|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Excommunication
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Svitlana, I'm not saying what I think you imagine I'm saying. I agree with having creeds etc. However, as I see it, they provide a framework within which to work out and live by the underlying personal commitment and fealty, not the essence to which we are actually committed.
This is an interesting issue, because I think some Christians make less of a distinction between these two things than others appear to do.
In the mainstream Protestant churches we see the admirable figure of Jesus, our devotional focus, on the one hand, and all the difficult theological challenges of making the Bible relevant and meaningful in our modern, individualistic and secularised lives on the other.
However, I'm not convinced that all Christian denominations are so binary. I'd say that the Seventh Day Adventists, for example, see far less of a gap between Christ and Christian doctrine than this. In this approach, perhaps they're closer to the RCC than much of Protestantism is (although they deeply disapprove of the RCC).
As I think Chesterbelloc has said above, though, the RCC leadership has frequently failed at (or just been indifferent to) transmitting the 'essential' quality of some of its doctrines to its members, so when all is said and done I suppose it has to be pragmatic. In modern times this situation must be partly due to the chronic shortage of priests, but this surely couldn't have been the excuse in centuries past.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is it that you think that Jesus explicitly taught the "Catholic positions" on such cultural questions as being the will of God ?
Yes, sometimes directly. In the case of remarriage after divorce, for example.
As I understand it the current position of the Catholic church is that people cannot divorce, and that the church therefore judges their subsequent actions on the basis of them still being married to the original partner.
Whereas I believe that people should not divorce, that each individual's part in the death of a marriage is something that should be repented. But that once it has been repented and forgiven, what God requires of them is that they try to do better in whatever subsequent relationship they enter into.
I put it to you that an act of interpretation is required to get to either position from the recorded words of Jesus, and that neither was "explicitly taught" by Him.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
people can make an idol of their own ideal of democracy every bit as much as people can and have made one of monarchy.
What does it mean to make an idol of monarchy ? What's the difference between that and merely thinking it the best system of government that humanity has so far come up with ?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
why the heck would non-Catholics who have rejected the Church's definition of herself believe that there was any such thing?
You've said that you believe in a doctrine of authority. And that you see this doctrine as necessary (Christianity without it is pollarded) and sufficient (in that once you believe that the rest follows). I think what you're saying here is that this doctrine of authority is so central to Catholicism that anyone who rejects it (and you agree that there are people to whom this is so unpalatable that they would be deeply unhappy as part of an organisation run on this basis) has no serious or legitimate interest in the Catholic church. That they have already considered and rejected all that the church has to offer.
But it isn't so. I suggest that many non-convert Catholics would locate the centre of their faith elsewhere. In the eucharist, in prayer to Jesus and Mary, in being part of a tradition that stretches back to the earliest apostles.
So it is entirely possible to be attracted to Catholic faith, to see within the thicket a pearl of great price, without accepting the authority doctrine in the particular form in which you believe it.
What I was saying earlier, and saying badly, was that if the Catholic church comes to stand for authoritarian conservatism, instead of standing for Christ and only for Christ, then it will attract the sort of convert who is looking for certainty in a changing world. And such converts might well place a doctrine of authority at the centre... (probably still said badly...)
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In your analogy of the one true golf course, the official golfers really do have a monopoly on golf because they have what everyone would have to accept as the only golf course - it's self-evident, because they're all working from the same definition of golf and golf course and it is empirically obvious that there is only one.
You're right that whether there is only one valid church is a matter of belief and not an observable fact.
But if the principle I'm putting forward - that monopoly creates an obligation to meet the needs of everyone - is right, then the obligation is on those who believe they have a monopoly.
Expanding the analogy to take in the aspect of belief, it is those members of the golf club committee who don't know about any secret underground golf course who are morally obliged to vote not to exclude anyone from what they believe to be the only course in the country.
If one of them finds out that there is a secret underground golf course, that lets him off the hook; he can then vote that the club should pick and choose who they want as their members (ie exercise their freedom of association) in the knowledge that there is another option available for everyone else.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is it that you think that Jesus explicitly taught the "Catholic positions" on such cultural questions as being the will of God ?
Yes, sometimes directly. In the case of remarriage after divorce, for example.
As I understand it the current position of the Catholic church is that people cannot divorce, and that the church therefore judges their subsequent actions on the basis of them still being married to the original partner.
People cannot dissolve their sacramentally valid marriages, no - but Catholics can (with permission from the Church) separate and divorce civilly whilst still being bound to continence and to respecting the bond of their marriage. If they think there are grounds for the marriage being declared null (i.e., to have suffered an impediment from the beginning) they can ask the Church to conduct annulment procedures.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I put it to you that an act of interpretation is required to get to either position from the recorded words of Jesus, and that neither was "explicitly taught" by Him.
The whole Catholic argument for this has been rehashed on the boards so many time previously that I'm not willing to go through it all again. As far as Catholics are concerned, whatever interpretive authority is required belongs to the Church - and I really don't think it takes any kind of stretch.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
people can make an idol of their own ideal of democracy every bit as much as people can and have made one of monarchy.
What does it mean to make an idol of monarchy ? What's the difference between that and merely thinking it the best system of government that humanity has so far come up with ?
People can become much to devoted to a particular form of government - of whatever type - on personal or ideological grounds, to the neglect of the purpose of government in the first place. Leo XIII upset quite a few French Catholic monarchists about this when he instructed the French Church to accept the legitimacy of the Third Republic.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
why the heck would non-Catholics who have rejected the Church's definition of herself believe that there was any such thing?
You've said that you believe in a doctrine of authority.
Yes - the doctrine that the Church has been given the authority to teach the faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And that you see this doctrine as necessary (Christianity without it is pollarded) and sufficient (in that once you believe that the rest follows).
Well, what I'd say is that if you do not think that the Church has the legitimate authority to teach definitively on faith and morals, you couldn't accept the Church on her own terms.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think what you're saying here is that this doctrine of authority is so central to Catholicism that anyone who rejects it (and you agree that there are people to whom this is so unpalatable that they would be deeply unhappy as part of an organisation run on this basis) has no serious or legitimate interest in the Catholic church. That they have already considered and rejected all that the church has to offer.
It's not so much an "authority" issue as it is a more basic thing - it's a basic identity issue. The Church is the body (His own Body) to whom Christ entrusted the teaching of the faith and the care of souls. That's what she IS. If you don't accept her as that, then you don't really accept her at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But it isn't so. I suggest that many non-convert Catholics would locate the centre of their faith elsewhere. In the eucharist, in prayer to Jesus and Mary, in being part of a tradition that stretches back to the earliest apostles.
So it is entirely possible to be attracted to Catholic faith, to see within the thicket a pearl of great price, without accepting the authority doctrine in the particular form in which you believe it.
So, if I rejected Islam's most central claims - that there is no God but Allah (as portrayed in the Qu'ran) and that Mohammad is his ultimate prophet - but really connected with Muslim meditative practice, the moral teachings, the aesthetic of Mosque worship and felt at home with other Muslims, could I really convert to Islam as such?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What I was saying earlier, and saying badly, was that if the Catholic church comes to stand for authoritarian conservatism, instead of standing for Christ and only for Christ, then it will attract the sort of convert who is looking for certainty in a changing world. And such converts might well place a doctrine of authority at the centre... (probably still said badly...)
Your "authoritarian conservatism" thing is a complete red herring. You could say the same of any body that had minimum entry requirements, of any religion that had minimum belief requirements - if they are presented as core teachings they too could be considered as authoritarian and conservative by the same token. It's just that you don't like some of the things the Church teaches consistently and authoritatively (words much less loaded than your "conservative" and "authoritarian"). And - once more for fun - no one has to believe them. Really - the Inquisition's not gonna getcha. Feel free to do your own thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But if the principle I'm putting forward - that monopoly creates an obligation to meet the needs of everyone - is right, then the obligation is on those who believe they have a monopoly.
The obligation those who think they have a monopoly on a given thing have is to offer everyone what they have - but they must offer what they have intact, the whole thing, not what lesser or distorted amendment of their thing they think most people will put up with. Because the monopoly the Church has is not her own - it is her Lord's and she daren't tamper with it, even if her very existence is at stake.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you think that membership of your church is an ordinary requirement* for salvation, then what you require as conditions of membership should be exactly coterminous with what you think it is usually necessary to do to be saved. […] It is, of course, open to you to say that the RCC does just that.
And I'm afraid that that is what I do claim.
