moral system dedicated just to "following orders"...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0