Ship of Fools: The 100% club

Thread: The 100% club 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=025437

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

After a couple of recent threads/posts I got to thinking (always dangerous [Biased]

) the degree to which you agree with your church's doctrine is important.

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
I've heard this term used repeatedly to describe one who appears to "pick and choose" which Church teachings he or she is willing to accept. Needless to say, it's not a term of endearment. Those who made the accusation typically said it was impossible to be a true Catholic and not accept the Church's authority on all matters.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I agree that there are lots of factors that go into choosing a church, but I'm becoming ever more convinced that you have to explore the nature of a church quite thoughtfully before committing yourself to it. Just looking for a nice atmosphere and/or a commitment to social justice, a friendly minister, etc. isn't enough. And marriage is hardly an abstract theological matter, but is a fundamental aspect of human existence that affects all of us, directly or indirectly...

As I see it, the situation is that many of these evangelical churches are lively, busy places, which some people find attractive. Many new members are joining up because of these positive aspects without considering what the challenges will be.

Does anyone agree with 100% of their church's teaching? Is that possible? How much should we agree with if we join a congregation, and what should be the wriggle room?

[ 24. May 2013, 13:56: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A friend of mine took instruction from a Catholic priest, and she expressed doubts about doctrines X and Y, and he said, 'well, just manage what you can', which seems admirably pragmatic, although I don't know how kosher it is.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

Can anyone agree 100% with another individual, let alone a church?

What makes church work is that people with different views get on with it anyway.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There is also the point, off the cafeteria thread, that we seem to have little choice over our thoughts and feelings. Thus, I can't will myself to assent to something 100%. I suppose some people try to do this, but as they say, the dark stuff (doubt) tends to leak out.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is also the point, off the cafeteria thread, that we seem to have little choice over our thoughts and feelings. Thus, I can't will myself to assent to something 100%. I suppose some people try to do this, but as they say, the dark stuff (doubt) tends to leak out.

To the contrary, you can precisely will yourself to assent to something (even "100%"). What you cannot do is to will yourself to be free of doubts or contrary thoughts and feelings. Whether you succeed in willing yourself to assent over above those contrary impulses is a question of natural will power and supernatural grace. In the long run, you can furthermore typically reduce contrary impulses through education and habit formation. Doing so is nothing but a practical expression of willing yourself to assent.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A friend of mine took instruction from a Catholic priest, and she expressed doubts about doctrines X and Y, and he said, 'well, just manage what you can', which seems admirably pragmatic, although I don't know how kosher it is.

Kosher? Nah, we left that behind long ago: go read some Paul.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
To the contrary, you can precisely will yourself to assent to something (even "100%")... In the long run, you can furthermore typically reduce contrary impulses through education and habit formation. Doing so is nothing but a practical expression of willing yourself to assent.

I agree with the second part of this; we can certainly affect our thinking by acting in particular ways. But what does it mean to 'will yourself to assent to something (even "100%")'?

I can't truthfully say 'I 100% agree' with a statement that I'm not currently convinced by; that's obvious, so I must be misunderstanding you, IngoB. But what else can 'assent to something 100%' mean?

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Interesting question ... I'm engaged in the process of trying to figure that out right now, having been part of the same church my whole life and now, at midlife, taking a long hard look at what my doubts and questions are. The attempt to do this formally was prompted by two things -- my teenaged daughter's decision to get baptized into our church, which made me think about my relationship to the doctrines I assented to 30+ years ago when, at the same age, I joined the church, and also some training I'm doing for a church youth leadership certification which requires us to examine the church's fundamental doctrines and do a little write-up or presentation about each one. I decided to do mine in the form of a blog & vlog series in which, rather than just recapping what the teaching is, I explore my own questions about it.

So far I think I would come about about 65%- 75% in agreement with my church's major teachings, which is certainly a higher score than I'd get for any other church. Expecting 100% agreement -- without questions, doubts or mental reservations -- from anyone, seems like a stretch. But I do think IngoB's distinction is significant too -- am I willing to live by those teachings that I may not necessarily fully agree with?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
To the contrary, you can precisely will yourself to assent to something (even "100%"). What you cannot do is to will yourself to be free of doubts or contrary thoughts and feelings. Whether you succeed in willing yourself to assent over above those contrary impulses is a question of natural will power and supernatural grace.

I think you are quite right on the first point. However, the second point is the one that is pathological to this Protestant. ISTM that God has endowed each of us with a moral sense. The insistance of heirarchical churches that we make that sense subordinate to the will of another human being and recognize that, unlike those other folks, we are sinful and incomplete, is truly repugnant to my very nature. You may say that this is because of my sinfulness, but I find that impulse to be what allows me to rise above the degrading influences that surround me in this very sinful world. There is simply no way to demand that I divorce myself from my own moral sense without it inevitably leading to the many excesses that have so thoroughly characterized -- and continue to characterize -- the Catholic Church history. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I can't truthfully say 'I 100% agree' with a statement that I'm not currently convinced by; that's obvious, so I must be misunderstanding you, IngoB. But what else can 'assent to something 100%' mean?