I thought you might – and I can see a plausible argument for it. Christian salvation (which is the usual method for salvation that God has ordained – though I think neither of us are limiting what he can or might do) means trusting in the work and person of Jesus Christ, and trusting him implies at least some attempt to learn and obey his teachings, and those teachings are to be found most clearly in the Church he established: therefore faithful membership of the Church is, at least for those who understand that his teachings are to be found there, compulsory for those who would be saved.
I just don’t think it’s as simple as that in practice. Once you make assent to the teaching authority of the Church a salvation matter, any teaching that could potentially keep me out of the Church because I can’t accept it becomes a salvation matter – even if it is a relatively minor thing in itself – because it’s keeping me from (what you believe is) the primary source of God’s grace. That, I think (and I think Russ is arguing as well) ought to put some responsibility on the Church to ask, of all of its teachings, not just that whether you are sure that they are true, but whether you are sure that they are so vital to the faith that a convert is required to promise to accept them.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If I converted to Catholicism I’d have to declare that I accepted everything that the Church teaches. As there’s a lot that I can’t and don’t accept, that’s not a promise I can make.
Yes, not one by one, but simply to declare that you accept the authority of the Church to teach what the Church does teach, at the level it teaches it.
I think this shows a difference in personal approach. If I were serious asking whether I ought to become a Catholic (and I have) it would seem obvious to me that what I ought to do would be to acquire a copy of the Catechism and read it to see, in detail, one by one, all of the doctrines that I’d be signing up for (which is what I did). It wouldn’t occur to me to promise to accept the general authority of the Church before I’d done that.
Therefore the specific, individual teachings are certainly a barrier to my conversion to Catholicism. I couldn’t, for example, honestly promise to accept what the Church teaches if I knew that there’s a fair chance I might in the future make a wilful and untroubled choice to use contraception. That’s not because contraception is itself a big thing – it’s just that because on this relatively minor point I know that I certainly don’t accept what the Church teaches (I don’t believe it’s true as a matter of conviction, and I’m not going to live as if I did as a matter of discipline) I could not honestly make the promise that would be required of me if I sought membership.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's not making a magic "press the button, now I believe!" decision, but rather to respect the Church's authority to teach what she does and not openly to oppose your opinion to it. In short, to admit that your opinion is fallible in the way the Church's definitive teaches are not.
OK, but I can’t simultaneously believe the Church to be both infallible and wrong. I know that I’m fallible – that’s not the issue – but if I know that the Church teaches one tiny thing that seems to me to be plainly erroneous, then that one tiny thing that I’m convinced is a error is enough to stop me from saying that I accept all that the Church teaches. And if Church membership is needed to save me, that tiny thing is what’s keeping me out.
That the RCC knows more about the faith than I do is, of course, a given, and it follows from that only as a rebuttable presumption that if the RCC and I disagree, the RCC is right. It doesn’t mean that the Church is infallible.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The Church teaches what it teaches; it does so with a concern for the truth, and never with a concern to divide itself from others. Those already outside the Catholic Church who cannot accept what she teaches are not being "cut off" from the Church by anything she has done.
OK. I’m not really wanting to ascribe blame for Christian division on this thread, and I’m quite willing to accept that the intent is not to be divisive. I’m more concerned to make the point from an outsider’s perspective that things like the remarriage issue, or contraception, or various Dead Horses, are real obstacles to unity, whether you mean them to be or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Unless you already think Catholicism has authority over other Christians, why not just tell the Church politely to piss of and do your own thing - something which to them is just as much "golf" as what the Church plays? The vast majority of non-Catholics really don't seem to have a problem doing just that.
If so, the vast majority of non-Catholics are wrong.
I don’t think there’s a binary choice between “infallible” and “no authority”. The RCC, because it is numerically large, ancient, mostly faithful to tradition, intellectually rigorous, and home to innumerable saints, living and dead, in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, clearly has authority. It seems to me to be obvious that where Christians disagree, what the RCC says must be seriously considered as a strong option. The Catholic Church is highly unlikely to apostasise – what it teaches must at the very least be presumed to be consistent with Christian faith. The arguments Catholics put forward for the general authority of their Church have real merit.
And clearly I can say that and not accept that the RCC must be infallible. I can say that and still think on such-and-such an issue, an error has been crystallised into the Catholic tradition. And if I do think that, I can’t say I accept all that the Church teaches and therefore I can’t become a Catholic.
That’s the point. It’s not as easy as telling the Catholic Church to piss off.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
posed by Eliab
The RCC, because it is numerically large, ancient, mostly faithful to tradition, intellectually rigorous, and home to innumerable saints, living and dead, in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, clearly has authority.
That is my opinion too, and I think you expressed it well.
In addition to which, even the most Protestant of Protestants would do well to ask themselves what there would have to been to Reform if the Catholic and Orthodox churches had not witnessed to the Christian faith for 1500 years.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Anglicans with Anglo-Catholic tendencies might be concerned, but I don't know if other Christians would necessarily be all that bothered about what the RCC teaches. Fostering positive ecumenical relations is more important on a local level, if your church is into that sort of thing.
If you're a student of End Time prophecies, or just follow current affairs, then the doings of the RCC are of interest, of course. But I always think it's a bit weird how non-RC national leaders and random celebrities want (and get) to have an audience with the Pope. It's PR - but which 'public' is meant to be impressed?
The current pope seems like a good man, but the vague assumption that he's become the world's priest, or that the RCC somehow has to satisfy the spiritual demands of the all world's Christians, or some other global audience that's not RC, strikes me as rather problematic.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Christian salvation (which is the usual method for salvation that God has ordained – though I think neither of us are limiting what he can or might do) means trusting in the work and person of Jesus Christ, and trusting him implies at least some attempt to learn and obey his teachings, and those teachings are to be found most clearly in the Church he established: therefore faithful membership of the Church is, at least for those who understand that his teachings are to be found there, compulsory for those who would be saved.
Yes, this.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I just don’t think it’s as simple as that in practice. Once you make assent to the teaching authority of the Church a salvation matter, any teaching that could potentially keep me out of the Church because I can’t accept it becomes a salvation matter – even if it is a relatively minor thing in itself – because it’s keeping me from (what you believe is) the primary source of God’s grace. That, I think (and I think Russ is arguing as well) ought to put some responsibility on the Church to ask, of all of its teachings, not just that whether you are sure that they are true, but whether you are sure that they are so vital to the faith that a convert is required to promise to accept them.
Again, I think this is to get the idea the wrong way round. The "lexically prior" question is whether the Church enjoys both the authority of Christ to teach His people and in some circumstances to do so bindingly - often to settle disputed issues. That's got to come first. The alternative would be that every time the Church taught something definitively (and not every matter is settled in this way by a very long chalk) there'd have to be a protracted debate about about this settled matters bindingly for everyone. It was precisely in order to give this assurance to His people through the Church that they could avoid being led astray in faith and morals that Christ gave this authority to the Church (so we believe) in the first place.
The question then - and only then - becomes, "What does the Church definitively teach (if anything) about X?". And she either does teach with authority or she doesn't. The Church does not arbitrarily pick things to teach as it pleases her. Whatever is definitively taught will have been through the most rigorous and time-tested process of discernment and debate, sounded against the Apostolic deposit. After that, any Catholic is obliged to give due assent, no matter how much they personally have trouble reaching the same conclusion for themselves.
This does not mean that peolple who do not see why the Church is right about any particular matter, or who personally have reached a different conclusion, may not still become Catholics - it means only that to do so they must lay their own contrary opinions/actions to the side (to commit to not insisting upon them) so as not to let them be impediments to putting themselves in faith under the Church's teaching. It's a big ask, no doubt, but it is all that is asked.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I couldn’t, for example, honestly promise to accept what the Church teaches if I knew that there’s a fair chance I might in the future make a wilful and untroubled choice to use contraception. That’s not because contraception is itself a big thing – it’s just that because on this relatively minor point I know that I certainly don’t accept what the Church teaches (I don’t believe it’s true as a matter of conviction, and I’m not going to live as if I did as a matter of discipline) I could not honestly make the promise that would be required of me if I sought membership.
Well, that's honest and principled and shows a great deal of "good faith". In fact, what the Church would require of you, as I said above, is not to somehow invent a conviction that you don't have but always to leave open the possibilty of acquiring one whilst committing to try to live in this matter as the Church teaches you ought to. And, should that fail, to take it to the confessional before receiving the sacraments again. If this is not something that you cannot commit to, then it would indeed be an obstacle to your becoming a Catholic because you could not commit not to resisting her teaching.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's not making a magic "press the button, now I believe!" decision, but rather to respect the Church's authority to teach what she does and not openly to oppose your opinion to it. In short, to admit that your opinion is fallible in the way the Church's definitive teaches are not.
