Thread: Two new saints 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=025918
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
It's just been announced on World at One that Popes John Paul II and John XXIII are to be canonised.

What are shipmates reactions? Joyful, excited, grateful, horrified, can't see what the fuss is about, 'what is canonisation anyway?', 'why can't I be one?'
 
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
quote:
It's just been announced on World at One that Popes John Paul II and John XXIII are to be canonised.

What are shipmates reactions? Joyful, excited, grateful, horrified, can't see what the fuss is about, 'what is canonisation anyway?', 'why can't I be one?'
I definitely come in the 'what is all the fuss about' section. If the Catholic church (or any other church, for that matter) want Saints, then let them have Saints.

Won't make any difference in the end - God loves us all equally. And its the inside of us that counts, and the reason for our deeds, not our deeds.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Don't know much about John XXII so can't really comment on him. As for John Paul II, well, I'm not surprised (given the cult of personality which surrounded him) even if I don't quite understand it. There are a number of things he did which really made me dislike him, but, at the end of the day, it's not my problem really no longer being an RC. I shan't be asking him to pray for me.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
Horrified by JP II and pleased with J XXIII.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
How come only Catholics are saints? I can think of several people I've come across in my lifetime whom I would consider to be saints, but they aren't Catholics.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
The Episcopal Church (U.S.) has had John XXIII commemorated in our calendar for several years now. I somehow doubt that John Paul II will ever make it on the Episcopal calendar.

Oddly, both NPR and the BBC sent me "breaking news" emails this morning with John Paul II in their headlines, but not John XXIII. (NPR mentioned John XXIII as sort of an afterthought in the body of their email; the BBC made no mention. I did not read the linked articles in either.)
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
How come only Catholics are saints? I can think of several people I've come across in my lifetime whom I would consider to be saints, but they aren't Catholics.
My understanding is except in the case of martyrdom (all Christian Martyrs are saints by virtue of their martyrdom) the Roman Catholic Church only wishes to speak for its faithful. Even so it only indicates those that it after quite extensive investigation finds fulfil quite strict criteria. Therefore at best this can be seen as a minimal set of people to be saints, not everyone who is.

Jengie
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
'why can't I be one?'
I wouldn't want to be. I'd prefer my bones to lie in peace once I'm dead rather than being dug up, split up and sent off to various churches and shrines.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
How come only Catholics are saints? I can think of several people I've come across in my lifetime whom I would consider to be saints, but they aren't Catholics.
My understanding is except in the case of martyrdom (all Christian Martyrs are saints by virtue of their martyrdom)
Really? So the RCC considers Charles I to be a saint?
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Horrified by JP II and pleased with J XXIII.
I must agree with this one. I agree that JPII has a cult following which seeems to over-ride the Church's careful raking through his life and death.

As for my beloved John XXIII - [Yipee]
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
How come only Catholics are saints? I can think of several people I've come across in my lifetime whom I would consider to be saints, but they aren't Catholics.
My understanding is except in the case of martyrdom (all Christian Martyrs are saints by virtue of their martyrdom)
Really? So the RCC considers Charles I to be a saint?
Whether Charles I was martyred for his faith or whether he was assassinated or executed for political reasons is a question that I suspect nobody will answer in this age.

I'm curious about the timing. I had the vague impression it was best practice to wait a couple of generations after someone's death. JP2 seems very soon.
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Two men who were saints finally get it made offical . John XXIII iniated changes ov Vatican one John Paul II helped the fall of communism.

As for King Charles I he was execured as a political act not a religous act.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Two men who were saints finally get it made offical . John XXIII iniated changes ov Vatican one John Paul II helped the fall of communism.
Then they better make Martin Luther and Lech Walesa saints as well!
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Two men who were saints finally get it made offical . John XXIII iniated changes ov Vatican one John Paul II helped the fall of communism.

As for King Charles I he was execured as a political act not a religous act.
When someone's political actions are a result of their faith, how do you unpack the distinction? Heck, by that measure you could say that the Crucifixion happened for political rather than religious reasons.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Two men who were saints finally get it made offical . John XXIII iniated changes ov Vatican one John Paul II helped the fall of communism.

As for King Charles I he was execured as a political act not a religous act.
One could say that JP2's helping the fall of communism was a political. And King Charles wasn't Roman Catholic so obviously the Vatican isn't going to canonize him.

I was very pleasantly surprised to hear than John 23 is being canonized.

[ 05. July 2013, 18:05: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
Delighted by John XXIII's impending canonisation. I studied Jewish-Catholic relations during my most recent Open University course and as Archbishop Roncalli saved thousands of lives through astute diplomacy and willingness to ensure the rules were sufficently bent in several countries to save those lives.

Axious. [Angel]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
John 23...it's about time!
JP2...I often wonder whether the public outcry for sainthood should have been rationale to lengthen, rather than shorten, the five years. I suppose it would have stood the test of time, anyway.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
Do you think that by taking the two causes forward together Pope Francis is saying something ?

In our politically-minded age, John 23 is often seen as progressive and JP2 as conservative. Are we to read from this that holiness is orthogonal to political conviction ?

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Having your name put into the list of canonised saints simply means that the RC church considers that person to be a good model for other Christians.It has to do with the perceived love of God and neighbour as practiced by the individual. It has nothing to do with the person's political activity or lack of it.

The RC church in general puts into the list of canonised saints only those whose virtue it can investigate,but that is not to say that there are not many,many saints who are not on the list,who were never Catholics or even Christians.

Incidentally King Charles the First is not a saint canonised by the RC church.That however does not necessarily mean that he was not a saint.
 
Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :
 
I've read John XXIII's 'Journey of a Soul' several times. Never thought he would be recognised as a saint.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
Where on earth does this idea that John XXIII was a liberal come from? [Confused]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Where on earth does this idea that John XXIII was a liberal come from? [Confused]
By comparison to Paul VI and JPII perhaps?
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What are shipmates reactions? Joyful, excited, grateful, horrified, can't see what the fuss is about, 'what is canonisation anyway?', 'why can't I be one?'
My reaction was 'what is canonisation anyway?' I googled it and discovered what it was. I would not like to be one. I would not like to be recognised for having exceptional virtue and holiness, because it wouldn't be true. Although if I could inspire people in some way to deepen their knowledge of God and have a positive influence in the world, I would like that. But not to be canonised for it. And in many ways, what the world sees as a positive influence will vary from culture to culture, from time period to time period.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
Perhaps "progressive" would be a better term than "liberal" to describe John XXIII, but I suspect CL won't care for that description either...
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Speaking of 'liberal/progressive' popes, I found this week's blog post by Leonardo Boff, one of the most prolific proponents of Liberation Theology, interesting. I'm not sure if it isn't wishful thinking though.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Where on earth does this idea that John XXIII was a liberal come from? [Confused]
By comparison to Paul VI and JPII perhaps?
I think that it was by comparison to Pius XII, his predecessor.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
I hope Pio XII's cause for canonisation stalls. His wartime record remains extremely dodgy, IMO, all the recent spin notwithstanding. I feel almost quite the same way about the late pope, but his is a political canonisation to help make his groupies happy.

John XXIII, on the other hand, although pretty much the same era and formation as Pio XII, rose above his innate conservationism and let loose a flood of change with the calling of Vatican II. Pio just fiddled about the edges. YMMV, but this is one Catholic's view.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Speaking of 'liberal/progressive' popes, I found this week's blog post by Leonardo Boff, one of the most prolific proponents of Liberation Theology, interesting. I'm not sure if it isn't wishful thinking though.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.ie/2013/06/brother-of-leonardo-boff-we-should-have.html
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
I hope Pio XII's cause for canonisation stalls. His wartime record remains extremely dodgy, IMO, all the recent spin notwithstanding. I feel almost quite the same way about the late pope, but his is a political canonisation to help make his groupies happy.