As I understand the OP, "100%" was intended to refer to "agreeing to all of the teaching" rather than "agreeing without any reluctance or hindrance": quantity rather than quality.

tclune, what I've said is in no way or form specific to RCs. It is a general feature of all human beings after the fall that their minds and bodies do not act in perfect harmony. So whatever your source may be of something "higher" that you may wish to assent to, you will almost inevitably find that you have some fight with yourself at hand. I am saying (contra quetzalcoatl) that this fight is not in itself a sign that you do not or cannot assent, but merely that you encounter difficulty in assenting.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
To the contrary, you can precisely will yourself to assent to something (even "100%"). What you cannot do is to will yourself to be free of doubts or contrary thoughts and feelings. Whether you succeed in willing yourself to assent over above those contrary impulses is a question of natural will power and supernatural grace. In the long run, you can furthermore typically reduce contrary impulses through education and habit formation. Doing so is nothing but a practical expression of willing yourself to assent.

Really? Reminds me of something...

quote:
It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.’

He paused for a few moments, as though to allow what he had been saying to sink in.

‘Do you remember,’ he went on, ‘writing in your diary, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four”?’

‘Yes,’ said Winston.

O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’

‘Four.’

‘And if the party says that it is not four but five — then how many?’

‘Four.’

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston’s body.

...

‘How many fingers, Winston?’

‘Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!’

‘How many fingers, Winston?’

‘Five! Five! Five!’

‘No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?’

‘Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!’

(From: 1984 by George Orwell, part three, chapter 2. Emphasis mine.)

[ 24. May 2013, 14:19: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It reminds me of French irregular verbs, (e.g. subjunctive of 'hair' is 'haisse', yeah, Mr John, you bastard, you really drove that into us, didn't you?), they all seemed nutty as hell, but you knew that if you just assented to them, you might get your A-levels, and also, not an inconsiderable point, you could quote Racine when pissed at parties, thus:

Oui, c'est Agamemnon, c'est ton roi qui t'éveille :
Viens, reconnais la voix qui frappe ton oreille.

Anyway, basically, my life never looked forward after that, as you can see!

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@EE

You won't see this very often from me, and it's taking a hell of a lot of willing to assent, but

[Overused]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Really? Reminds me of something...

Really. As for your Orwell, we were not at all talking about some external agent imposing an unreasonable proposition on one's mind by the application of torture. We were talking about making a choice what to assent to, and sticking to it, even if one has some doubts and contrary impulses. Since you are full of various convictions, you can hardly be a stranger to that internal process.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I've never found assenting to anything a matter of great difficulty. I simply say to myself "I agree to this," and that's that. I might occasionally do so with very small amounts of conviction, but that's another matter.

[ 24. May 2013, 14:56: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I agree 100% with my Minister even to the brand of gin we both drink and the Moleskine notebooks we both write in.
Does that count?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've never found assenting to anything a matter of great difficulty. I simply say to myself "I agree to this," and that's that. I might occasionally do so with very small amounts of conviction, but that's another matter.

That's an interesting one - I recently paid a fine for driving in a bus lane, so I assented to (agreed to) the process, while thinking, what a bunch of dickheads and how unfair. There seem to be shades of assent!

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Really? Reminds me of something...
Really. As for your Orwell, we were not at all talking about some external agent imposing an unreasonable proposition on one's mind by the application of torture.

Bit of an open goal here, sorry IngoB.

External agent = Roman Catholic Church
Unreasonable proposition = We are the one true church
Application of torture = threat of eternal torment if one leaves the Church

This is an uncharitable perspective, for sure, but how inaccurate is it, really? Or am I misrepresenting the RCC's view on people who leave / disown the Church (while retaining faith in Christ)?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We were talking about making a choice what to assent to, and sticking to it, even if one has some doubts and contrary impulses.

I'm still finding your language difficult on this one. Trying to think it through - I make a choice about what to do or say, but not really about what to assent to. I wouldn't use that language myself, anyway.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Suppression of reason is evidently required in some denominations. While deciding to submit oneself to a discipline, like exercise or prayer, is indeed an act of will. There are gratifying formulas of words and concepts that can comfort the dogmatic who often believe that decisions must be made before behaviour, ignoring the fact that the reverse is often true. Submitting oneself to a discipline or set of principles has the power to transform beliefs. Thus, one can decide to attend a church, pray, take communion and the other things, and find that doing so changes the ideas and preparedness to believe. You don't necessarily hold all as true at the start

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Suppression of reason is evidently required in some denominations. While deciding to submit oneself to a discipline, like exercise or prayer, is indeed an act of will. There are gratifying formulas of words and concepts that can comfort the dogmatic who often believe that decisions must be made before behaviour, ignoring the fact that the reverse is often true. Submitting oneself to a discipline or set of principles has the power to transform beliefs. Thus, one can decide to attend a church, pray, take communion and the other things, and find that doing so changes the ideas and preparedness to believe. You don't necessarily hold all as true at the start

Yes, I find this really interesting. A friend of mine lived in South India for a while in a village, and he said that at first, all the talk of magic cobras, and death dealing spirits in the forest, and so on, was tiresome and ridiculous.