OK, but I can’t simultaneously believe the Church to be both infallible and wrong. I know that I’m fallible – that’s not the issue – but if I know that the Church teaches one tiny thing that seems to me to be plainly erroneous, then that one tiny thing that I’m convinced is a error is enough to stop me from saying that I accept all that the Church teaches. And if Church membership is needed to save me, that tiny thing is what’s keeping me out.
It's not so very tiny if you cannot agree that the Church is an authoritative teacher with regard to faith and morals. To believe that you know that the Church has got one of her definitive teachings wrong is to put your judgement before her doctrinal authority. In which case, why would you trust her on other things?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That the RCC knows more about the faith than I do is, of course, a given, and it follows from that only as a rebuttable presumption that if the RCC and I disagree, the RCC is right. It doesn’t mean that the Church is infallible.
She herself only claims to be so when she teaches definitively on matters of faith and morals, of course. By what criterion do you judge her to be wrong on a given issue? If you admit that she would be the better judge if her teaching differed from your own personal judgement, you're not so very far from believing in her authority to be what is commonly called infallible. But, again, denying outright that her judgements could in principle be infallible would put you beyond being able to be received as a Catholic.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The Church teaches what it teaches; it does so with a concern for the truth, and never with a concern to divide itself from others. Those already outside the Catholic Church who cannot accept what she teaches are not being "cut off" from the Church by anything she has done.
OK. I’m not really wanting to ascribe blame for Christian division on this thread, and I’m quite willing to accept that the intent is not to be divisive. I’m more concerned to make the point from an outsider’s perspective that things like the remarriage issue, or contraception, or various Dead Horses, are real obstacles to unity, whether you mean them to be or not.
But they are not obstacles which the Catholic Church has erected (or which she believes are removable by her recanting them). They are mainly on issues about which almost all Christian bodies agreed until the day before yesterday. The Church can help to remove the obstacle by explaining the teaching and entering into dialogue with those who differ. But they are not hers to lay aside - they are out-workings of (her understanding of) the deposit of faith. [Remember that the Church has just spent the last couple of years wrangling over whether her own teaching about divorce, remarriage and communion could be nuanced or tweaked in any way whist still being true to the deposit of faith only to conclude (effectively) that it cannot.]
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Unless you already think Catholicism has authority over other Christians, why not just tell the Church politely to piss of and do your own thing - something which to them is just as much "golf" as what the Church plays? The vast majority of non-Catholics really don't seem to have a problem doing just that.
If so, the vast majority of non-Catholics are wrong.
I don’t think there’s a binary choice between “infallible” and “no authority”.
But there is a distiction between "always infallible in all her utterances and proclamations" and "enjoys the infallibility given her by Christ when teaching solemnly on matters of faith and morals". If she is not at least occasionally guaranteed to be right, I'm not sure the idea that she has divine authority means very much.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The RCC, because it is numerically large, ancient, mostly faithful to tradition, intellectually rigorous, and home to innumerable saints, living and dead, in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, clearly has authority. It seems to me to be obvious that where Christians disagree, what the RCC says must be seriously considered as a strong option. The Catholic Church is highly unlikely to apostasise – what it teaches must at the very least be presumed to be consistent with Christian faith. The arguments Catholics put forward for the general authority of their Church have real merit.
Naturally, I agree. But I'm not sure most non-Catholics would - not by a long chalk.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And clearly I can say that and not accept that the RCC must be infallible.
And when would you know that she was authoritatively right about something as opposed to authoritative but wrong about it?
I can say that and still think on such-and-such an issue, an error has been crystallised into the Catholic tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And if I do think that, I can’t say I accept all that the Church teaches and therefore I can’t become a Catholic.
If you think that an error about a serious matter of faith or morals has been not just committed but become a part of her then you clearly cannot do that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
The following sentence, which got itself muddled up with my deathless prose, is actually Eliab's: quote:
I can say that and still think on such-and-such an issue, an error has been crystallised into the Catholic tradition.
Terribly sorry.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Again, I think this is to get the idea the wrong way round. The "lexically prior" question is whether the Church enjoys both the authority of Christ to teach His people and in some circumstances to do so bindingly - often to settle disputed issues. That's got to come first. The alternative would be that every time the Church taught something definitively (and not every matter is settled in this way by a very long chalk) there'd have to be a protracted debate about about this settled matters bindingly for everyone. It was precisely in order to give this assurance to His people through the Church that they could avoid being led astray in faith and morals that Christ gave this authority to the Church (so we believe) in the first place.
The question then - and only then - becomes, "What does the Church definitively teach (if anything) about X?". And she either does teach with authority or she doesn't. The Church does not arbitrarily pick things to teach as it pleases her. Whatever is definitively taught will have been through the most rigorous and time-tested process of discernment and debate, sounded against the Apostolic deposit. After that, any Catholic is obliged to give due assent, no matter how much they personally have trouble reaching the same conclusion for themselves.
This does not mean that peolple who do not see why the Church is right about any particular matter, or who personally have reached a different conclusion, may not still become Catholics - it means only that to do so they must lay their own contrary opinions/actions to the side (to commit to not insisting upon them) so as not to let them be impediments to putting themselves in faith under the Church's teaching. It's a big ask, no doubt, but it is all that is asked.
This really does sound like "But the Catholic Church isn't asking for you to agree with a lot of things - they're ONLY asking for you to agree that they're correct on all matters of faith and morals. That's only ONE thing! So it's quite simple, really."
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Given that I've been at pains to distinguish what is and is not required of those wishing to become Catholics, and that I have been quite clear that the former is not (usually) at all easy, I don't think the tone of your paraphrase of my position is entirely fair, St Deird.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
You're right, Chesterbelloc. Apologies. I guess I'm a bit sensitive about this topic.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Thanks, St Deird - it is indeed a neuralgic issue.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But they are not obstacles which the Catholic Church has erected (or which she believes are removable by her recanting them). They are mainly on issues about which almost all Christian bodies agreed until the day before yesterday. The Church can help to remove the obstacle by explaining the teaching and entering into dialogue with those who differ.
I would agree to the extent that before WW2 even in Britain most people went to church. Divorce was rarer than hen's teeth. Only "loose" people knew anything about contraception and being gay was universally regarded as aberrant. But don't forget that we were once involved in slavery and genocide. Go back further and we sacrificed animals. Go back even further and we sacrificed virgins and children for an "unstained" offering. In other words our understanding, as a society, evolves as prosperity evolves. I have little doubt that in extreme times, what we call civilisation would break down, and we would return to the savagery from whence we came.
Yet these moral issues which the Catholic Church still sees as "objectively" sinful, have for the rest of society, become part of our growing awareness that a compassionate understanding of the realities of peoples lives is infinitely more valuable than a set of rules used to exclude people from a complete relationship with God. If we are lucky, even our own consciousness as individual human beings can evolve. Now in my early 60's, I'm sometimes horrified when I think of some of the attitudes I held 40 years ago. Like people, enlightened societies move away from prejudice, exclusion and excessive moralistic judging.
The fact that most of our churches, along with the rest of our culture, have progressed from the position which the Catholic Church still holds, can only be positive for the people who live here.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Apart from the fact that I reject your "progressive", Whiggish view of human nature/history, Paul, your post is not relevant to the point I was making.
I was merely pointing out, in response to the idea that Catholic teachings on DH issues have created obstacles to unity with other Christians, that the obstacles were not of the Church's making. She continues to teach what she always did; others have "moved on" from that. Whoever is in the right, the differences are only obstacles because non-Catholic Christians have come to treat them as such.
[ 03. June 2016, 14:45: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
people can make an idol of their own ideal of democracy every bit as much as people can and have made one of monarchy.
What does it mean to make an idol of monarchy ? What's the difference between that and merely thinking it the best system of government that humanity has so far come up with ?
People can become much too devoted to a particular form of government... ...to the neglect of the purpose of government in the first place.
If I've understood you aright, you're answering my question by putting forward a general principle that attachment to a particular form or structure of government (and more generally to a particular way of doing things, a particular culture) becomes idolatrous at the point where it gets in the way of the original purpose of government (or the original purpose of doing things).
And that's an answer, a straight answer, and an answer I can see the sense of. So thank you.
So if the purpose of the Catholic church is to bring souls to Christ - the great commission - then the Catholic church's attachment to its own structures and culture and ways of doing things is idolatrous if and only if it gets in the way of evangelisation ?