John XXIII, on the other hand, although pretty much the same era and formation as Pio XII, rose above his innate conservationism and let loose a flood of change with the calling of Vatican II. Pio just fiddled about the edges. YMMV, but this is one Catholic's view.
Utter rubbish.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
So tell us what you think...
 
Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on :
 
I believe John 23's first address to the assembled Cardinals began, "Well, brothers, here We are at the end of the road and the top of the dung heap."
If true, it was surely the utterance of a saint.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Where on earth does this idea that John XXIII was a liberal come from? [Confused]
By comparison to Paul VI and JPII perhaps?
I think that it was by comparison to Pius XII, his predecessor.
Pius XII was an archreformer.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Pius XII was an archreformer.
[Confused] Please do elaborate.

[ 07. July 2013, 00:34: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
Like St Francis, people tend to superimpose on to Blessed John, what they "wish" he stood for
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Pius XII was an archreformer.
[Confused] Please do elaborate.
The Holy Week rites and Divino Afflante Spiritu, for example.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
How come only Catholics are saints? I can think of several people I've come across in my lifetime whom I would consider to be saints, but they aren't Catholics.
The RCC does not create saints. Everybody who has died and gone to heaven is a saint, and ultimately it is up to the individual and God whether that will be the case. The RCC canonises saints, which means that she allows a particular saint to become venerated as part of her official liturgical worship. Your grandma may be just as much a saint in heaven as JPII, but when he gets canonised, he can be mentioned for example in the Litany of the Saints at Easter Vigil, unlike your grandma.

This is then about an official liturgical recognition. It's a bit like being knighted by the Queen. And in a similar way that most people who have an OBE are British nationals, it's not surprising that almost all canonised RC saints were RCs (or members of the Church pre-great-schism). Just like for the OBE, there are a few "outsiders" that ended up becoming RC saints (for example the very Eastern Orthodox St Gregory Palamas, or the the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, as St Josaphat...), but there is nothing sinister about this being restricted to RCs in general. It is mostly an internal recognition of achievements.

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
I must agree with this one. I agree that JPII has a cult following which seeems to over-ride the Church's careful raking through his life and death.
Having a cult following has always been the primary way for any saint to become canonised! Prior to the establishment of an official and centralised procedure, becoming a "canonised" saint basically amounted to amassing enough spiritual "groupies" among the faithful to sway some bishop to rubber-stamp that groundswell of enthusiasm. It's hence particularly ironic for a progressive type to whine about the lack of Vatican red tape in the canonisation progress. And of course, the sum total of evidence that you have that the RCC has not carefully raked through JPII's life and death is zilch.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Then they better make Martin Luther and Lech Walesa saints as well!
As for every heresiarch, the best one can hope for Martin Luther is that he's in purgatory now (rather than in the deepest pit of hell, which is a rather more likely). After all, every additional Protestant (or at least every additional Lutheran) is another millstone around his neck. So in order to canonise Luther, one first would have to get rid of Protestantism, at which point he could possibly get to heaven. That will take a few more hundred years, I would say. In the meantime, you could try to make Arius a canonised saint of the RCC. The Arians have been dealt with successfully, there is a theoretical possibility that Arius made it to heaven since, and clearly Arius had a great and positive impact on the Church (by virtue of the Church fighting his abject heresy, but still...) - all that would be a perfect precedent for Martin Luther. So get some people together to pray for two miracles from Arius?

Lech Wałęsa is not as silly a suggestion, since he appears to be a staunch RC. Except, well, he isn't particularly dead yet...
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
From IngoB

As for every heresiarch, the best one can hope for Martin Luther is that he's in purgatory now (rather than in the deepest pit of hell, which is a rather more likely).

Don't forget though, that Luther achieved what none before could do - the reform of the RC Church. Before him, and especially in the previous 150 years or so, there had been very many bad popes. Luther's actions led directly to the Council of Trent, with its thorough reforms. It's hard to think of any bad popes since.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Don't forget though, that Luther achieved what none before could do - the reform of the RC Church. Before him, and especially in the previous 150 years or so, there had been very many bad popes. Luther's actions led directly to the Council of Trent, with its thorough reforms. It's hard to think of any bad popes since.
Beyond the silly (St Luther) and counter-silly (St Arius), this is indeed a serious point for consideration. I'm not sure that the RCC could have been shaken out of her deep rut then without something as catastrophic as the Reformation. Perhaps, perhaps not. But I don't think that we can simply attribute these changes to Luther (or Calvin etc.), as pivotal as he may have been in bringing them about. It seems to me that history has a tendency to come to a head, and sometimes that head is just one individual. But just because a lever needs a pivot point does not make the lever arm itself unimportant, nor the forces working on it. The question how much one man or woman can shape history by virtue of being the eye of the storm is really interesting. But I don't really have a well formed and informed opinion about that...
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Don't forget though, that Luther achieved what none before could do - the reform of the RC Church. Before him, and especially in the previous 150 years or so, there had been very many bad popes. Luther's actions led directly to the Council of Trent, with its thorough reforms. It's hard to think of any bad popes since.
Beyond the silly (St Luther) and counter-silly (St Arius), this is indeed a serious point for consideration. I'm not sure that the RCC could have been shaken out of her deep rut then without something as catastrophic as the Reformation. Perhaps, perhaps not. But I don't think that we can simply attribute these changes to Luther (or Calvin etc.), as pivotal as he may have been in bringing them about. It seems to me that history has a tendency to come to a head, and sometimes that head is just one individual. But just because a lever needs a pivot point does not make the lever arm itself unimportant, nor the forces working on it. The question how much one man or woman can shape history by virtue of being the eye of the storm is really interesting. But I don't really have a well formed and informed opinion about that...
Re attributing the Reformation to Luther, I agree. If anything, I'd attribute the Reformation to the invention of the printing press...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the best one can hope for Martin Luther is that he's in purgatory now (rather than in the deepest pit of hell, which is a rather more likely).
How utterly ridiculous. Luther was a catholic who urged the RCC to reform itself for the sake of true catholicism.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the best one can hope for Martin Luther is that he's in purgatory now (rather than in the deepest pit of hell, which is a rather more likely).
How utterly ridiculous. Luther was a catholic who urged the RCC to reform itself for the sake of true catholicism.
Nonsense. No one who doesn't believe in either Pope or Council (which Luther didn't) is Catholic

[ 07. July 2013, 17:04: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
No one who doesn't believe in either Pope or Council (which Luther didn't) is Catholic
Luther obviously had, shall we say, misgivings about much of what the Church of his time was doing, but AIUI his aim (at least initially) was to reform the Church, not to start a new one. Hence the epithet 'Magisterial Reformation', in contrast to the 'Radical Reformation' efforts to break away from the whole institutional church.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the best one can hope for Martin Luther is that he's in purgatory now (rather than in the deepest pit of hell, which is a rather more likely).
How utterly ridiculous. Luther was a catholic who urged the RCC to reform itself for the sake of true catholicism.
Nonsense. No one who doesn't believe in either Pope or Council (which Luther didn't) is Catholic
Not ROMAN catholic perhaps.

Luther's appeal to the RCC was based catholic doctrine and on how the RCC had departed from it.

As to popes, if a pope says/teaches something contrary to the teaching of previous popes, surely his authority is questionable?
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the best one can hope for Martin Luther is that he's in purgatory now (rather than in the deepest pit of hell, which is a rather more likely).
How utterly ridiculous. Luther was a catholic who urged the RCC to reform itself for the sake of true catholicism.
Nonsense. No one who doesn't believe in either Pope or Council (which Luther didn't) is Catholic
Not ROMAN catholic perhaps.

Luther's appeal to the RCC was based catholic doctrine and on how the RCC had departed from it.