But he said, that after a month, he began to just accept it, and a bit later, he actually started to think that it was perfectly OK.

When he got back to blighty, he had quite a difficult period of readjustment, and gradually got back to thinking that magic cobras don't really exist. But for a while, he did kind of assent to it. This is partly because the beliefs sort of structure the culture, or provide a skeleton, which makes life intelligible.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

But he said, that after a month, he began to just accept it, and a bit later, he actually started to think that it was perfectly OK.

This is what Heinrich Harrer said about his stay in Tibet (in the book; I don't know if Brad Pitt said it in the film).
He describes the process very cogently in just a few paragraphs.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That was me.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Abject, grovelly appy-polly-loggies

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Bit of an open goal here, sorry IngoB.

External agent = Roman Catholic Church
Unreasonable proposition = We are the one true church
Application of torture = threat of eternal torment if one leaves the Church

This is an uncharitable perspective, for sure, but how inaccurate is it, really? Or am I misrepresenting the RCC's view on people who leave / disown the Church (while retaining faith in Christ)?

In general terms this is simply not comparable to Orwell's situation, since the RCC is neither judge nor enforcer of eternal punishment. That is God alone. So the RCC is here simply in the role of a warner against the future outcome of certain actions. That in this particular case those actions concern herself may make this appear self-serving. But there is no principle difference to other actions she warns about that do not concern herself, like adultery; and unless one assumes a priori that she is lying to her own advantage, there is no particular reason why some of God's judgements should not concern one's relationship to the Church.

The question of the eternal fate of a RC who turns from the RCC to another church (or perhaps to a church-free appreciation of Christ) is difficult. Let's be clear that "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" (outside of the Church no salvation) is a doctrine strongly advocated by many Church Fathers, and it originally was not applied primarily to those "entirely outside of the faith" like the pagans, but precisely to heretics and schismatics. By the way, the first one who clearly stated EENS was Origen (who is often considered a universalist): "So let no one persuade himself, let no one deceive himself: outside this house, that is, outside the church, no one is saved. For if anyone goes outside, he is responsible for his own death." (Homiliae in Jesu Nave 3.5, PG 12:841-842) Augustine's words on heretics and schismatics are really quite striking: "Outside the Church he can have everything except salvation. He can have honour, he can have sacraments, he can sing alleluia, he can respond with amen, he can have the gospel, he can hold and preach the faith in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: but nowhere else than in the Catholic Church can he find salvation." (Sermo ad Caesariensis ecclesiae plebem 6, CSEL 53:174-175) Ouch.

It is certainly true that the RCC nowadays considers those who were "born into" other churches in a much more favourable light. The children cannot be blamed for the sins of their parents, so to speak. But leaving the RCC for another church is still considered to be a rather big problem, I would say (at least officially).

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Trying to think it through - I make a choice about what to do or say, but not really about what to assent to. I wouldn't use that language myself, anyway.

Well, if you do and say certain things for a reason, then I would say you have practically assented to what that reason proposes. And the decision to say and do those things is nothing but the decision to assent to that proposition. Of course, you may say and do certain things only to "fake" a certain assent. But then you are actually assenting to something else, namely to the proposition that it would be advantageous to fake that assent. So questions of honesty, hypocrisy and duplicity do not take away from my point that deciding to say and do is deciding to assent to something. They merely complicate the determination what you are actually assenting to...

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I think you are quite right on the first point. However, the second point is the one that is pathological to this Protestant. ISTM that God has endowed each of us with a moral sense.

The fact that this moral sense seems to derive different results for each human being is, I think, demonstration enough of its fallibility and untrustworthiness.

I suppose that puts me in diametric opposition to the primacy of conscience for which the Baptists are so famous; I can live with that.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I think a lot of life is about figuring out how to get along with, and enjoy, and value, people with whom you disagree about some things, many things, even important things.

Same with churches.

I can cheerfully attend a church that preaches tithing and not give them the amount of money they think I should. We can still be friends if I just ignore it and not make a noisy issue of it trying to change their minds. I can be friends with Republicans if I don't discuss anything politics, I won't be changing their minds so why make it an issue?

One church I tried I'm out because to be part of the church activities you have to attend every Sunday - that's the only communication about what's going on, no newsletter or emails or web page list of upcoming events. A different church puts out lots of info so irregular attenders can participate, I'm on a committee and participate in occasional projects and we get along just fine even though they would certainly prefer that I be in church every week.

I have not personally met anyone who agrees with everything their church officially teaches - including pastors. Most of my friends disagree with several major points of their church - they belong for other reasons like family tradition, friendships, service opportunities, the music, and just ignore any official "nonsense" teachings.

Catholics who use birth control devices are one variation on the broad theme. Ignore what doesn't work for you, enjoy the parts that do, and we'll all get along.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Virtually none of the form and less of the content it feels like.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, if you do and say certain things for a reason, then I would say you have practically assented to what that reason proposes. And the decision to say and do those things is nothing but the decision to assent to that proposition. Of course, you may say and do certain things only to "fake" a certain assent. But then you are actually assenting to something else, namely to the proposition that it would be advantageous to fake that assent. So questions of honesty, hypocrisy and duplicity do not take away from my point that deciding to say and do is deciding to assent to something. They merely complicate the determination what you are actually assenting to...