But you're telling us of your doctrine of authority
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
anyone who cannot do that - or would think it an impossible indignity to their own intellect to do so - would, it seems to me, almost certainly be deeply unhappy as a Catholic.
Is that not getting in the way of the purpose of the Catholic church ?
If you hold two propositions, caricatured as
A="Jesus saves" &
B="the Vatican is always right"
then there are at least 4 groups of people:
- those can be persuaded to A and B (the good Catholics)
- those attracted to A and repelled by B (democratically-minded Christians everywhere)
- those attracted to B and not A (those desperately seeking certainty, who can come to accept A on Vatican authority)
- those who reject both A and B.
Now I don't have any problem with you choosing to hang out with the first group, and saying "feel free to do your own thing; you've rejected all we have to offer" to the last group. The difficulty is the middle two. Does the Catholic church stand for A or for B where there's a tension between them ?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
what I'd say is that if you do not think that the Church has the legitimate authority to teach definitively on faith and morals, you couldn't accept the Church on her own terms.
I've heard a version of the "doctrine of authority" which says that when the Pope preaches the consensus of the faithful then this is authoritative (but when he just gives his own opinion, it isn't).
When the message from the Vatican and the general sense of the faithful are at odds, as seems to be the case on the matter of the church's treatment of remarried people, then I'd see it as a misuse of language to claim either position as being the definitive teaching of the Church. If the conflicting emphases can be resolved, a definitive teaching may perhaps emerge.
Stubborn refusal to countenance change is part of the conservative impulse in humankind. There's nothing Christian about it.
Jesus did not teach that we should be corporate yes-men, pretending to agree with whatever word comes down from head office regardless of our reservations. Christianity is supposed to be about speaking up for what is true and good, if necessary in opposition to those with institutional power and authority. Rendering to Caesar, and all that.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your "authoritarian conservatism" thing is a complete red herring.
No. I'm hearing what you're saying as gratifying those parts of the psyche which are conservative or authoritarian. And not as emerging from a concern for goodness and truth (i.e. God) or from love of neighbour.
Maybe it's a cultural barrier ? And no I'm not quite sure what one of those looks like.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
it's a basic identity issue. The Church is the body (His own Body) to whom Christ entrusted the teaching of the faith and the care of souls. That's what she IS. If you don't accept her as that, then you don't really accept her at all.
The institution that is the Catholic church can claim organisational continuity with the early Church. But that is not the same as identity with the early Church. Do you not recognise the history of division as a falling-short from what Jesus wanted of his followers ?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
So, if I rejected Islam's most central claims...
What I'm suggesting to you is that your doctrine of authority is not quite as central as that. The resurrection is central. Eucharist is central. Forgiveness is central...
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The obligation those who think they have a monopoly on a given thing have is to offer everyone what they have - but they must offer what they have intact, the whole thing
So the only golf club should say to the female wannabe-golfers something like "part of the experience of golf as we play it is the all-masculine atmosphere. We couldn't possibly offer you less than the whole experience intact. So get lost" ??
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Apart from the fact that I reject your "progressive", Whiggish view of human nature/history, Paul, your post is not relevant to the point I was making.
You are perfectly entitled to reject anything I say, but as you were talking about obstacles to unity, my post was perfectly relevant to that question. The biggest obstacle to unity is expecting all other Christians to believe exactly what you believe. The Orthodox are the worst for that, Catholics next. No one was expecting Pope Francis to say that the Church has been talking bollocks for hundreds of years, only to hope that he may have come up with a pastorally more sensitive way of doing things.
Making definitions and expecting everyone else to agree to the letter is the source of all division in the Church. Take the Eucharist. At its most basic level it's a thanksgiving in response to Christ's command "Do this in remembrance of me." The Catholic Church has added many layers to that. Orthodox and High Church Anglicans would assent to the Real Presence, but may stop short of the definition of the double miracle of transubstantiation. To insist that you can't be in communion with anyone who doesn't precisely share your complex definition is divisive on your part, not theirs, especially if they are quite willing to welcome you to the Lord's Table.
This may be another DH issue, but putting up barriers based on expecting everyone to completely agree with you is a violation of Christ's command that we be one. You took umbrage when St Deird said the same.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I can't see unity emerging from trying to grind church teachings down to the lowest common denominator. Most people would find that boring. In any case, there are already denominations devoted to being very broad. None of them is as large as the RCC.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Catholics would, or should, never say 'The Vatican is always right' That is a travesty of Catholic belief.
In safeguarding the teachings of Christ the Church(not the Vatican ) has ,Catholics believe, certain guarantees
that it will not ,in Christ's name' teach error.
These essential teachings about love for God and love for our neighbour are what the Catholic Church , just like many other Christian and non-Christian groups aspires towards.
For faithful Catholics the teachings of the Church are not just 'our' teachings which can be traded up or down with other groups. They are attempts ( and sometimes inadequate attempts ) to explain what cannot always be explained.
This is where a Catholic, just as indeed any other religiously minded person, has ultimately to make what Catholics call 'an Act of Faith.' It is what Chesterbelloc is, I think, hinting at when he indicates that the profession of the Catholic faith is not a simple check list of dogmas to be believed, but ultimately a belief and trust in the Lord Jesus and a belief and trust that the Church has been commissioned to go into the whole world and preach the Gospel, Jesus being with her always.
As human beings with sometimes limited understanding ( and that includes also celibate or indeed also non-celibate churchmen ) we cannot always find it possible to understand, or to agree to follow the teachings of the Church but then we must try to come back to the core teachings of love of God and love of our neighbour. God, who has created us out of love and destined us for eternal happiness with Him will understand our imperfections.
If we don't believe in eternal life then Christianity ceases to be a religion and becomes a philosophy and that is a different kettle of fish.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I can't see unity emerging from trying to grind church teachings down to the lowest common denominator. Most people would find that boring. In any case, there are already denominations devoted to being very broad. None of them is as large as the RCC.
I don't think anyone has suggested finding unity by bringing church teachings down to the lowest common denominator. I think where the tension is—and where different groups of Christians disagree (and some Protestant groups can be much more strict, if that's the right word, on this than the RCC)—has to do with identifying the non-negotiables on which agreement is necessary for unity, and the things on which Christians can legitimately disagree without breaking unity or communion with one another. In the words of Archbishop Marco Antonio de Dominis, in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("in necessary things unity, in uncertain things freedom, in everything charity"). Saying that something is uncertain (or non-essential) doesn't mean a church can't have teachings and positions on it. It just means that one does not break unity or communion with the church by holding a different opinion on that subject.
The rub, of course, comes in distinguishing between the necessary (or essential) things and the uncertain (or non-essential) things.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
For me, unity at the local ecumenical level is enough. At that level, I've never been made to feel like a 'lesser Christian' by RCs. No, you can't take communion with them, but so long as you're aware of that, and so long as ecumenical worship is carefully organised so as not to cause embarrassment, then it's not a huge problem. Almost every denomination has a few weird ways that others can't or won't fit in with!
Complete theological and institutional Christian unity is fantasy land. And again, it would probably be very boring.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For me, unity at the local ecumenical level is enough. At that level, I've never been made to feel like a 'lesser Christian' by RCs. No, you can't take communion with them, but so long as you're aware of that, and so long as ecumenical worship is carefully organised so as not to cause embarrassment, then it's not a huge problem.
Perhaps not for you, but for many it is. For many, inability to take communion in one another's churches is by definition lack of unity, while ability to take communion in one another's churches is the expression of unity.
quote:
Complete theological and institutional Christian unity is fantasy land. And again, it would probably be very boring.
And again, complete theological and institutional unity is not necessarily what is being suggested.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Complete theological and institutional Christian unity is fantasy land. And again, it would probably be very boring.
Boring? Like everyone agreeing that the world is round* is boring?
I completely fail to understand this statement. Everyone having the same style might be boring, but diversity in theology just means that we don't know what we're doing. Will we ever all agree short of the second coming? Maybe not - it's easy to demonstrate that the Earth is round, but it's hard to demonstrate that women can (or can't) be priests in the same way. But the fact that some of us think women can be priests and some of us think they can't be priests just means that some of us are wrong. It wouldn't be "boring" is we all got it right.
Repeat for all the other divisions amongst us...
*yeah, yeah - oblate spheriod with terrain...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But the fact that some of us think women can be priests and some of us think they can't be priests just means that some of us are wrong. It wouldn't be "boring" is we all got it right.
I believe it is right in a British context. In other contexts cultural sensitivity is required, it is all part of being all things to all people.
Being right is overrated.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Nick Tamen
FWIW, it could be argued that if we all came to share the same theology of communion, including who can and who can't participate in it, that would be a significant step in the direction of theological unity.