As to popes, if a pope says/teaches something contrary to the teaching of previous popes, surely his authority is questionable?
No, you are missing the point. He also rejected Councils which meant he departed from the teaching of both East and West. Dissenter or heretic , yes but not Catholic
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
OK - heretic as far as the RCC is concerned.

Not heretical as a Christian.

So the person above who said he was most likely to be Hell is not proclaiming RC doctrine since the RCC doesn't regard protestants as non-Christians.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
OK - heretic as far as the RCC is concerned.

Not heretical as a Christian.

So the person above who said he was most likely to be Hell is not proclaiming RC doctrine since the RCC doesn't regard protestants as non-Christians.
We would agree there (miracle of miracles !)

but I think what Ingo was getting at was his role as a promoter of schism and I can sort of see that but church authorities in Germany (I can't fault Leo X seeing it as a local German problem at the beginning) were just as at fault and if they had listened to Luther's early objections about the abuse of indulgences , I don't think he would have expanded to really going beyond and against Catholic teaching ans yes, into schism

[ 07. July 2013, 20:17: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...to sway some bishop to rubber-stamp that groundswell of enthusiasm...
Circa these parts, rubber-stamp has the air of thoughtless approval. This doesn't speak well of the conciliarity of the clergy and the laity. Perhaps you meant something closer to ratify.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Nonsense. No one who doesn't believe in either Pope or Council (which Luther didn't) is Catholic
That is to understand 'Catholic' in the sense it was defined after Luther and as a result of changes he triggered.

Luther would have known he was taking risks, but it's clear that to start off with, he thought he was trying to reform the Catholic Church. In light of the failed reform 100 years previously, how that had played out, and the period when there had been up to three simultaneous popes, it was reasonable for him to sit looser on the strict meaning of Catholic than the sort of meaning it has acquired in the Roman church since the Council of Trent.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
I don't know why we are discussing Luther now. But anyway...

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
OK - heretic as far as the RCC is concerned. Not heretical as a Christian. So the person above who said he was most likely to be Hell is not proclaiming RC doctrine since the RCC doesn't regard protestants as non-Christians.
It is not RC doctrine that all non-Christians go to hell. It is not RC doctrine that all Christians go to heaven. It is RC doctrine that heresy is grave matter (and obviously we are talking there about heresy according to the RCC). To turn this into mortal sin, full knowledge and complete consent is required. But unlike for latter day followers of a heresy, this can be presumed for heresiarchs (originators of heresy). Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not excuse in this context, but condemn further. So it is likely that heresiarchs commit mortals sins in establishing their heresies, and unless they repent of them (which does not seem to have been the case for Luther), they will go to hell. That very much is RC doctrine, even though it is not something much stressed in these days of ecumenical appeasement...

This RC doctrine is reflected in canon law, which threatens automatic excommunication for heresy (canon 1364), putting it on par with abortion and breaking the confessional seal. And historically speaking our times are as mild as can be concerning heretics. The Church Fathers were rather clear on what fate awaits the heretic, and back then there was little distinction between the originator and later followers.

Says Origen: "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 12:841-42) Says Cyprian of Carthage: "Neither baptism of public confession [of the faith under torture], nor of blood [shed for the faith], can avail the heretic anything toward salvation, because there is no salvation outside of the church. Nay, even though they should suffer death for the confession of the Name, the guilt of such men is not removed even by their blood; the grievous irremissible sin of schism is not purged even by martyrdom." (Epist 73.21; CSEL 3,2:795; FC 51:282) Says Augustine: "Outside the Church he can have everything except salvation. He can have honor, 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)

We are interpreting things a bit more generously these days. But part of that is exactly to shift blame from the present day heretics to their heresiarch. So Martin Luther himself remains firmly up shit creek without a paddle, even by modern RC teaching. He is someone RCs should pray for, not to.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Pius XII was an archreformer.
[Confused] Please do elaborate.
The Holy Week rites and Divino Afflante Spiritu, for example.
Oh brother! Calling for some new translations of the scripture based on increased knowledge of the origina texts, and calling for letting there be a time of day change for the Holy Week rites along with a few other non-radical changes makes Pius XII anarchreformer. That is flat-out weird. I can't find the "rolls eyes" emoticon so
[Killing me] will have to do.

[ 07. July 2013, 22:09: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Circa these parts, rubber-stamp has the air of thoughtless approval. This doesn't speak well of the conciliarity of the clergy and the laity. Perhaps you meant something closer to ratify.
Nope. Prior to the 11th century, when Rome started to take over, it was not uncommon for local bishops to let their flock run with whatever spiritual hero-worship they fancied. Saints from these times are to be taken with a chunk of salt concerning their traditional descriptions, or even their existence...
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Circa these parts, rubber-stamp has the air of thoughtless approval. This doesn't speak well of the conciliarity of the clergy and the laity. Perhaps you meant something closer to ratify.
Nope. Prior to the 11th century, when Rome started to take over, it was not uncommon for local bishops to let their flock run with whatever spiritual hero-worship they fancied. Saints from these times are to be taken with a chunk of salt concerning their traditional descriptions, or even their existence...
Saint Guinefort, pray for us!
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I think it suffices to say that the Roman Catholic Church will not recognize Saint Martin Luther until it amends its grievous errors, and I can't even imagine why it's an issue here.

I'm more offended that it doesn't recognize the Anglicans that died next to their Ugandan martyrs, but Rome will be Rome, won't it?
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Nonsense. No one who doesn't believe in either Pope or Council (which Luther didn't) is Catholic
That is to understand 'Catholic' in the sense it was defined after Luther and as a result of changes he triggered.

Luther would have known he was taking risks, but it's clear that to start off with, he thought he was trying to reform the Catholic Church. In light of the failed reform 100 years previously, how that had played out, and the period when there had been up to three simultaneous popes, it was reasonable for him to sit looser on the strict meaning of Catholic than the sort of meaning it has acquired in the Roman church since the Council of Trent.
in that era, if one did not appeal to the Pope's authority with Scripture , it was to Councils Luther appealed only to what could be proved directly from Scripture which was unknown by any non-heretical theologian up to that time. It really didn't have much to do with Post-Tridentine Catholic theology
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Pius XII was an archreformer.
[Confused] Please do elaborate.
The Holy Week rites and Divino Afflante Spiritu, for example.
Oh brother! Calling for some new translations of the scripture based on increased knowledge of the origina texts, and calling for letting there be a time of day change for the Holy Week rites along with a few other non-radical changes makes Pius XII anarchreformer. That is flat-out weird. I can't find the "rolls eyes" emoticon so
[Killing me] will have to do.
I suppose you can't be an "archreformer"worth your salt unless you are advocating for Rave and Rock Masses. Everything that's "relevant" don't ya know
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Nonsense. No one who doesn't believe in either Pope or Council (which Luther didn't) is Catholic
That is to understand 'Catholic' in the sense it was defined after Luther and as a result of changes he triggered.

Luther would have known he was taking risks, but it's clear that to start off with, he thought he was trying to reform the Catholic Church. In light of the failed reform 100 years previously, how that had played out, and the period when there had been up to three simultaneous popes, it was reasonable for him to sit looser on the strict meaning of Catholic than the sort of meaning it has acquired in the Roman church since the Council of Trent.
in that era, if one did not appeal to the Pope's authority with Scripture , it was to Councils Luther appealed only to what could be proved directly from Scripture which was unknown by any non-heretical theologian up to that time. It really didn't have much to do with Post-Tridentine Catholic theology
Before you expend all your energy consigning poor Martin Luther to the outer darkness, for whatever reasons you feel so much need to, I would point out that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't consider the Orthodox to be Catholics either.