This seems to be a strong argument for never assenting to propositions you are not convinced of, especially moral or religious propositions. To assent not out of inner conviction but from external reasons of desire for gain or fear of loss is not just a game or consequence free act, but risks compromising your moral integrity itself. Therefore, hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. Or the advice of Fox to Penn on whether Penn should continue to wear his sword: "I advise thee to wear it as long as thou canst."

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :

There is a difference between agreeing with something and agreeing to something. Assenting belongs to the "agreeing to" camp.

Before ordination in the Anglican church I pored over the extremely outdated 39 Articles to ensure that I could assent to (agree to) minister within those parameters. I found that I could, even though some of them went against the grain. For example I am totally opposed to capital punishment but can assent to the right of government to make such laws that "The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences." I would of course also support all lawful attempts to repeal such laws.

Her majesty the Queen assents to (agrees to) every act of Parliament but I doubt very much whether she (or anyone else) could possibly agree with all of them.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In general terms this [the RCC warning of damnation if one leaves] is simply not comparable to Orwell's situation, since the RCC is neither judge nor enforcer of eternal punishment. That is God alone. So the RCC is here simply in the role of a warner against the future outcome of certain actions.

Yes, I see your point. But, from the outside, I'd say it looks pretty comparable, especially as the RCC characterises itself as God's approved organisation.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The question of the eternal fate of a RC who turns from the RCC to another church (or perhaps to a church-free appreciation of Christ) is difficult... It is certainly true that the RCC nowadays considers those who were "born into" other churches in a much more favourable light. The children cannot be blamed for the sins of their parents, so to speak. But leaving the RCC for another church is still considered to be a rather big problem, I would say (at least officially).

Cheers for the explanation. I wonder if the official hardline view will soften over the next few years...

And on the agreeing to / with point that a few people have commented on, I wonder if a better phrasing is 'submit to'? As in, I don't think this particular instruction or doctrinal statement is totally correct but I will submit to it. (Perhaps because I am taking up a leadership position within a certain church.)

EDIT - Deleted surplus text

[ 25. May 2013, 10:46: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, if you do and say certain things for a reason, then I would say you have practically assented to what that reason proposes. And the decision to say and do those things is nothing but the decision to assent to that proposition. Of course, you may say and do certain things only to "fake" a certain assent. But then you are actually assenting to something else, namely to the proposition that it would be advantageous to fake that assent. So questions of honesty, hypocrisy and duplicity do not take away from my point that deciding to say and do is deciding to assent to something. They merely complicate the determination what you are actually assenting to...
This seems to be a strong argument for never assenting to propositions you are not convinced of, especially moral or religious propositions. To assent not out of inner conviction but from external reasons of desire for gain or fear of loss is not just a game or consequence free act, but risks compromising your moral integrity itself. Therefore, hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. Or the advice of Fox to Penn on whether Penn should continue to wear his sword: "I advise thee to wear it as long as thou canst."

And there's always the issue that one might have reservations with agreeing with some stuff because there might be a possibility that that particular institutional stance or tradition etc, is actually wrong, or in need of reform or amendment. For some, maybe it comes down to an exercise of loyalty to the institution, requiring an overriding belief that the institution cannot be wrong or false, therefore, whatever it requires me to affirm I can affirm, even though my conscience sends me in another direction. And if one believes one's Church is God's voice in all those relevant matters, I guess that's easier to do (not easy to do, just easier). Personally, I find it an unimaginable situation!

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
I wonder if the official hardline view will soften over the next few years...

It won't.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
I wonder if the official hardline view will soften over the next few years...
It won't.

What makes you say that? Or do you have a hotline to the Pope?

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
I wonder if the official hardline view will soften over the next few years...
It won't.
What makes you say that? Or do you have a hotline to the Pope?

Contrary to Protestant mythology the Pope is not some tyrant who can change Church teaching as and when he sees fit. He is Tradition's servant, not it's master.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Contrary to Protestant mythology the Pope is not some tyrant who can change Church teaching as and when he sees fit. He is Tradition's servant, not it's master.

But the official RCC position on issues does change from time to time, doesn't it? Or was IngoB wrong with his comment upthread about how the RCC nowadays (IngoB's word) views people who have been part of another church from a young age?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is certainly true that the RCC nowadays considers those who were "born into" other churches in a much more favourable light. The children cannot be blamed for the sins of their parents, so to speak.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

The RCC teaches that doctrine (doxa) never has changed and never will change. Issues of Church discipline (or oikonomia), such as the decision whether or not to customarily ordain married men in the Latin Rite, can change. The understanding that members of non-Catholic Churches may not be to blame for their ignorance or lack of understanding of RCC teachings can be said to be a development in doctrine rather than a change in doctrine.