The RC is in a paradoxical situation, though. It's the largest denomination on earth, yet at the same time it's accused of not being inclusive enough. Its size, status and cohesiveness are what draws the world's attention to it, but they're also the very things that make the church seem out of step with the world.
It'll be interesting to see what happens with the RCC in future. PaulTH* says:
quote:
Making definitions and expecting everyone else to agree to the letter is the source of all division in the Church.
Should the RCC ever decide to cut back on 'definitions' it would surely be a very different institution from what it is today. To many that'd be a good thing, but the question is whether it would still 'feel' like the RCC to the majority of its members. And would non-RCs find the RCC as interesting if its distinctive qualities were fewer?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If I've understood you aright, you're answering my question by putting forward a general principle that attachment to a particular form or structure of government (and more generally to a particular way of doing things, a particular culture) becomes idolatrous at the point where it gets in the way of the original purpose of government (or the original purpose of doing things).
When in the field of purely contingent political models, yes. Whe talking of the divine constitution of the Church, not so much.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So if the purpose of the Catholic church is to bring souls to Christ - the great commission - then the Catholic church's attachment to its own structures and culture and ways of doing things is idolatrous if and only if it gets in the way of evangelisation ?
Can we drop the "culture" thing? We're not communicating well with one another on that one. Suffice it to say that I hold nothing that is purely, contingently cultural to be necessary for salvation, even if some such things are highly desireable and useful models - proven best practise, as it were. Thing is, I don't see the Church forcing any such thing on people as a matter of savation.
So the answer to your question is, it entirely depends on what counts as "structures and culture". If under that heading you're classing apostolic, episcopal governance under the successor of Peter, then clearly I'm not going to be agreeing.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But you're telling us of your doctrine of authority
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
anyone who cannot do that - or would think it an impossible indignity to their own intellect to do so - would, it seems to me, almost certainly be deeply unhappy as a Catholic.
Is that not getting in the way of the purpose of the Catholic church ?
No.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you hold two propositions, caricatured as
A="Jesus saves" &
B="the Vatican is always right"
then there are at least 4 groups of people:
- those can be persuaded to A and B (the good Catholics)
- those attracted to A and repelled by B (democratically-minded Christians everywhere)
- those attracted to B and not A (those desperately seeking certainty, who can come to accept A on Vatican authority)
- those who reject both A and B.
Now I don't have any problem with you choosing to hang out with the first group, and saying "feel free to do your own thing; you've rejected all we have to offer" to the last group. The difficulty is the middle two. Does the Catholic church stand for A or for B where there's a tension between them ?
This whole section makes no sense to me. First, "the Vatican is always right" is not something which is Catholic doctrine by a long chalk (think white cliffs of Dover). Secondly, you can't beg the question by just assuming (if this is what you are doing) that any defined teaching of the Church actually is in conflict your A. Certainly, for Catholics, nothing the Church teaches definitively could possibly be in conflict with so fundamental (if vaguely expressed) a doctrine as Jesus's salvific ministry.
Also, you imply that there are people out there who reject Jesus but fly to the Church for "certainty". I find such a notion borderline incomprehensible. What are they seeking certainty about if not about salvation through Jesus? And do they not know that "the Vatican" (which according to your scenario is always right) teaches that Jesus does indeed save? Who are these people? Really, I think that's all I can coherently say about that one.
WRT those "democratically-minded Christians everywhere" (I see what you did there) who accept A but reject B, they are people we do want to talk to because - pace leo upthread - we are and always must be mission-minded.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I've heard a version of the "doctrine of authority" which says that when the Pope preaches the consensus of the faithful then this is authoritative (but when he just gives his own opinion, it isn't).
Then I can only imagine that you've heard a completely muddled version of the notion of the sensus fidei/fidelium (I particularly draw your attention to paragraphs 77 and 80).
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Stubborn refusal to countenance change is part of the conservative impulse in humankind. There's nothing Christian about it.
I just love this unthinking "mutatiophilia" (my coinage, I think: unquestioning preferance for change over continuity). It cannot be news to you that some changes - yea, even in religion - can be very, very bad. To the extent that the "conservative impulse" can help us conserve genuinely good stuff and keep us from losing it, it can be a very, very good thing. Dare I say, a very Chritian thing - holding on to the truth as passed down from the Apostles? This is in fact the primary job of a bishop - to hold fast to the truths of the faith and to pass them on faithfully. There are criteria for what can and cannot change in the Church - Bl. John Henry Newman's concept of the Development of Doctrine is a handy guide - but outright contradiction of previously defined teaching can never be on the cards.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Jesus did not teach that we should be corporate yes-men, pretending to agree with whatever word comes down from head office regardless of our reservations. Christianity is supposed to be about speaking up for what is true and good, if necessary in opposition to those with institutional power and authority. Rendering to Caesar, and all that.
Leaving aside you gloss of the Caesar passage, the Church asks no-one to pretend anything. She asks for submission to the truth as she (believes she has) received it. Anyone - including a member of the hierachy, from the Pope down - can teach falsely or misleadingly and then the job of all the faithful is to protest and resist. But the conditions for that discernment and resisitance (amongst others, that there has been a clear departure from previously defined doctrine) are more difficult to meet than you'd like.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm hearing what you're saying as gratifying those parts of the psyche which are conservative or authoritarian. And not as emerging from a concern for goodness and truth (i.e. God) or from love of neighbour.
Then I put it to you that you are not listening very carefully - and I don't know if that has anything to do with culture or not. One could argue that a certain conservative and authoritative (which AGAIN I am distinguishing from your "authoritarian") structure is a part of the apostolic deposit itself - a duty to keep the faith as handed down and to teach it and defend it with authority (an authority granted by Christ Himself).
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
it's a basic identity issue. The Church is the body (His own Body) to whom Christ entrusted the teaching of the faith and the care of souls. That's what she IS. If you don't accept her as that, then you don't really accept her at all.
The institution that is the Catholic church can claim organisational continuity with the early Church. But that is not the same as identity with the early Church.
In fact I'm arguing that it is: the same identity that I as a grey and pasty adult have with the blond and cheeky chappie I was as a child.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you not recognise the history of division as a falling-short from what Jesus wanted of his followers ?
Yes - very much so.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What I'm suggesting to you is that your doctrine of authority is not quite as central as that. The resurrection is central. Eucharist is central. Forgiveness is central...
We can argue about what things are more or less "central" - but a more pertinent discussion in this context is what is essential. As I've mentioned earlier, certain things have always been considered essential for the Church's continuity through time, and not just for her wellbeing - they are of the esse, not just the bene esse of the Church. For the Catholic Church, apostolic order with episcopal governance, with and under Peter, are of that essence.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The obligation those who think they have a monopoly on a given thing have is to offer everyone what they have - but they must offer what they have intact, the whole thing
So the only golf club should say to the female wannabe-golfers something like "part of the experience of golf as we play it is the all-masculine atmosphere. We couldn't possibly offer you less than the whole experience intact. So get lost" ??
I've already said that I don't think this metaphor works. This latest turn just demonstrates how unhelpful I think it has become for the purpose at hand.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But the fact that some of us think women can be priests and some of us think they can't be priests just means that some of us are wrong. It wouldn't be "boring" is we all got it right.
I believe it is right in a British context. In other contexts cultural sensitivity is required, it is all part of being all things to all people.
Being right is overrated.
Given that you appear to be a relativist, I don't think you ever need to worry about that. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But seriously, this is not about "being right" - it's about reaching the truth, together.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
PaulTH*, all I can say in response to your last post addressed to me is that I recognise neither myself nor the Catholic Church in it.
It's almost as if nothing I have said on this thread has registered with you - which could be my fault or not. In either case, I think I'll stop flogging this particular horse, if it's all the same to you.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Should the RCC ever decide to cut back on 'definitions' it would surely be a very different institution from what it is today.
The majority of Christians would probably agree that the current divided state of Christendom is a wound to Christ and is in disobedience to His command that they should be one. The big difference would be in what could be done about it. An Orthodox priest once told me that converts are required to repent of having been in schism with the Orthodox Church, and to return to the fold of original Christianity. Surprisingly I partly agree with this, but it isn't going to happen for the majority of Christians, and such rigidity can only perpetuate schism.