Fact is, different sect have different ideas of what Catholicity is, seeing as they all consider themselves Catholic.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm more offended that it doesn't recognize the Anglicans that died next to their Ugandan martyrs, but Rome will be Rome, won't it?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "recognize," but according to some uses of the term this might count.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Nonsense. No one who doesn't believe in either Pope or Council (which Luther didn't) is Catholic
That is to understand 'Catholic' in the sense it was defined after Luther and as a result of changes he triggered.

Luther would have known he was taking risks, but it's clear that to start off with, he thought he was trying to reform the Catholic Church. In light of the failed reform 100 years previously, how that had played out, and the period when there had been up to three simultaneous popes, it was reasonable for him to sit looser on the strict meaning of Catholic than the sort of meaning it has acquired in the Roman church since the Council of Trent.
in that era, if one did not appeal to the Pope's authority with Scripture , it was to Councils Luther appealed only to what could be proved directly from Scripture which was unknown by any non-heretical theologian up to that time. It really didn't have much to do with Post-Tridentine Catholic theology

Before you expend all your energy consigning poor Martin Luther to the outer darkness, for whatever reasons you feel so much need to, I would point out that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't consider the Orthodox to be Catholics either.

Fact is, different sect have different ideas of what Catholicity is, seeing as they all consider themselves Catholic.
I'm aware of this and I'm aware that Luther's followers were given short shrift by the Ecumenical Patriarch as well. He was proposing an appeal to Scripture alone which was unknown to East or West
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Luther cited the Church Fathers and Councils plenty- "Sola Scriptura" has always been a highly misleading formulation.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
It's also a myth that nobody until the Reformation knew or respected scripture.

Not only is it a myth, but there are plenty of books readily available in translation in bookshops or via the web that demonstrate this.

Returning the the OP, will shipmates be venerating and/or requesting the intercession of Sts John Paul II and John XXIII?

Are there any relics of them yet? Were either of them operated on for appendicitis? Does a popemobile count as a relic? Is John Paul II's bullet preserved anywhere?

[ 08. July 2013, 08:57: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
The popemobile might count as a tertiary relic but I don't know if that would be a good precedent, as then several Alitalia aeroplanes as well as numerous railway carriages would then have to be assigned to devotional duty.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
And indeed, the Popemobile is no longer necessarily a Benz, but is now a simple Fiat. O, for the days when a special Lancia Flaminia was deemed suitable. Now, that is worthy of some adoration, if not devotion.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Luther cited the Church Fathers and Councils plenty- "Sola Scriptura" has always been a highly misleading formulation.
You forget, though, that at at Worms he would not recant unless he could be pro ed wrong from the Scriptures and "not from "Popes or Councils "
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
quote:
So Martin Luther himself remains firmly up shit creek without a paddle, even by modern RC teaching. He is someone RCs should pray for, not to.
Out of interest (and honestly not polemicly), do RC's commonly pray for us heretics, even the dead ones?
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm more offended that it doesn't recognize the Anglicans that died next to their Ugandan martyrs
Or the Basque martyrs of the white terror in the Spanish Civil War, along with their canonised fascist counterparts.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
So Martin Luther himself remains firmly up shit creek without a paddle, even by modern RC teaching. He is someone RCs should pray for, not to.
Out of interest (and honestly not polemicly), do RC's commonly pray for us heretics, even the dead ones?
They, and Rome-aping Anglicans, do at least at the Solemn Collects on Good Friday. Here's one version:
quote:
Let us pray also for heretics and schismat-
ics: that our Lord God would be pleased to
rescue them from all their errors; and recall
them to our holy mother the Catholic and
Apostolic Church.

Almighty and everlasting God, who savest
all, and wouldst that no one should perish:
look on the souls that are led astray by the
deceit of the devil: that having set aside all
heretical evil, the hearts of those that err
may repent, and return to the unity of Thy
truth. Through our Lord. Amen.

 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
Out of interest (and honestly not polemicly), do RC's commonly pray for us heretics, even the dead ones?
I assume that the liturgical prayer TSA quoted is not quite what you had in mind... I expect that most personal prayers by RCs for heretics arise from personal circumstances. For example, the families of both my parent's are either AAA (apathetic / agnostic / atheistic) or German Lutheran. So if I pray for any of them, alive or dead, I by default pray for a heathen or heretic...

I can't say that I've given much thought so far to praying for God's mercy for the likes of Arius or Luther precisely on account of their heresies. However, as such that seems like a reasonable and charitable thing to do. And of course, likewise (and with a greater chance of success) for contemporary heretics.

Yet, it also seems dangerously close to the Pharisee commenting on the tax collector (Lk 18:9-14). A good time to pray for Arius as Arian or Luther as Lutheran seems to be when one feels rather Arian or Lutheran oneself. I feel on safer ground to ask the Lord for mercy for a sinner much like me, than for a sinner very unlike me. Hence it is much more likely that I will pray for Pelagius than for Arius, Luther or Calvin. The heresies of Pelagius are much more congenial to me, so if I pray for the Lord to remove the beam in Pelagius' eye, I know that He knows that I'm in no small part worried about the mote in mine...

[ 08. July 2013, 19:26: Message edited by: IngoB ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Only those Rome-aping Anglicans who ape only up to 1955, or whenever it is. The Solemn Prayers for Good Friday were, of course, changed and that is no longer the text, which now prays for the Unity of Christians instead.

And yes there are indeed relics of both John XXIII and JPII - their bodies after all were buried in the crypt of St Peter's and are now beneath altars in the church itself.

Since I shook JPII's hand I guess I may even be a relic myself [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Triple Tiara:
quote:
Since I shook JPII's hand I guess I may even be a relic myself. [Big Grin]
Watch out that no one locks you into your own gold-and-glass reliquary! [Biased]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
By the way, Pope Francis is setting aside the usual canonisation procedure for John XXIII by not waiting for a second miracle attributed to him. So quite frankly, it is JXXIII's rather than JPII's case which is clearly being rushed here.

It is interesting to speculate why Pope Francis is fast-tracking JXXIII. To highlight the Vatican II anniversary? To soften the St JPII blow to liberals?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Gee IngoB. Luther denied the Pope's authority, but Arius only denied the divinity of Jesus.

Your soteriology seems so backwards to me. Pagans can most credibly claim to be invincibly ignorant, but Protestants are guilty of the sin of not being Catholics, and Catholics are guilty of the even more heinous sin of not being Catholic enough. The closer one is to your understanding of the target, the worse he off he seems. That just doesn't seem the Gospel of Consolation to me, because the answer to all such questions, "Can I be Catholic enough? Can I be good enough? Can I believe the right things enough to obtain salvation?" the answer must always and for all people be "No." Your soteriology puts me deep in Martin Luther's dread, where I can only throw myself on God's mercy and have faith, for I cannot see what hope there is in what you propose.

I hold out hope, though, that your posting on the ship is more a reaction against the scandalizing complacency in which people here tend to approach questions of truth and salvation than a sincere expression of how you understand the Christian hope.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
From IngoB

As for every heresiarch, the best one can hope for Martin Luther is that he's in purgatory now (rather than in the deepest pit of hell, which is a rather more likely).

Don't forget though, that Luther achieved what none before could do - the reform of the RC Church. Before him, and especially in the previous 150 years or so, there had been very many bad popes. Luther's actions led directly to the Council of Trent, with its thorough reforms. It's hard to think of any bad popes since.
What then? Shall we sin so that grace may abound? God forbid!
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Only those Rome-aping Anglicans who ape only up to 1955, or whenever it is. The Solemn Prayers for Good Friday were, of course, changed and that is no longer the text, which now prays for the Unity of Christians instead.
Except that those pesky antiquarians of whatever stripe make it so hard to keep score. The tide does seem to be reaching its ebb, if not turning.

I could have quoted from the Solemn Collects from the Good Friday liturgy in the Anglican Service Book, but I thought it would be better to haul out The Real Deal rather than the liturgy of The Faithful Emulators, "ape" being a dry self-mock.