On another note, I wonder whether or not there should be any modern equivalent of anathematizing someone. That is, not just excommunicating them but preventing them from attending worship in the RCC and perhaps even preventing Roman Catholics from associating with a person unless it is to help him/her in times of need or if he/she shows some sign of repentance or seeking a better understanding if things than his/her current one. Basically, I wonder whether or not the RCC should consider shutting out a Motivated and organized version of me. Someone gay-married, heretical, and determined to build an alliance of laypeople and clergy with the mission of getting the Church leadership to to say that what had been claimed to be immutable doctrine was in fact not and that the true immutable doctrine is (insert liberal side of dead horse here). If I had my act together I would be, in the eyes of people who believe all that is claimed to be doctrine, a source of incredible scandal and it may be best to keep me from infecting the RCC community and worship. Of course the gates of hell will not overcome the Church ever, which means that the Church will never teach something contrary to doctrine, but the secular world in developed countries had become so opposed to the policies of the current Church leadership (ie, the claimed eternal truths) that if someone could make and exploit the right connections to not persecute the RCC but carry out a tremendous protest movement it could be very damaging. If I were driven out of the door of the Church then, which will never happen because I am too lazy, would the second best option for me after the first best option of repentance and changing my ways perhaps be joining a non-RC Church rather than staying home (in the same way that Benedict XVI speculated in a non-teaching moment that it might be a way of Moving towards righteousness (for a prostitute in a ace where HIV is common to use condoms as way of preventing the spread of disease). Of course, I do not think I am wrong in doing and believing what I do. But I do not like feeling like I perceived as one cancerous cell among many in the RCC, maybe the one cancerous cell that could start a horrific metastasis.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The RCC teaches that doctrine (doxa) never has changed and never will change. Issues of Church discipline (or oikonomia), such as the decision whether or not to customarily ordain married men in the Latin Rite, can change. The understanding that members of non-Catholic Churches may not be to blame for their ignorance or lack of understanding of RCC teachings can be said to be a development in doctrine rather than a change in doctrine.

Hmm, that leaves plenty of wiggle room, doesn't it?! I don't imagine there's much that a creative administration couldn't define as either a Church discipline issue or a development in doctrine.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The question of the eternal fate of a RC who turns from the RCC to another church (or perhaps to a church-free appreciation of Christ) is difficult... It is certainly true that the RCC nowadays considers those who were "born into" other churches in a much more favourable light. The children cannot be blamed for the sins of their parents, so to speak. But leaving the RCC for another church is still considered to be a rather big problem, I would say (at least officially).
Cheers for the explanation. I wonder if the official hardline view will soften over the next few years...

The problem is, for all our praise of ecumenicalism, no denomination really wants to lose its members to another church.

In some parts of the world the RCC faces the challenge of considerable numbers of its members leaving to join Pentecostal churches. You'd expect the RCC to find this a challenging development, and to pay some attention to trying to address it. Otherwise, it would look as though they didn't care what their people did. On the other hand, I've heard of an RC priest in South America who said a good Pentecostal was better than a bad Catholic.

I think churches generally need to find a balance between devotion to their doctrines and being accepting of people who are at different stages of the faith journey. If faith is a process, then a certain diversity is inevitable. Without a commitment to its doctrines a church loses its distinctiveness, its attractiveness and purpose, yet too rigid an interpretation drives people away.

Some religious groups are quite happy to remain small and 'pure', of course. But any group that wants to be prominent in any tangible way risks the dilution of its message in the pursuit of numbers, or of influence.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Hands up those who know what their church teaches!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Kwesi

Maybe the point is that churches don't really 'teach' any more. Most of them are less concerned about their doctrinal distinctiveness than about maintaining viable congregations. There seems to be an assumption that the people in the pews are utterly indifferent to doctrine, and that pastoral issues (in the mainstream churches) and emotional gratification (in the charismatic ones) are the main focus for keeping people interested. Is this really so?

It's paradoxical that you have to be on the theological fringes to be expected to know very much at all. My Seventh Day Adventist and Apostolic Pentecostal relatives are probably quite a bit clearer about what's theologically distinctive about their churches than the average Methodist or Anglican would be about theirs.

Not all denominations exist for reasons of theological distinctiveness, of course, but it must surely put mainstream Christians at an evangelistic disadvantage when they can't explain clearly and simply what lies at the core of their faith. This must be why they're so unnerved by the concept of evangelism; it's just not something that their churches have prepared them for, despite all the singing about 'telling it on the mountain'.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

Here in South Africa we have the Church of England in South Africa (CESA) which is separate from the Anglican Church of Southern Africa (ACSA) - the 'mainstream' Anglican denomination. Apparently CESA went independent in the 1920s.

I go to an ACSA church, a friend was going to a CESA church. As a newbie to South Africa I asked why the split had happened - and her answer was 'I think it was something to do with candles'.

To be fair, she wasn't South African either, and if she had been able to reel off her church's doctrine I doubt I would have spotted where the difference lay...

There are also 6 ACSA parishes in Cape Town that aren't part of the Diocese of Cape Town for rather vague, historical reasons [Biased]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
This seems to be a strong argument for never assenting to propositions you are not convinced of, especially moral or religious propositions. To assent not out of inner conviction but from external reasons of desire for gain or fear of loss is not just a game or consequence free act, but risks compromising your moral integrity itself. Therefore, hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders.