The Catholic Church can't share the Eucharist with anyone who doesn't share its understanding of it. Not just its Eucharistic theology, but its notion of what constitutes a state of grace fit to receive it. I don't believe that the institution needs to change in order to acknowledge that not all Christians agree on the meaning and significance of the Eucharist. There are Christian groups which don't practice it at all, but for those who do, and are desirous of receiving it, at the very least it should induce a great awe and reverence for what Christ did for us. Let those who wish to approach the Lord at His table bring their own understanding to this most holy act. Why division?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
we cannot always find it possible to understand, or to agree to follow the teachings of the Church but then we must try to come back to the core teachings of love of God and love of our neighbour.
This is very similar to a quote from
this Talmudic website, where among the stories of the fist century Rabbis Shammai and Hillel we see:
"On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.12 When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour:13 that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it."
While this wouldn't satisfy most Christians, it's the essence of human religion and all I need.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The Orthodox would be even stricter about the reception of the eucharist than Catholics are.
I just heard the other day a description of an Orthodox eucharist from a Presbyterian who was present. Although the person was in good faith, she had little idea of what was going on. She was unaware of what the actual Communion was and what it was not. I don't at all blame the person for her lack of knowledge and understanding, but it certainly made me think that it is a good idea to be aware of what is happening when one approaches the Holy Table.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
She was unaware of what the actual Communion was and what it was not.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by this. What is it, and what isn't it, that she wasm't aware of?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't believe that the [Catholic Church] needs to change in order to acknowledge that not all Christians agree on the meaning and significance of the Eucharist.
Given that we do already acknowledge this, you're quite right.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't believe that the [Catholic Church] needs to change in order to acknowledge that not all Christians agree on the meaning and significance of the Eucharist.
Given that we do already acknowledge this, you're quite right.
I think there was an implied "...and that's okay" in there.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I guessed so too, St Deird.
But rather than just being a smart-arse about it, I was trying to make the point that the Church does understand the situation but does not think ignoring certain differences solves any of the problems.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Mousethief - the lady in question seemed to think that the 'Greeks' received communion wine from the chalice and then after that took some communion bread themselves and those who were not Orthodox received Communion at the end of the service.
Perhaps she was quite accurate in her description of the service ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Mousethief - the lady in question seemed to think that the 'Greeks' received communion wine from the chalice and then after that took some communion bread themselves and those who were not Orthodox received Communion at the end of the service.
Perhaps she was quite accurate in her description of the service ?
Sounds like she was confusing communion with antidoran. She would not be the first Western Christian I've known of to encounter and misunderstand that lovely aspect of Orthodox liturgical practice.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Mousethief - the lady in question seemed to think that the 'Greeks' received communion wine from the chalice and then after that took some communion bread themselves and those who were not Orthodox received Communion at the end of the service.
Perhaps she was quite accurate in her description of the service ?
Nay. Both consecrated bread and wine are in the chalice; what is received after that is, as forthview said, antidoron, and not the consecrated body and blood of Christ. Someone should have explained this to her.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But the fact that some of us think women can be priests and some of us think they can't be priests just means that some of us are wrong. It wouldn't be "boring" is we all got it right.
I believe it is right in a British context. In other contexts cultural sensitivity is required, it is all part of being all things to all people.
You're answering the wrong question. "Cultural sensitivity" addresses whether women should be priests in a particular cultural context. It's the same as asking whether the intellectual with the cut-glass accent is the right choice to serve in an inner-city parish.
To consider that question, it is necessary first to determine whether women can be priests. That's not a cultural question - it's a question of fact.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Mousethief - the lady in question was present at a liturgy celebrated, I think, by a Greek archbishop. This brought a lot more people than usual to the liturgy.
The lady in question had spent some time at a seminar held by the archbishop who had then invited those at the seminar to participate at the Sunday Divine liturgy.
Often, when one belongs to a particular community and one is used to a particular rite, one thinks that, of course, things will be clear to any strangers.
The lady interpreted the rite from her own perspective as a Scottish Presbyterian and described it afterwards in these terms. The 'Greeks' who were present at the rite, may have been involved in their own devotions or may not have thought that other people were viewing things from a different perspective.
The lady thought, anyway, that she had clearly understood what was happening and described it thus to me. She had been told not to come to Communion and was delighted that an extra communion was offered to her at the end of the service.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The institution that is the Catholic church can claim organisational continuity with the early Church. But that is not the same as identity with the early Church.
In fact I'm arguing that it is: the same identity that I as a grey and pasty adult have with the blond and cheeky chappie I was as a child.
But the Orthodox also have organisational continuity, if I understand it right. If the blond and cheeky chappie grew up to be two separate persons - your good self and a Greek - that would be quite remarkable.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
what do you think the Catholic Church should do differently here? Would it be anything short of ceasing to believe that Christ founded her as the ark of salvation?
What the golf club are doing wrong is abusing their monopoly power (which may of course be a monopoly they only think they have, if there really is a secret underground golf course) by imposing their culture of male-only golf on all the would-be golfers of the country.
There are two ways they can resolve this - abandon the monopoly (e.g. set up other clubs with an equal right to use the golf course) and continue with their own cultural traditions, or continue the monopoly and let go of their traditions (in this example by admitting everyone as members).
If there is a general principle here about the moral obligation that comes with monopoly, and if that principle can be applied to the Catholic church, then the Catholic church has the same two options:
- to maintain all the glory of its Roman culture but co-exist on equal terms with the other ecclesial bodies who differ from it in approaching the business of being the Church of Christ through other cultures (i.e. abandoning the idea that it has any sort of monopoly on salvation)
or
- to take seriously the business of being the Church for everyone, pro-Roman and anti-Roman alike, and pare down what are taught as essentials to as close as possible to the barest culture-free minimum. A self-emptying, if you will.
I don't see either of these as being even remotely likely to happen, but that's where the logic leads me.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't think Russ's analogy works.
Does that mean that you think that the principle (that monopoly imposes obligation) is false ? You may be right. Care to give some examples of situations (that are nothing to do with Catholicism) where you think a reasonable person would reject this principle ?
Or is it that you think that the Catholic church is immune from being judged by any principle, that it is so unique and special that it is justified in ignoring general principles in the interests of maintaining its own unique specialness ?
Your replies to me have tended to focus on the "doctrine of authority" that you hold, rather than arguing that I'm mistaken in terms of general principles...
I'm happy enough to talk about how you think the Catholic idea of authority does work, but maybe you need to spell out to me how you think that answers the question. It's hard to see how any decision-making process within the golf club could legitimize wrong behaviour by the golf club towards non-members.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The "lexically prior" question is whether the Church enjoys both the authority of Christ to teach His people and in some circumstances to do so bindingly - often to settle disputed issues. That's got to come first. The alternative would be that every time the Church taught something definitively (and not every matter is settled in this way by a very long chalk) there'd have to be a protracted debate about about this settled matters bindingly for everyone.
I find this paragraph difficult. What does "lexically prior" mean ? How does "the Church" collectively having anything help to resolve questions (such as the treatment of civilly-remarried people) where members of the church differ in their views ? What's wrong with debate ? Does everything need to be settled bindingly upon everyone ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The institution that is the Catholic church can claim organisational continuity with the early Church. But that is not the same as identity with the early Church.
In fact I'm arguing that it is: the same identity that I as a grey and pasty adult have with the blond and cheeky chappie I was as a child.
But the Orthodox also have organisational continuity, if I understand it right. If the blond and cheeky chappie grew up to be two separate persons - your good self and a Greek - that would be quite remarkable.
Which just shows you can't push the personal identity analogy too far. Everyone makes their own claim to organisational continuity on their own understanding and terms. Fair enough. The Catholic claim is based on preserving intact the apostolic deposit and order, including the Petrine office. Since the undivided early Church was that founded by Christ, and since we are the Church founded by Christ, we are the legitimate successors of that early Church, as far as we are concerned. The Churches of the east not currently in communion with the see of Rome will see things differently. In other news, bears have their supplies of Andrex delivered at the forest gate.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
what do you think the Catholic Church should do differently here? Would it be anything short of ceasing to believe that Christ founded her as the ark of salvation?
What the golf club are doing wrong is abusing their monopoly power (which may of course be a monopoly they only think they have, if there really is a secret underground golf course) by imposing their culture of male-only golf on all the would-be golfers of the country.
Once again for old times' sake - I'm not going to try to distort things in an attempt to get them to fit your analogy, Russ. I've already explained why I don't think it comes close to working. Why are you so wedded to this?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
There are two ways they can resolve this - abandon the monopoly (e.g. set up other clubs with an equal right to use the golf course) and continue with their own cultural traditions, or continue the monopoly and let go of their traditions (in this example by admitting everyone as members).
