Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Gladly.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have been unable to find a meaning for "pollard" that fits here. Can you assist?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My meaning was "brutally cut back".
quote:Well, maybe in theory, but in 20-plus years of being a mass-going Catholic, I don't think I ever heard of one case where someone was subjected to an examination of their marital history before being allowed to take Holy Communion. In most churches I was in, the priest likely wouldn't even know the names of more than a few parishoners, much less the details of their romantic life.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
I understand that the RCC would not be willing to allow that person to receive the Sacraments.
quote:I thoughts (from a very non-informed position) that a marriage outside the RCC was not, in fact, a marriage at all, and so the worst that you (or your friend) have done is had sex outside marriage.
Originally posted by Macrina:
Hmm...I thought that the RCC only got uptight about getting divorced and remarried when it was a Catholic marriage in the first place.
quote:If it were a private members' club I would be whole heartedly agree.
Originally posted by Gee D:
If one has come to the conclusion set out in your first paragraph, one must necessarily accept the consequences set out in your second.
To quote the old song "You (or one) can't have one without the other".
quote:I assume you are writing from a desire to discredit the RCC teaching in this regards, i.e. that you are not at all convinced that the RCC is the only true source of the sacraments (which I'm not sure the RCC believes in any case).
Therefore a person in such a situation would be denied access to the only source (in their view and the view of the RCC) of valid Holy Communion, based on something done in ignorance and in the past which cannot be undone (short of breaking up the new family or murdering the first wife).
quote:I don't see the two as being incompatible in any way. It is perfectly possible to view any church organisation (but probably easier with the RCC) as the sole repository of Christian truth on earth; whilst simultaneously believing that the church has come to some outrageously unjust position on something in a way that only humans are capable. In fact there must be many women feel this way about the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'd be interested to know...
How many people are there who a) have been denied Holy Communion by the RCC for a reason they regard as ridiculous, and b) depsite this supposed demonstration of the Church's irrationality, still maintain the belief that the RCC is the only valid source of the Sacraments?
quote:I think discredit is too strong a word
Originally posted by anteater:
I assume you are writing from a desire to discredit the RCC teaching in this regards
quote:It is my understanding that a marriage can only be annulled if the marriage was not valid in the sense that either party did not intend the marriage to be permanent and exclusive, or that they were not able to fulfil that. By ignorance, I meant that the person was ignorant of the effect that this marriage would have on future access to salvation.
if the ignorance you mention is truly the case, the previous marriage can be annulled.
quote:This is probably easy for me to say as a non-Catholic, but ISTM that if Protestants are told not to do something by their church, they have two responses:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'd be interested to know...
How many people are there who a) have been denied Holy Communion by the RCC for a reason they regard as ridiculous, and b) depsite this supposed demonstration of the Church's irrationality, still maintain the belief that the RCC is the only valid source of the Sacraments?
quote:I agree you have chosen the scenario that is most difficult for the RCC, and their view is one that I don't get.
It is my understanding that a marriage can only be annulled if the marriage was not valid in the sense that either party did not intend the marriage to be permanent and exclusive, or that they were not able to fulfil that. By ignorance, I meant that the person was ignorant of the effect that this marriage would have on future access to salvation.
quote:Being divorced is not an impediment to receiving the sacrament. Did she perhaps divorce her former husband? That might have been the reason. Or if she remarried of course.
I know a lady who was the innocent party in a divorce, and yet she was refused holy communion. She says that the priest told her to hope that her ex would die so that she could come back to the table. It turned her off of the church for the rest of her life, although she still believes in God. This was around 30 years ago.
quote:What she said was that her husband went off with someone else, and so they were divorced. She may have instigated the divorce. Would she have been able to continue to receive holy communion as long as she had waited for him to do so?