I agree. I agree even with Luther's position as far as the act of sticking to one's sincere convictions goes. However, where these considerations usually fall short is when one turns this around and says "therefore, whatever I believe in now deeply, and only that, is normative for me." That's false, in at least three ways. First, I may change my belief according to new information. If I say some doctrine determines me so deeply, then I have a duty to make sure that I'm not lacking any relevant information and that I understand all relevant argument properly. This duty is often ignored. Ignorance may be bliss, but it isn't rectitude. Second, not all doctrine is of equal importance, neither on the side of those that issue doctrines nor on the side of the recipient. Consequently, not every doctrine is a reasonable platform for pulling a Luther over. If a doctrine is "OK, whatever" for me, then there is no harm as such in playing along with it. (Of course, I may be mistaken and the doctrine actually is vital in a good or bad way, so that my actions following it have great impact. But that's a separate issue.) Third, it is not the case that I have to perfectly understand and thoroughly agree to every doctrine individually in order to follow each individual doctrine. One can viably follow a doctrine on account of the say so of another person or institution, if one trusts them sufficiently to provide good doctrine. We do this all the time, for example most times we visit a doctor and follow the medical advice given. This can be quite differentiated, i.e., I might trust a biologist to reliably explain biology even though I do not take serious his political views. And if one does not trust a doctor, but rather tries to confirm every thing he says by searching on the internet, then one should switch to another doctor one trusts to do his job. Likewise if one critically examines every single thing one's church teaches, then it is time to switch one's church. The application of one's critical faculties must itself be reasonable, and religion is incompatible with a default mode of suspicion.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The RCC teaches that doctrine (doxa) never has changed and never will change. Issues of Church discipline (or oikonomia), such as the decision whether or not to customarily ordain married men in the Latin Rite, can change. The understanding that members of non-Catholic Churches may not be to blame for their ignorance or lack of understanding of RCC teachings can be said to be a development in doctrine rather than a change in doctrine.

That is the kind of approach that Sola Scriptura is designed to address. The Doctrine Itself never changes, because the Scriptures never change. But church practice and understanding do change and develop over time.

I have no trouble affirming that I accept my church's doctrine 100%. My church's doctrine is defined as the Old and New Testaments, and their explanations in the works of Swedenborg. There is not a phrase that I have any qualms about.

But I also have no trouble questioning the way that these doctrines are understood and applied. As in any organization, things shift over time. Whether the shifts are improvements or departures from the truth is always debatable.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

If you go to a Liberal church, 'Do you agree with 100% of your church's teaching?' doesn't really make sense - because, if anything is actually taught, it is the importance of thinking things through for yourself, weighing up various viewpoints and angles, rather than listening to a particular doctrine and being expected to follow it.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The RCC teaches that doctrine (doxa) never has changed and never will change. Issues of Church discipline (or oikonomia), such as the decision whether or not to customarily ordain married men in the Latin Rite, can change. The understanding that members of non-Catholic Churches may not be to blame for their ignorance or lack of understanding of RCC teachings can be said to be a development in doctrine rather than a change in doctrine.

LOL! That's the same thing, innit: develop and change? Surely like saying that the Trinity or Christ is not to be found until the New Testament or the Council of Nicaea. If not then tradition never "developed" but was there in its entirety from the beginning.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

One has to look at the 100% with which you are asked/required to agree with. I doubt any church or denomination has existed for more than twenty-five years without revising its doctrinal basis, at least informally, and this, plus the differences between them, gives anyone justification for not agreeing with 100% of their own or any other church's doctrine. After all, in trying to set out doctrine we are interpreting scripture, and the Bible, unlike the Koran, is not regarded as a verbatim word of God, so interpretations, and the practical outcomes of these vary.

So there we are: I don't agree with 100% of my church's teaching (which isn't all written down anywhere, although it tends towards sola scripture), but I don't think it's a big deal. I hope He agrees.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I think the traditional RC belief is that orthodox doctrine in its entirety (with complete understanding thereof) was passed by Christ on to his apostles. You may need to help me with this here - it seems that now it is possible to believe that although orthodox church leaders in the very first century or two of Christianity did not teach anything contrary to correct doctrine and had all of the essentials of Christian teaching in what they passed on to future generations, they did not all understand all of its finer details (such as how to explain the Trinity at length in writing), and that this understanding of the unchanging doctrine developed over time with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That begs the question of whether the Apostles understood the Trinity, for example, in such a way that they (if they were able to write) could have written something as theologically precise as the Athanasian creed during their lifetimes. If they did possess such understanding, and their successors did not (and eventually regained it over the centuries with the development of doctrine), what does that mean?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If you go to a Liberal church, 'Do you agree with 100% of your church's teaching?' doesn't really make sense - because, if anything is actually taught, it is the importance of thinking things through for yourself, weighing up various viewpoints and angles, rather than listening to a particular doctrine and being expected to follow it.

I would have a lot of reservations about that approach.