So, we have the Oratory of Ss. Gregory and Augustine, "the newest parish in the Archdiocese of St. Louis," who just this past March, celebrated a liturgy still memorialized in this pdf, in which my quoted text can be found.


The horrendous G@%gle, having completely morphed from a stable search tool into, among much other Evil, a Craven Marketeers Cat's Paw, served up completely different hits as I attempted to compose this post from the ones it served up this afternoon. So, my intended link to what I found when I first searched for, solemn collect heretic, the website of a community dedicated to St. Mary, had to become a link to Ss. Gregory & Augustine, folk of the same sort.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Circa these parts, rubber-stamp has the air of thoughtless approval. This doesn't speak well of the conciliarity of the clergy and the laity. Perhaps you meant something closer to ratify.
Nope. Prior to the 11th century, when Rome started to take over, it was not uncommon for local bishops to let their flock run with whatever spiritual hero-worship they fancied. Saints from these times are to be taken with a chunk of salt concerning their traditional descriptions, or even their existence....
Saint Guinefort, pray for us!
Or, perhaps, Equal-to-the-Apostles Thekla?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Gee IngoB. Luther denied the Pope's authority, but Arius only denied the divinity of Jesus.
Interesting, isn't it? The fruits by which we shall know these heresiarchs are similar, with Luther slightly less destructive on Church unity than Arius, but far ahead in the body count and arguably harder to overcome. I guess that goes to show that our understanding of doctrinal hierarchy does not reflect Divine reality, or perhaps underestimates the slick moves of the ruler of this world.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The closer one is to your understanding of the target, the worse he off he seems.
You are a Protestant, dreaming your endless nightmare of an invisible Church of true believers. So you are full of terror about not believing the right thing, as gauged by intangible realities ever beyond your grasp. It is however a visible Church of true teachers. You should worry about listening to the wrong people and kneeling in the wrong place. Tangible deeds. Ordinary people. Real presences. And a catechism to read, if you must.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That just doesn't seem the Gospel of Consolation to me, because the answer to all such questions, "Can I be Catholic enough? Can I be good enough? Can I believe the right things enough to obtain salvation?" the answer must always and for all people be "No." Your soteriology puts me deep in Martin Luther's dread, where I can only throw myself on God's mercy and have faith, for I cannot see what hope there is in what you propose.
What a load of tosh and a half. There's nothing Catholic about those scruples of yours, it's indeed all Luther's dread beaten into him by abusive parents and passed on to you as Protestant DNA. The Lord gave us the sacraments for our earthly pilgrimage, not a theology book. (Seven sacraments, I should mention, since you Protestant are so careless - losing a few sacraments here, a few books of the bible there...) The basic state of Catholic life is not some terrified contemplation of doctrinal dilemma. It is muddling along, doing the best one can or really the worst one can get away with. It's using Divine gifts like dental floss. It's rather human, and thoroughly humane. The people we call "heretics" are the enthusiasts, the fanatics, the few that bother to make such an ado about stuff that looking politely the other way isn't an option. They are the mirror image of the saints, really. The only difference is that they are wrong. Therefore the Church knows more or less what to do with them, whereas what to do with saints is an ongoing and unresolved problem. Holy righteousness and Catholic muddle playing cat and mouse, that's how the Church stumbles through history...

Now, I like my Catholic theology and I like being right even more, but if you believe that that is where I think being Christian is at, then you are mistaken. That's just me having fun, I am a true academic... My Christianity however succeeds at the knee and fails at the pelvis, as for most people. And I know how to walk the deep and step through the looking glass. Though I rarely dare.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hold out hope, though, that your posting on the ship is more a reaction against the scandalizing complacency in which people here tend to approach questions of truth and salvation than a sincere expression of how you understand the Christian hope.
It's more this. And I'm not sure where that comes from, but it is unlikely to be particularly Christian.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Only those Rome-aping Anglicans who ape only up to 1955, or whenever it is.
*checks watch* Good Lord, did something happen after 1955? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
There it is again right there. Martin Luther is worse off because he's so much closer to the truth. It's all or nothing for you. Do you really think the Gospel is all or nothing? Because if it's all or nothing for heretics, it's all or nothing for Catholics too.

It may be tosh, IngoB, but it sure seems what you argue. We have to believe in Papal authority and submit to it, but making it about belief is a Protestant scruple? I don't understand your distinction here. Catholics have to believe and submit to papal teaching, but are heretics and excommunicated if they disagree about the wrong thing? God help them if they believe the wrong thing and another Catholic is misled by that false belief. You put so much faith in the sacraments, but you sure has heck don't put much stock in the power of baptism in the lives of Protestants.

But hey, you are hardly the first theologian with a preference for talking about why his opponents are going to hell.

[ 09. July 2013, 10:18: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
There it is again right there. Martin Luther is worse off because he's so much closer to the truth. It's all or nothing for you. Do you really think the Gospel is all or nothing? Because if it's all or nothing for heretics, it's all or nothing for Catholics too.
I really do not know what you are going on about. Where did I say anything remotely like "Martin Luther is worse off because he's so much closer to the truth"? Nowhere, that's where. You are the one that keeps on repeating that. Martin Luther is in trouble because he likely had his heresy reckoned as mortal sin to him, and there is little sign that he repented of that sin. If he died in mortal sin, then he is now in hell - just like anybody else who dies in mortal sin. Salvation is indeed all or nothing. But there is plenty of opportunity for mortal sin, and most mortal sinners are in danger of hell over more mundane matters than wrecking the Western part of the Church.

There is a somewhat interesting discussion to be had about the added dangers that stem from knowing more about God's will: one can culpably offend God more. But the Church has always maintained that this is more than offset by the additional access to grace. So, drawing nearer to the truth increases the odds of salvation, but at the same time it raises the stakes. As completely arbitrary numerical illustration, and indeed without even a claim that one can numerically quantify this, one could say that for the heathen there are 20 units of doing God's will and 60 units of acting against it, whereas for the Christian there are 240 units of doing God's will and 120 units of acting against it. If we focus on what can go wrong, then the Christian has double the opportunity to fail due to his greater knowledge of God's will. But if we compare the opportunities offered to them, then it is 1:3 for the heathen to be saved, but 2:1 for the Christian - a great improvement. (Again, the numbers are meaningless, as are the units. The point is that "more possibility to fail" has two distinct meanings here.)

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It may be tosh, IngoB, but it sure seems what you argue.
It sure seems so to you, because apart from beating up straw men you have nothing on me.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We have to believe in Papal authority and submit to it, but making it about belief is a Protestant scruple? I don't understand your distinction here. Catholics have to believe and submit to papal teaching, but are heretics and excommunicated if they disagree about the wrong thing? God help them if they believe the wrong thing and another Catholic is misled by that false belief.
Perhaps it helps if we consult the definition of heresy in RC canon law, from canon 2089: "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same." Note the highlighted word there? That's the key difference. Protestantism is basically Obstinatism. You cannot imagine to shut your face and know your place, you absolutely must stand and do no other. Loudly. That's where you spiritually come from. But that's not the regular modus operandi of Catholicism. I bet a good half of RC parishes in the West is made up of heretics, schismatics and even apostates, formally. But that's really just another failure mode among the many failure modes of a Catholic life. It's a matter for pastoral care and the confessional, and by and large it is nobody's business but that of the person and the priest in charge of them. Meanwhile, Catholic life just rolls on, mass is still being celebrated, Holy Mary's are being prayed, babys are being baptised... Shit only hits the fan when people start throwing it, hard. When they protest that they are right and the Church is wrong, when they make that the main deal of their spiritual life.