This absurdity is one example of how inept the analogy is. Your golfers exclude women from membership entirely because of their identity as women; the Church excludes no-one because of their involuntary characteristics/identity. If your golfers were excluding others who wanted to play a different game on their golf course, your analogy might be better. Also, others set up their own "clubs" playing on what they consider a/the golf course long ago, without any permission sought or required from the Catholic Church. Finally, you keep using "traditions" and "culture" to describe things, some of which I suspect are things I have already indicated are "core" and which the Church does not believe she can change.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
take seriously the business of being the Church for everyone, pro-Roman and anti-Roman alike, and pare down what are taught as essentials to as close as possible to the barest culture-free minimum. A self-emptying, if you will.
You want the Roman Catholic Church to embrace as members those who are anti-Roman and to hack back or dilute her teachings to the point where they are acceptable to all self-describing Christian people? Ponder whether that is really a reasonable request.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't see either of these as being even remotely likely to happen, but that's where the logic leads me.
It is both your "monopoly" analogy and your logic which lead you there.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't think Russ's analogy works.
Does that mean that you think that the principle (that monopoly imposes obligation) is false ? You may be right. Care to give some examples of situations (that are nothing to do with Catholicism) where you think a reasonable person would reject this principle ?
I don't buy that the Church's claim to be the ordinary means of salvation is a "monopoly" and I don't think that any or all monopolies necessarily impose obligations. I think the whole "monopoly" issue is a red herring.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Or is it that you think that the Catholic church is immune from being judged by any principle, that it is so unique and special that it is justified in ignoring general principles in the interests of maintaining its own unique specialness ?
I think the Church's claim to being the ordinary means of salvation is part of her essential mission and identity which she receives from the Lord. In that sense it is unique and special. We've got to do what we think is incumbent upon us on that premiss - which we believe is not of our making. We could be wrong - others differ. So what?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Your replies to me have tended to focus on the "doctrine of authority" that you hold, rather than arguing that I'm mistaken in terms of general principles...
My answers have tended to focus on what is actually relevant to the specific discussion at hand. I think "the doctrine of authority" is a sloppy phrase which I have deliberately avoided employing except in scare quotes. I don't acknowledge your general principles as having any bearing on the case. It is much more constructive to speak of the specifics of this case, which you seem reluctant to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm happy enough to talk about how you think the Catholic idea of authority does work, but maybe you need to spell out to me how you think that answers the question. It's hard to see how any decision-making process within the golf club could legitimize wrong behaviour by the golf club towards non-members.
It's not even possible to talk about it meaningfully in terms of your analogy. It started being a disanalogy pretty early on. Some things don't really have very useful analogues beyond a very basic level of detail.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The "lexically prior" question is whether the Church enjoys both the authority of Christ to teach His people and in some circumstances to do so bindingly - often to settle disputed issues. That's got to come first. The alternative would be that every time the Church taught something definitively (and not every matter is settled in this way by a very long chalk) there'd have to be a protracted debate about about this settled matters bindingly for everyone.
I find this paragraph difficult. What does "lexically prior" mean ?
Needless bit of Rawlsian jargon - I mean it is more fundamental and needs addressing before other principles under discussion (i.e. the other issues sit under it).
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
How does "the Church" collectively having anything help to resolve questions (such as the treatment of civilly-remarried people) where members of the church differ in their views ? What's wrong with debate ? Does everything need to be settled bindingly upon everyone ?
No - which is precisely why I said, "and not every matter is settled in this way by a very long chalk". There's nothing wrong with debate, but some things can be definitively settled by the application of fundamental principles - in this case, the content of the apostolic deposit as properly interpreted. The teaching office of the Church (the bishops with and under Peter) have the authority to make the necessary interpretative calls on such matters.
These matters are not settled by plebiscite - which no doubt will disturb your democratic principles - because this is not the model of church governance we (believe we) were handed down from Christ, through the Apostles and their immediate successors. Them's the breaks.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The Catholic claim is based on preserving intact the apostolic deposit and order, including the Petrine office. Since the undivided early Church was that founded by Christ, and since we are the Church founded by Christ, we are the legitimate successors of that early Church, as far as we are concerned. The Churches of the east not currently in communion with the see of Rome will see things differently. In other news, bears have their supplies of Andrex delivered at the forest gate.
What's Andrex?
Chesterbelloc is right. The RCC makes its claim based on a certain set of criteria, and we make ours based on a different set. Whose criteria are the right set? They say theirs, we say ours. We shan't know until the last day. And that doesn't bother me. Chesterbelloc will have to say if it bothers him; certainly from this most recent post it doesn't seem to.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Mousethief - the lady in question was present at a liturgy celebrated, I think, by a Greek archbishop. This brought a lot more people than usual to the liturgy.
The lady in question had spent some time at a seminar held by the archbishop who had then invited those at the seminar to participate at the Sunday Divine liturgy.
Often, when one belongs to a particular community and one is used to a particular rite, one thinks that, of course, things will be clear to any strangers.
The lady interpreted the rite from her own perspective as a Scottish Presbyterian and described it afterwards in these terms. The 'Greeks' who were present at the rite, may have been involved in their own devotions or may not have thought that other people were viewing things from a different perspective.
The lady thought, anyway, that she had clearly understood what was happening and described it thus to me. She had been told not to come to Communion and was delighted that an extra communion was offered to her at the end of the service.
So are you saying that it's a good thing nobody explained it to her, because she was happier that way?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Mousethief - I am neither saying that it was good or bad that no-one seemed to have explained it to her. I am simply stating what she told me.
It seemed to me that she had misunderstood some of what was happening and I was glad to be able to explain things to her.
It is also the case, I think, that if one is experiencing an Orthodox Divine Liturgy for the first time, it is not easy to understand all that one might be whispering in pone's ear.
Furthermore it is difficult to stop someone experiencing the liturgy from their own perspective.
It's a bit like learning a new language. Even if an other person is telling us all the time what one should say, it often appears to be just a jumble of words. In addition one would be all the time trying to explain to oneself the strange new words in terms of words which one understands in one's own language.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's Andrex?
Happy to help.
Why don't we just shut the ship down entirely? No point in discussing things when we can just google them. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You want the Roman Catholic Church to embrace as members those who are anti-Roman and to hack back or dilute her teachings to the point where they are acceptable to all self-describing Christian people?
I'm not urging you to this choice. I'm not urging you to the other choice - abandoning the claim to exclusive possession of the (ordinary) means of salvation. I am urging you to choose one or the other - the church above culture or the church within a particular culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't buy that the Church's claim to be the ordinary means of salvation is a "monopoly"
So replace "the" with "a" in the above. Share with other ecclesial bodies the aim of being a means of salvation.
If that's not good enough, if you want to be "the" means, then I'm not seeing why exclusive possession (i.e. monopoly) isn't exactly what you're claiming.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
and I don't think that any or all monopolies necessarily impose obligations.
Feel free to give examples...
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't acknowledge your general principles as having any bearing on the case.
It's a simple argument.
- monopoly confers obligation
- the Catholic church claims a monopoly
=> the Catholic church should honour the associated obligation.
You clearly don't like this conclusion, because you've now said you don't accept the first premise & you don't accept the second premise. And now you seem to be saying that the Catholic church is above any general logic anyway.
I've argued for the first premise by putting to you a hypothetical situation where it seems to me that having a monopoly confers an obligation that wasn't there without it. Happy to discuss other examples in order to refine the concept.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I mean it is more fundamental and needs addressing before other principles under discussion (i.e. the other issues sit under it).
I get that you'd like people to make up their minds first whether the Catholic church "teaches with authority". And if yes then you'll point to an authoritative teaching in support of whatever Vatican policy is being disputed. And if no then people have rejected Jesus by rejecting His Church and so you feel justified in waving them goodbye (no doubt with regret and good wishes).
Neither of which can possibly lead to the conclusion that the Church should do something differently. Seems like a way of shutting down discussion.
There are places between "yes" and "no". Not only "maybe". But more positively something like "people have different views on the extent to which this true, and it is possible to have reasoned and courteous dialogue in the absence of complete agreement on this particular question."
Is this just a form of special pleading for the Catholic church ? Or are you putting forward the proposition that there is a general class of propositions that are fundamental and "sit over" other questions ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You want the Roman Catholic Church to embrace as members those who are anti-Roman and to hack back or dilute her teachings to the point where they are acceptable to all self-describing Christian people?
I'm not urging you to this choice. I'm not urging you to the other choice - abandoning the claim to exclusive possession of the (ordinary) means of salvation. I am urging you to choose one or the other - the church above culture or the church within a particular culture.