No doubt I would be persecuted because of it. [Disappointed]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Likewise if one critically examines every single thing one's church teaches, then it is time to switch one's church.

Why? I'd only be critically examining every single thing that church teaches as well.

I don't think any of them have got it all right. But then, doctrine and dogma aren't particularly important to me except as an amusing subject for discussion at house group or on this board.

quote:
The application of one's critical faculties must itself be reasonable, and religion is incompatible with a default mode of suspicion.

Suspicion of whom, though? I trust God a lot more than I trust any of His hierarchical power-grabbers or self-proclaimed Mouthpieces on Earth.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Doctrine and dogma aren't particularly important to me except as an amusing subject for discussion at house group or on this board.

ISTM that doctrine and dogma are important to the extent that they influence the outworking of the life, mission and 'temperature' of the church, and that's where prior examination is valuable to an individual looking for a new church.

On the other hand, churches often maintain formal and official assent to doctrines that no longer influence them on a practical level, and are rarely tackled directly from the pulpit. This makes it quite difficult to discover what's actually going on, even if you've been sitting in the pews for years.

I'm also intrigued by the sense that quite a few folk on the Ship attend evangelical churches without really assenting to the contents evangelicalism (to put it very crudely). They attend because they enjoy the life and fellowship of those churches. This is fine, but it seems to me that if there are inherent qualities in evangelical doctrines that have made those churches attractive, then the gradual declining importance of those doctrines in the congregational mind will eventually have a problematic influence on the life, mission and temperature of those churches. Some would say that this process is inevitable in the life of Protestantism denominations, but still....

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Likewise if one critically examines every single thing one's church teaches, then it is time to switch one's church.

I think there's a difference between going through the Catechism making a note of every point of theological ambiguity you might possibly disagree with in order to proclaim the Church wrong, and critically examining doctrines where they are causing conflict with conscience though.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If you go to a Liberal church, 'Do you agree with 100% of your church's teaching?' doesn't really make sense - because, if anything is actually taught, it is the importance of thinking things through for yourself, weighing up various viewpoints and angles, rather than listening to a particular doctrine and being expected to follow it.

Agree - though I sometimes disagree with mine for being TOO liberal.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why? I'd only be critically examining every single thing that church teaches as well.

Such doctrinal OCD is spiritually deadening.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I trust God a lot more than I trust any of His hierarchical power-grabbers or self-proclaimed Mouthpieces on Earth.

God always comes to you through people. If it is not through others, then it is through yourself. Perhaps you should question more how much you can trust yourself?

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I think there's a difference between going through the Catechism making a note of every point of theological ambiguity you might possibly disagree with in order to proclaim the Church wrong, and critically examining doctrines where they are causing conflict with conscience though.

Conscience is to a large degree learned, it is not some kind of independent internal truth dispenser. The part of it that is independent and true, synderesis, won't help you much with judging doctrines. It is far too basic to catch anything but truly heinous religious error. I think basically any serious "conversion", be it between religions or between sufficiently different denominations, entails an adjustment of conscience. Some rights become wrong, some wrongs become right, and some rights and wrongs become unimportant while others gain importance. If that is so, then "wrestling with conscience over doctrines" is more a symptom than a means of searching religious truth.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

We haven't discussed infallibility here, but it seems to relate. The difference between RC and other denominations is that papal infallibility means something rather more than agreeing with doctrine. It seems to mean that the pope is supposed to know the utter truth and mind of God such that when he says something it is compulsory to go along with it. Even when he's wrong, with of course this being a contradiction to the very idea of it. Thus infallibility leads inevitably to the discussion of authority and power, and how it is wielded in the world. Which one reason why popes get critiqued.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Such doctrinal OCD is spiritually deadening.

That is slightly ironical coming from you, if I may say so.

quote:
God always comes to you through people. If it is not through others, then it is through yourself. Perhaps you should question more how much you can trust yourself?

An interesting assertion - many people would feel that God comes to them directly - or through Jesus (or Mary, for that matter). Where did you get that idea from?

quote:
Conscience is to a large degree learned, it is not some kind of independent internal truth dispenser.

Well no, actually it is, if you listen to it (the hard part, switching your brain off and listening to 'God', if one expresses it in religious terms - you know, prayer, discernment, that sort of thing)

quote:
The part of it that is independent and true, synderesis, won't help you much with judging doctrines. It is far too basic to catch anything but truly heinous religious error.

The source you cites clearly distinguishes between conscience and 'synderesis', if you care to read it carefully, the latter being the rational application of moral principles.

quote:
I think basically any serious "conversion", be it between religions or between sufficiently different denominations, entails an adjustment of conscience. Some rights become wrong, some wrongs become right, and some rights and wrongs become unimportant while others gain importance. If that is so, then "wrestling with conscience over doctrines" is more a symptom than a means of searching religious truth.

Again, I suggest you really don't understand what conscience is, because (presumably) you're so busy thinking that you've never experienced it, otherwise you wouldn't come up with bullshit like 'adjustment of conscience'. You don't 'adjust' your conscience, you adjust your behaviour, attitudes, opinions, etc., according to the dictates of conscience.