The best piece of advice I've ever received concerning maths was "kapieren oder akzeptieren" ("understand or accept"). Not something a math teacher would be allowed to say these days, I reckon, but it took me to a PhD in theoretical physics. Sometimes you understand, sometimes you accept - because you recognise that there's something there that is simply bigger than you. That is Catholic. And yes, tremendous potential for abuse, yadda, yadda. Spare me. The point here is that you think you must understand it all, and agree with it all, because otherwise you cannot accept it, at all. That is Protestant. So if I say that this or that is Catholic doctrine, for you I'm compiling this lengthy faith contract that you have to sign up to with in all fine print before you could consider becoming Catholic. An EULA from hell. But that's not how it is (or should be) for a Catholic. It is more like agreeing to marry someone. Sure, you want to make sure that you are basically OK with the person you are marrying. If there's deep conflict now, then better hold off. But you are actually pre-accepting the good, bad and ugly that any real relationship will bring. Not infinitely so, but sufficiently so. If you cannot say to the Church "if you say so, then let it be so according to your word" then you will indeed have trouble becoming Catholic.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You put so much faith in the sacraments, but you sure has heck don't put much stock in the power of baptism in the lives of Protestants.
I have not at all commented on the power of baptism in the lives of Protestants. Or indeed on the salvation chances of Protestants in general.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But hey, you are hardly the first theologian with a preference for talking about why his opponents are going to hell.
I'm not a theologian, I'm a computational neuroscientist. And I've not talked about why my opponents are going to hell. I've in part talked about why Martin Luther likely is in hell.

Look, your problem is that you think we are in the same place other than for some disagreement about denomination. Not really. Look at the motto below my avatar. I'm not quite St Ignatius of Loyola, but I'm close enough to that text to be a lot further from you than you imagine...
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I brought up Martin Luther and Lech Walesa only because of the bizarre reasons PaulBC gave for John XXIII and John Paul II being recognized as saints. But I'm as entertained by the subsequent conversation as I would have been had I been intentionally trolling.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I was entertained, but also quite gripped by IngoB's point about understanding and accepting, and that Protestants want to understand everything. I don't know if that's true, but it partly explains the appeal of Catholicism for me, as it seems to preserve the 'unknowing' element of religion, whereas too much sola scriptural analysis starts to make me feel as if I'm being taught accountancy.

Of course, dear old Anglicanism tries to straddle both, which sounds uncomfortable, like doing the splits. 'Splits' - now there's an interesting word.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I'm not a theologian, I'm a computational neuroscientist. And I've not talked about why my opponents are going to hell. I've in part talked about why Martin Luther likely is in hell.

Look, your problem is that you think we are in the same place other than for some disagreement about denomination. Not really. Look at the motto below my avatar. I'm not quite St Ignatius of Loyola, but I'm close enough to that text to be a lot further from you than you imagine...
Oh honestly, you talk about why Protestants and heretical Catholics might possibly be damned all the time on the ship, but I can't for the life of me remember you explaining why they might get into heaven except through invincible ignorance. Take at least a little credit for the perceptions people have of you.

And now you're projecting your personal preoccupations on me. My soteriology centers on participation in the visible Church and the sacraments so obsessively that I scandalized my Roman Catholic professors every time we talked about the problem of pluralism at this Catholic seminary of mine. You've seen for yourself my insistance that baptism makes a Christian, whether beliefs are present or not.

Yet our participation in the Church and Her sacraments proceed from our beliefs, at least one hopes so in the case of adults. Which is why I am talking about beliefs, and not your "Protestant DNA" business. I am not refusing to join the Roman Catholic Church because I need to know the full truth, which I only said doesn't seem possible, but because I believe the fullness of the Church is to be found in Anglicanism as much as in the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh honestly, you talk about why Protestants and heretical Catholics might possibly be damned all the time on the ship, but I can't for the life of me remember you explaining why they might get into heaven except through invincible ignorance.
If there was a rule to mercy, then it wouldn't be mercy. It would be the application of that rule...

As I've said many times on SoF, whether you chose to listen or not, Protestants today are in a position of systemic (not invincible) ignorance. Many of them honestly believe that what they do is following God best, or at least certainly better than if they were to join the RCC. Thus they will be (partly) inculpable of their separation from the RCC, due to a lack of knowledge and consent. They also do have access to Christian means of grace, in particular baptism and scripture. So by the very seemingly paradoxical principle that I have just explained above (did you listen?), their chances for salvation are higher than that of non-Christians even though their chances of failure are larger, on average. Heretic Catholics, if they are really heretic (again see the discussion above), are in the same situation as the heretic Catholic Martin Luther. Their salvation chances are indeed low, because they work individually against the Divine system set up to bring it about.

Beyond that, I'm not sure that there is much to say. I'm not privy to God's evaluations of people's lives. Much less does He consult me on the application of His mercy.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
My soteriology centers on participation in the visible Church and the sacraments so obsessively that I scandalized my Roman Catholic professors every time we talked about the problem of pluralism at this Catholic seminary of mine.
Oh, I immediately believe that (setting aside the question of the catholicity of modern Catholic seminaries). It's easier to say what I want to by an analogy to something negative, sickness, though of course I want to draw a conclusion concerning something positive. You are fixating on symptoms, you do not consider the disease. Now you are telling me that you are obsessive over important symptoms. That's better than if you were to obsess over unimportant ones, of course. But it is not in the end "it".

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am not refusing to join the Roman Catholic Church because I need to know the full truth, which I only said doesn't seem possible, but because I believe the fullness of the Church is to be found in Anglicanism as much as in the Roman Catholic Church.
Why are you telling me? Do you think that I have the magic word that will set you free from this silly belief? At the heart of every false belief system there is an impenetrable defensive structure. No human means exist to breach its walls.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... I'm not privy to God's evaluations of people's lives. Much less does He consult me on the application of His mercy. ...
Wow. Is humility breaking out all over?
quote:
... Why are you telling me? Do you think that I have the magic word that will set you free from this silly belief? At the heart of every false belief system there is an impenetrable defensive structure. No human means exist to breach its walls.
Perhaps not?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Beyond that, I'm not sure that there is much to say. I'm not privy to God's evaluations of people's lives. Much less does He consult me on the application of His mercy.
It's great that you are talking about God's mercy now, but you talked about it very little before.

quote:
Why are you telling me?
I am telling you because your diagnosis was completely wrong. What I find strange is that your diagnosis turns out to have been completely wrong, but the declaration founded on that incorrect diagnosis, that you are so far apart and above Protestants, remains unchanged.

Moreover, your say my "problem" is that I am "fixating on symptoms." Which is precisely what you tend to do with Protestants. Moreover, I know full well there are plenty of Roman Catholic theologians that "focus on the symptoms," and I imagine you do too. A habit of clinging to what is good and holy in a world perceived as sinful is not a particularly Protestant one. It speaks of being scrupulous, not heretical.

I have been in academia a but myself. These have nothing to do with being an academic.

[ 10. July 2013, 10:27: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
It just hit me, IngoB, that you aren't focusing on the symptoms with Protestants here after all. Better late than never!

Alas, the observation doesn't actually change my argument much since I can't really discern how centering salvation on grace through the sacraments is focusing on the symptoms, and 2) I can't see that it's a definitively Protestant way of thinking.