"Culture". You keep saying this as if we agree that what you are calling mere culture is indeed merely cultural. If it is not already clear to you that we do not so agree, I don't know what to say.
Your "options" impose a completely spurious dilemma uopn us. Either we are who we say we are and have the "monopoly" - in which case we should be best placed to decide what is essential to avail oneself of that - or we are not - in which why should anyone pay any attention to what we say is essential anyway?
In fact, you omit one possibility - the only one that actually matters for the purposes of this discussion: that we are by God's will and ordinance the ordinary means of salvation, and that we posess by God's guidance and guarantee the essential truth about faith and morals to which one must submit oneself to be (or to remain a faithful) member of the Church. If that is true - as we believe it is - it is not merely unnecessary to grab one or other of the horns of your dilemma but to do so would constitute an abandonment of our divinely given mission.
One of the options you're urging me to select is to ditch everything except the "merest" Christainity; but the stuff we'd have to ditch to satisy that condition would be stuff that we hold to be essential, irreformable, unchangeable - part of the deposit of the faith. Your other "option" is that we abandon the claim to being the ordinary means of salvation - which is in itself a central claim of faith and criterion of our identity.
What you're asking of the Church is to abandon one of two essential - and essentially connected -claims for the sake of "saving" the other. Not only is that a false "obligation" it is barely a coherent one. What use would the Church be if it admitted all regardless of belief, or admitted that there were many differnt and equally valid means of salvation? If we did either, our claim to the other would automatically collapse.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't buy that the Church's claim to be the ordinary means of salvation is a "monopoly"
So replace "the" with "a" in the above. Share with other ecclesial bodies the aim of being a means of salvation.
What does that even mean? We can only share what we actually have, so to "share" the status of being the ordinary means of salvation would imply that we actually have that status - and if we have it, we could only "share" it by abandoning it. Suppose we are as we claim: by God's will and ordinance, the ordinary means of salvation. Would pretending that we are not so divinely constituted help anyone? It is not even in our gift to "share" this.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If that's not good enough, if you want to be "the" means, then I'm not seeing why exclusive possession (i.e. monopoly) isn't exactly what you're claiming.
It's not a matter of "wanting" anything - it's a matter of believing in what we hold God to have done. As it happens, we don't claim exclusively to be the direct and only means - God will save whom He will save - but merely to be the ordinary means, the means all are called to adopt for salvation.
The idea that this translates into our having a monopoly of salvation is to use the term monopoly very misleadingly. For one thing, salvation is not a commodity which anyone (but God) can dish out: it is a process which we each have to co-operate with, to pursue "in fear and trembling". The Church doesn't "dish out" salvation like pints in a pub: instead, she is more like a "field hospital" where the wounded can be treated and healed only by their own co-operation, by correct use of medicines and medical care, where the right medicines can be poisonous if taken wrongly, by self-treatment and care for one's own health, by taking good medical advice and participating in good therapies, etc. It is a process which the Church is uniquely well-equipped to promote and to sustain, but it is not a commodity over which she has a monopoly of simple distribution. Salvation doesn't work like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
and I don't think that any or all monopolies necessarily impose obligations.
Feel free to give examples...
The government has a monopoly over the issuing of driving licences - and a good thing too. The only obligation it has in operating this "monopoly" is to make sure that only those who have proved themselves to be safe and competent should be entrusted with a licence. There is certainly no obligation to make the licences as widely and easily available as possible - quite the opposite.
I think this (and the foregoing) addressess the rest of your discussion of monopoly.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I mean it is more fundamental and needs addressing before other principles under discussion (i.e. the other issues sit under it).
I get that you'd like people to make up their minds first whether the Catholic church "teaches with authority".
To the extent that it makes no good sense for people deliberately to join a Church which makes authoritative statements about faith and morals which are binding for its members unless they can accept the Church's authority to do so, then yes - I do think it would be be a good idea to come to terms with that reality first.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And if yes then you'll point to an authoritative teaching in support of whatever Vatican policy is being disputed.
"Vatican policies" are not binding; definitive teaching on faith and morals only is binding.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems like a way of shutting down discussion.
Seems like a good way of letting the facts get in the way of a misleading sidetrack to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
There are places between "yes" and "no". Not only "maybe". But more positively something like "people have different views on the extent to which this true, and it is possible to have reasoned and courteous dialogue in the absence of complete agreement on this particular question."
Except that some issues are too important to take an "agree to disagree" attitude over. And if you're a Catholic, some disputed issues can in fact be settled authoritatively. That competent authority actually exists, and for a reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is this just a form of special pleading for the Catholic church ? Or are you putting forward the proposition that there is a general class of propositions that are fundamental and "sit over" other questions ?
I am merely putting forward the idea that the Church has the divine authority and character she claims to have; and that if she does, she is right to exercise that authority in pursuit of her mission. If not, then not.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I am urging you to choose one or the other - the church above culture or the church within a particular culture.
"Culture". You keep saying this as if we agree that what you are calling mere culture is indeed merely cultural. If it is not already clear to you that we do not so agree, I don't know what to say.
You've been quite clear in saying that you believe that gender roles are not merely cultural (whereas I think they are).
But that doesn't stop us discussing the relationship between church and culture. Unless you see the category of "merely cultural" as being an empty category ? If it isn't empty, can you not agree the principle and reserve the right to dispute the inclusion of particular aspects of culture within the "merely" category ?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Either we are who we say we are and have the "monopoly" - in which case we should be best placed to decide what is essential to avail oneself of that - or we are not - in which why should anyone pay any attention to what we say is essential anyway?
That's the sort of binary choice you've suggested before - we're perfect or we're nothing. Excluded middle.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In fact, you omit one possibility - the only one that actually matters for the purposes of this discussion: that we are by God's will and ordinance the ordinary means of salvation, and that we possess by God's guidance and guarantee the essential truth about faith and morals to which one must submit oneself to be (or to remain a faithful) member of the Church.
I see no incompatibility between that belief and the principle (that your unique status imposes on you) that you should not add your preferred merely-cultural ways of doing things to that essential truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your other "option" is that we abandon the claim to being the ordinary means of salvation - which is in itself a central claim of faith and criterion of our identity.
I'm suggesting to you that while the church being a means of salvation is and has always been central, the idea that your particular fragment of divided Christendom being the exclusive means is far from central.
But perhaps recognising that means facing up to the reality of that division in a way that you don't want to do, because the idea of identity with the early church is so much more comfortable ?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What use would the Church be if it admitted all regardless of belief...
I'm not suggesting all - only those whose differences are "merely cultural".
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
, or admitted that there were many different and equally valid means of salvation?
The one means is Christ, His spirit acting through His followers. Who exist in many groups. Why is recognising the other groups such a problem ?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If we did either, our claim to the other would automatically collapse.
Sorry, you'd have to spell that one out for me; I don't see the argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As it happens, we don't claim exclusively to be the direct and only means - God will save whom He will save - but merely to be the ordinary means
I'm glad that you make that qualification. I think you're right to do so. But it's a watering-down of one traditional belief ("no salvation outside the church" or its Latin equivalent) in order to be more fully consistent with another traditional belief (the sovereignty of God). Which is the sort of adjustment I'm suggesting should be made (not holding my breath) with regard to an understanding of culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The Church doesn't "dish out" salvation like pints in a pub: instead, she is more like a "field hospital"
I haven't heard of a hospital that systematically denies the validity of cures achieved elsewhere. Most of the doctors and nurses around here would be only too pleased if there were someone else sharing the workload.
If you're into binary logic, you might want to choose - does the Catholic church have exclusive possession of something ? or not ?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The government has a monopoly over the issuing of driving licences - and a good thing too. The only obligation it has in operating this "monopoly" is to make sure that only those who have proved themselves to be safe and competent should be entrusted with a licence. There is certainly no obligation to make the licences as widely and easily available as possible - quite the opposite.
I would say that a driving test examiner - by virtue of being a monopoly service provider - is obliged to examine without prejudice a candidate who cannot speak good English (and therefore turns up for the test with an interpreter in the back seat) or a candidate who can only afford the most basic of roadworthy vehicles (a Reliant Robin).
Whereas a driving instructor, operating in a competitive market, can choose to offer a budget service that doesn't allow for the extra insurance costs for having an extra passenger in the car. Or can indulge his/her personal beliefs that a Reliant Robin is unsafe or undignified and refuse to teach in one.
Monopoly imposes an obligation. It's not an obligation to accept those who can't do the business (can't play golf, can't drive, whatever). But it is an obligation not to make abandoning people's merely-cultural differences a condition of acceptance.
Enough for one day...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