If you are cutting your moral sails to suit your religion's doctrine and dogma, then you are going down a pretty dangerous road, in my opinion. Especially considering the history of your church, even up to recent times - hardly a shining example of moral probity, I think. Is that what you are handing your brain over to? Hardly a sensible choice, at least, not in my books.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Papal Infallibility only applies to definitions made ex Cathedra or from the chair of St Peter (in a figurative sense, not actually sitting In a chair). There are only two definitions that everyone agrees have been made ex cathedra - the Immaculate Conception an the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. What the Pope says from day to day is just as fallible as what anyone else says. Other things are infallible for different reasons but not just because the Pope says so. Catholics are expected to assent to even those teachings of the RCC that are not infallible, though. Catholics are supposed, required, in fact, to follow their own consciences, too, though. IngoB has talked a lot on here and on other threads about what it means to assent and te potential pitfalls of following what one thinks is the clear directive of an informed conscience. I am not saying that I agree with anything that I just wrote.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why? I'd only be critically examining every single thing that church teaches as well.
Such doctrinal OCD is spiritually deadening.

What's the alternative though? To childishly trust a bunch of corrupt hierarchs who are only interested in maintaining their own positions of power? No, I'll stick to testing everything, thanks.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I trust God a lot more than I trust any of His hierarchical power-grabbers or self-proclaimed Mouthpieces on Earth.
God always comes to you through people. If it is not through others, then it is through yourself. Perhaps you should question more how much you can trust yourself?

I may not get everything right, but at least I know I have my own best interests at heart. Which is more than I can confidently say for any priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal or pope.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
One can viably follow a doctrine on account of the say so of another person or institution, if one trusts them sufficiently to provide good doctrine.

I'm afraid I cannot see how anyone can 'viably' follow a doctrine without being able to understand it - to some extent - for themselves. Unthinking submission to an idea one does not understand - and has made no effort to understand - is just an act of outward conformity, and has nothing to do with one's heart, mind, will or, indeed, spirit. It would be a bit like a mathematics student submitting to the idea that "Pi is the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter" without having a clue as to what this means at all (OK, a ridiculously simple example, which any remotely serious maths student would understand, but for the sake of this argument it can serve to represent far more difficult problems). All that such a person would be doing in assenting to this idea is going through the motions of mouthing the words "Pi is the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter". That's it. Period. He can do nothing with the concept, because he doesn't understand it. All he can do is profess faith in it, even though he doesn't understand what he is professing faith in. That's the limit of the 'viability' of the concept for him. In other words, it's not viable at all.

But suppose he made the effort to understand this concept. It all made sense logically. It worked. But then someone he trusted (in the area of mathematics) declared authoritatively that "Pi is the circumference of a circle divided by its radius". According to his understanding of Pi, this is totally wrong. He understands why it's wrong. How then could he possibly submit to the assertion of this person, whom he thought he trusted? No matter how much respect he may have for that person, he simply cannot accept and assent to the proposition being asserted. His understanding necessarily trumps any respect for a person declaring an idea which is manifestly wrong.

Like I said, this is a very simple example, and one would wonder why any trustworthy authority figure in the area of mathematics would make such a howler. But, actually, this is no more of a logical howler than some of the theological assertions being made by trusted figures in church authority.

I just do not understand how anyone can do anything with an idea to which he just submits unthinkingly. How can such an idea be 'viable'? In order for an idea to have any relevance and application, there has to be some measure of understanding of that idea. And if so, then this understanding - to some degree - passes judgement on the one who initially declared that the idea was true.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
he simply cannot accept and assent to the proposition being asserted. His understanding necessarily trumps any respect for a person declaring an idea which is manifestly wrong.

I don't think this is true. Or rather, it would be true if we were free but we aren't.

Your mathematician can choose to publicly accept and outwardly assent to the proposition despite his inward understanding. I would call this a spiritually dangerous act and look with great suspicion on people or organisations which argue for it.

Secondly (your Orwell reference is apt) I think a person can through sufficient outside pressure or inward sickness truly convince themselves despite their original conscience that black is white or 2 + 2 = 5 or that God wants them to murder. This process is surely as evil as Orwell pictures it.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Such doctrinal OCD is spiritually deadening.
That is slightly ironical coming from you, if I may say so.

I'm not sure that you can, at least in Purgatory. It looks an awful lot like a personal attack to me. Remember, in Purgatory, we engage the argument, not the man.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We haven't discussed infallibility here, but it seems to relate. The difference between RC and other denominations is that papal infallibility means something rather more than agreeing with doctrine. It seems to mean that the pope is supposed to know the utter truth and mind of God such that when he says something it is compulsory to go along with it. Even when he's wrong, with of course this being a contradiction to the very idea of it. Thus infallibility leads inevitably to the discussion of authority and power, and how it is wielded in the world. Which one reason why popes get critiqued.

no prophet, that's a rather bizarre version of papal infallibility.

Might I suggest you look the term up so that you know what it really means? Come back when you can tell me exactly how many times the ability of the Pope to speak infallibly has been invoked, and for what.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0