An entirely fair conclusion would be that, since you are saying I am wrong because of some "impenetrable defensive structure," that you believe you are right because of a "impenetrable defensive structure."
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I was entertained, but also quite gripped by IngoB's point about understanding and accepting, and that Protestants want to understand everything.
I wasn't. I got more than enough of the "Just shut up and believe!" crap in the Baptist church I grew up in.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I was entertained, but also quite gripped by IngoB's point about understanding and accepting, and that Protestants want to understand everything.
I wasn't. I got more than enough of the "Just shut up and believe!" crap in the Baptist church I grew up in.
Fair point; but when I go to the Eucharist, I don't spend the whole time trying to intellectually understand it. In fact, I spend a lot of time not doing that, but those times seem excellent, and they seem to complete me, and make me feel whole. I feel intellectuality would spoil that. But then this is like anything really. If it's snowing, sometimes I just love to let it snow (cue song).
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Fair point; but when I go to the Eucharist, I don't spend the whole time trying to intellectually understand it. In fact, I spend a lot of time not doing that, but those times seem excellent, and they seem to complete me, and make me feel whole. I feel intellectuality would spoil that. But then this is like anything really. If it's snowing, sometimes I just love to let it snow (cue song).
I don't think IngoB was talking about principled ignorance of Christian doctrine.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I was entertained, but also quite gripped by IngoB's point about understanding and accepting, and that Protestants want to understand everything.
I wasn't. I got more than enough of the "Just shut up and believe!" crap in the Baptist church I grew up in.
It was the "knowing your place" bit that really stuck in my craw and failed to endear me to the rest of the post. I suppose we should just be grateful that we don't risk burning at the stake any more for failing to do so.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
The only possible reason why Martin Luther might be in hell would be because of his horrendous anti-Semitism. Not that I'm the judge of any person's soul. And I have little doubt that Martin now realises just how dreadfully wrong he was on that particular issue. He wasn't wrong on the others.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I suppose we should just be grateful that we don't risk burning at the stake any more for failing to do so.
Indeed. [Paranoid]

Back to the topic:

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I definitely come in the 'what is all the fuss about' section. If the Catholic church (or any other church, for that matter) want Saints, then let them have Saints.

Won't make any difference in the end - God loves us all equally. And its the inside of us that counts, and the reason for our deeds, not our deeds.
This. [Cool] "Greet every saint in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 4:21). The audacity and generosity of God is that He makes all who are in Him into saints ... unlovely as we are.

[ 11. July 2013, 11:10: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I was entertained, but also quite gripped by IngoB's point about understanding and accepting, and that Protestants want to understand everything.
I wasn't. I got more than enough of the "Just shut up and believe!" crap in the Baptist church I grew up in.
Fair point; but when I go to the Eucharist, I don't spend the whole time trying to intellectually understand it. In fact, I spend a lot of time not doing that, but those times seem excellent, and they seem to complete me, and make me feel whole. I feel intellectuality would spoil that. But then this is like anything really. If it's snowing, sometimes I just love to let it snow (cue song).
More evidence that IngoB is wrong about Protestantism!
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Fair point; but when I go to the Eucharist, I don't spend the whole time trying to intellectually understand it. In fact, I spend a lot of time not doing that, but those times seem excellent, and they seem to complete me, and make me feel whole. I feel intellectuality would spoil that. But then this is like anything really. If it's snowing, sometimes I just love to let it snow (cue song).
I don't think IngoB was talking about principled ignorance of Christian doctrine.
I know a fair amount about Christian doctrine, and currently it does fuck-all for me as far as my faith.

If I look at the sum total of my current beliefs they are one massive box of contradictions, but I'm holding on for dear life to the experience of the Eucharist.

(I've readded the attribution to quetzalcoatl that Zach82 didn't have, for clarity since the quote is no longer adjacent to quetzalcoatl's original post.)
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Fair point; but when I go to the Eucharist, I don't spend the whole time trying to intellectually understand it. In fact, I spend a lot of time not doing that, but those times seem excellent, and they seem to complete me, and make me feel whole. I feel intellectuality would spoil that. But then this is like anything really. If it's snowing, sometimes I just love to let it snow (cue song).
I don't think IngoB was talking about principled ignorance of Christian doctrine.
I know a fair amount about Christian doctrine, and currently it does fuck-all for me as far as my faith.

If I look at the sum total of my current beliefs they are one massive box of contradictions, but I'm holding on for dear life to the experience of the Eucharist.

(I've readded the attribution to quetzalcoatl that Zach82 didn't have, for clarity since the quote is no longer adjacent to quetzalcoatl's original post.)
Pretty much what I was saying. Sure, I can enjoy various debates, and intellectual analyses of various Christian ideas, but that doesn't feed me. In fact, it becomes arid. I''m not holding on for dear life to the Eucharist though; it's just a good place for me.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Personally, I don't understand "I think the Eucharist is important and it feeds me, but I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it." Call it my rotten, Protestant core.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Personally, I don't understand "I think the Eucharist is important and it feeds me, but I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it." Call it my rotten, Protestant core.
I'm sincerely hoping that's not a paraphrase of what I said. If it is, it's a misrepresentation. Please don't do that.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Personally, I don't understand "I think the Eucharist is important and it feeds me, but I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it." Call it my rotten, Protestant core.
Not if it is an exercise in intellectualizing We should be worshiping Christ in the Eucharist not writing essays on how Nietzsche would see it [Biased]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Personally, I don't understand "I think the Eucharist is important and it feeds me, but I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it." Call it my rotten, Protestant core.
I'm sincerely hoping that's not a paraphrase of what I said. If it is, it's a misrepresentation. Please don't do that.
Newp, it was IngoB that was talking about invincibly wrong Protestant cores. The sentiment that the internet failed to transmit was "wry" not "accusatory."

The "I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it" was based on your statement "don't spend the whole time trying to intellectually understand it. In fact, I spend a lot of time not doing that."

For the life of me, I can't see the difference. Thinking about something intellectually is precisely the task of discerning what it is and what it does.

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Not if it is an exercise in intellectualizing We should be worshiping Christ in the Eucharist not writing essays on how Nietzsche would see it [Biased]
Worshiping Our Lord in the Eucharist and thinking about the Eucharist are not mutually exclusive. For me anyway.

[ 12. July 2013, 01:57: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Personally, I don't understand "I think the Eucharist is important and it feeds me, but I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it." Call it my rotten, Protestant core.
I'm sincerely hoping that's not a paraphrase of what I said. If it is, it's a misrepresentation. Please don't do that.
.

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Not if it is an exercise in intellectualizing We should be worshiping Christ in the Eucharist not writing essays on how Nietzsche would see it [Biased]
Worshiping Our Lord in the Eucharist and thinking about the Eucharist are not mutually exclusive. For me anyway.
That's quite a fine line that I wouldnt trust any but the greatest saints not to keep mutually exclusive
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
That's quite a fine line that I wouldnt trust any but the greatest saints not to keep mutually exclusive
Why? You've really only repeated the assertion- we can't seek to know and to worship at the same time. I want to know what the Eucharist is precisely because I'm awed by an act of God in my life and in the Church. I want to reach out to it with my mind as well as with my heart and hands.

Maybe you could start by clearly explaining what your problem with being "intellectual" is. For me thinking intellectually means little more than thinking of defintions and arguments in a coherent manner.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Personally, I don't understand "I think the Eucharist is important and it feeds me, but I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it." Call it my rotten, Protestant core.
I'm sincerely hoping that's not a paraphrase of what I said. If it is, it's a misrepresentation. Please don't do that.
Newp, it was IngoB that was talking about invincibly wrong Protestant cores. The sentiment that the internet failed to transmit was "wry" not "accusatory."

The "I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it" was based on your statement "don't spend the whole time trying to intellectually understand it. In fact, I spend a lot of time not doing that."

For the life of me, I can't see the difference. Thinking about something intellectually is precisely the task of discerning what it is and what it does.

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Not if it is an exercise in intellectualizing We should be worshiping Christ in the Eucharist not writing essays on how Nietzsche would see it [Biased]
Worshiping Our Lord in the Eucharist and thinking about the Eucharist are not mutually exclusive. For me anyway.
I was hoping you would have the good grace to accept that from my point of view, you have misrepresented me. But apparently not.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
This is all very interesting, if a bit short on brotherly and sisterly love, but what has it got to do with saints-designate John Paul II and John XXIII?

Incidentally, if you are pope and canonised, are you known as Sts John Paul and John, or Sts Karol Wojtyła and Angelo Roncalli?

Is there a generation difference about how one sees John Paul II? For a lot of people my age, even non-Catholics like me, he epitomises resistance to the totalitarian dead hand of Marxist-Leninism, a totemic figure in the political redemption of Eastern Europe. A certain amount of traditional rigidity is merely an unfortunate but probably necessary bi-product of that. Many people younger than me seem to have forgotten or not to have appreciated quite how dreadful cold war Mitteleuropa was, how big and unbelievable a tectonic shift it was when the plates moved. Against that, assessing a pope by reference to his views on one or two DH topics seems a bit trivial. It's as though the cold war has become something romantic, 'spies in the rain'.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is all very interesting, if a bit short on brotherly and sisterly love, but what has it got to do with saints-designate John Paul II and John XXIII?

Incidentally, if you are pope and canonised, are you known as Sts John Paul and John, or Sts Karol Wojtyła and Angelo Roncalli?

Is there a generation difference about how one sees John Paul II? For a lot of people my age, even non-Catholics like me, he epitomises resistance to the totalitarian dead hand of Marxist-Leninism, a totemic figure in the political redemption of Eastern Europe. A certain amount of traditional rigidity is merely an unfortunate but probably necessary bi-product of that. Many people younger than me seem to have forgotten or not to have appreciated quite how dreadful cold war Mitteleuropa was, how big and unbelievable a tectonic shift it was when the plates moved. Against that, assessing a pope by reference to his views on one or two DH topics seems a bit trivial. It's as though the cold war has become something romantic, 'spies in the rain'.
I think that, while his opposition to totalitarianism in Europe was laudable, his condoning of injustice in Latin America (largely because the rulers were right wing and the opposition left wing) was far less so. To me, and to many others, he appeared to be blinkered into thinking that anything opposed to socialism was automatically good, and anything related to socialism was automatically bad. That may not be an accurate picture of his views, but that's how it appeared.

As to your middle paragraph, surely St. Peter is the model here? He's not St. Simon, is he?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Personally, I don't understand "I think the Eucharist is important and it feeds me, but I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it." Call it my rotten, Protestant core.
I'm sincerely hoping that's not a paraphrase of what I said. If it is, it's a misrepresentation. Please don't do that.
Newp, it was IngoB that was talking about invincibly wrong Protestant cores. The sentiment that the internet failed to transmit was "wry" not "accusatory."

The "I don't want to know what it is or what God is doing in it" was based on your statement "don't spend the whole time trying to intellectually understand it. In fact, I spend a lot of time not doing that."

For the life of me, I can't see the difference. Thinking about something intellectually is precisely the task of discerning what it is and what it does.

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Not if it is an exercise in intellectualizing We should be worshiping Christ in the Eucharist not writing essays on how Nietzsche would see it [Biased]
Worshiping Our Lord in the Eucharist and thinking about the Eucharist are not mutually exclusive. For me anyway.
I was hoping you would have the good grace to accept that from my point of view, you have misrepresented me. But apparently not.
You could, in the spirit of free agency, tell how I got you wrong instead of lamenting the situation.
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Only those Rome-aping Anglicans who ape only up to 1955, or whenever it is.
*checks watch* Good Lord, did something happen after 1955? [Ultra confused]
Elvis signed to a major record label ....

Thanks to folk for kind answers. I think it's a good idea to pray humbly for those who we worry about doctrinally (or any other way) ... that's probably why God lets us worry about others (to inspire prayer).
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is all very interesting, if a bit short on brotherly and sisterly love, but what has it got to do with saints-designate John Paul II and John XXIII?

Incidentally, if you are pope and canonised, are you known as Sts John Paul and John, or Sts Karol Wojtyła and Angelo Roncalli?

Is there a generation difference about how one sees John Paul II? For a lot of people my age, even non-Catholics like me, he epitomises resistance to the totalitarian dead hand of Marxist-Leninism, a totemic figure in the political redemption of Eastern Europe. A certain amount of traditional rigidity is merely an unfortunate but probably necessary bi-product of that. Many people younger than me seem to have forgotten or not to have appreciated quite how dreadful cold war Mitteleuropa was, how big and unbelievable a tectonic shift it was when the plates moved. Against that, assessing a pope by reference to his views on one or two DH topics seems a bit trivial. It's as though the cold war has become something romantic, 'spies in the rain'.
I think that, while his opposition to totalitarianism in Europe was laudable, his condoning of injustice in Latin America (largely because the rulers were right wing and the opposition left wing) was far less so. To me, and to many others, he appeared to be blinkered into thinking that anything opposed to socialism was automatically good, and anything related to socialism was automatically bad. That may not be an accurate picture of his views, but that's how it appeared.

As to your middle paragraph, surely St. Peter is the model here? He's not St. Simon, is he?
what right wing dictators did he support in Latin America?
When he was in Nicaragua, he rightly spoke about the pressure placed on the Church by the Sandinistas and I believe he was right to point out the extremes of liberation theology without once taking anything back about the Church's preferential option for the poor
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is all very interesting, if a bit short on brotherly and sisterly love, but what has it got to do with saints-designate John Paul II and John XXIII?

Incidentally, if you are pope and canonised, are you known as Sts John Paul and John, or Sts Karol Wojtyła and Angelo Roncalli?
*snip*
On the example of Pius X, we have Saint Pius X, not Saint Giuseppe Sarto.

I would be happier with J2P2 if they gave him a collect and other propers focussing on his poetry and other writing, which I think reflects more on his personal holiness than does his often-succesful political life.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
That's quite a fine line that I wouldnt trust any but the greatest saints not to keep mutually exclusive
Why? You've really only repeated the assertion- we can't seek to know and to worship at the same time. I want to know what the Eucharist is precisely because I'm awed by an act of God in my life and in the Church. I want to reach out to it with my mind as well as with my heart and hands.

Maybe you could start by clearly explaining what your problem with being "intellectual" is. For me thinking intellectually means little more than thinking of defintions and arguments in a coherent manner.
The kind of theorizing that academic lectures are the stuff of
As far as the saints , I meant an intellectual of the caliber of Aquinas and perhaps , of Nicholas Cabasilas, who were able to reflect on the Eucharist with the help of Grace
I don't think you , or most of us, are of the quality and balance of an Aquinas to reflect on these matters
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
That's quite a fine line that I wouldnt trust any but the greatest saints not to keep mutually exclusive
Why? You've really only repeated the assertion- we can't seek to know and to worship at the same time. I want to know what the Eucharist is precisely because I'm awed by an act of God in my life and in the Church. I want to reach out to it with my mind as well as with my heart and hands.

Maybe you could start by clearly explaining what your problem with being "intellectual" is. For me thinking intellectually means little more than thinking of defintions and arguments in a coherent manner.
The kind of theorizing that academic lectures are the stuff of
As far as the saints , I meant an intellectual of the caliber of Aquinas and perhaps , of Nicholas Cabasilas, who were able to reflect on the Eucharist with the help of Grace
I don't think you , or most of us, are of the quality and balance of an Aquinas to reflect on these matters
I still don't feel you've really said what is different about the intellectual mode, because "academic" has many of the same connotations as "intellectual," and why it is so ruinous to piety. What is it, precisely, about the intellectual/academic mode of thinking that we non-saints must avoid?

I can, and have, attended academic lectures on the Eucharist and have written papers about it, but I still managed to tremble in awe at the conclusion of Corpus Christi, when the congregation was blessed with the host. I was so overcome that I covered my face and felt unworthy to look at it. Moments before that I was joyfully singing "At the Lamb's High Feast We Sing" as the Host was paraded up and down Brimmer Street, even though I don't have a personality given to frequent expressions of joy. Are you saying I'm a saint for being able to do both? [Devil]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0