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Being divorced is not an impediment to receiving the sacrament. Did she perhaps divorce her former husband? That might have been the reason. Or if she remarried of course.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
If one, prior to taking the above position, had been validly married (entirely outside the RCC)...
quote:On the other hand, if the prior wedding was potentially sacramental between two baptized non-Catholics:
we can say that if a Catholic had entered into an invalid civil wedding, and later divorced, in principle he or she could marry someone else in the Church.
quote:But even if the first marriage, "done in ignorance" as the OP states, is somehow deemed sacramental (I am having trouble with the idea of a sacrament done in ignorance, but let's pretend), the situation is admittedly more troubling but the belief that there is a permanent forever bar to communion is incorrect. As stated in Sacramentum Caritatis:
It is possible that the same rule would apply in the second situation mentioned, but each case would have to be examined on its own merits to determine the sacramental validity of the previous Christian marriage. In general the law presumes the validity of such a marriage until the contrary is proven (Canon 1060).
quote:Also:
The Church's pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved.
quote:
When legitimate doubts exist about the validity of the prior sacramental marriage, the necessary investigation must be carried out to establish if these are well-founded.
quote:
Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God's law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church's established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage.
quote:--Q.E. I, if I'm not mistaken.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
There is one Lord, Jesus Christ, and all else is a dispute over trifles.
quote:But that's a completely different case. Unmarried couples can "fix" their problem by getting married. In Humble Servant's OP, that option isn't available because one of the couple is (in the eyes of the RCC) married to someone else. If that former marriage was sacramentally valid, and there are no grounds for declaring it null, there's nothing that the new couple can do to fix the situation. They can't be married, because one of them is married to someone else, and the RCC does not admit the possibility that a valid sacramental marriage can be dissolved.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Seeing as marriage follows living together and frequently birth of children among sizable portions of the population.
quote:AIUI, Rome's position is that there is no sin involved in being divorced, and a divorced person may receive communion with no problem. The difficulties arise when a divorced person remarries - unless a choice is made that the new marriage will be entirely celibate, the partners are committing adultery and without proper remorse. Indeed, they show every sign of wilfully continuing their sin. They cannot therefore expect absolution and thus admission to the table.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:What she said was that her husband went off with someone else, and so they were divorced. She may have instigated the divorce. Would she have been able to continue to receive holy communion as long as she had waited for him to do so?
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Being divorced is not an impediment to receiving the sacrament. Did she perhaps divorce her former husband? That might have been the reason. Or if she remarried of course.
In that scenario, are you saying that if she had remained unmarried after he divorced her, she would be able to continue to come to the table only if she never married again?
quote:A few thoughts.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:What she said was that her husband went off with someone else, and so they were divorced. She may have instigated the divorce. Would she have been able to continue to receive holy communion as long as she had waited for him to do so?
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Being divorced is not an impediment to receiving the sacrament. Did she perhaps divorce her former husband? That might have been the reason. Or if she remarried of course.
quote:I'm pretty sure that baptism when done according to the Trinitrian formula by a recognized mainstream church is recognized by the Catholic Church? But maybe that's not orthodoxy. Just the practice accepted locally.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
3. A RCC friend who takes theology seriously told me a marriage that did not take place in a Catholic church is not a spiritually recognized marriage, just like non RCC baptism is not recognized, so divorcing that partner doesn't affect ability to be accepted in the RCC or remarry in the RCC. (Is he right or wrong?)
quote:No, I'm sure you are correct. AIUI, the RCC defines as Catholic anyone who has been baptized Catholic or, having been baptized in some other church with water and the triune name, been formally admitted to the RCC; such a person having not subsequently formally renounced their Catholic faith.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm pretty sure that baptism when done according to the Trinitrian formula by a recognized mainstream church is recognized by the Catholic Church? But maybe that's not orthodoxy. Just the practice accepted locally.
quote:Belle Ringer's friend is out to lunch on this. Not only is a proper-form baptism (in the name of the Holy Trinity, with water) kosher outside the RCC, but it can even be done by the unbaptized, provided they do so with the intention to do what the church does at baptism. Moreover, by natural law, any marriage where the man and woman make a commitment to a life-long union is a marriage in canon law-- they need not be RC nor even Christian for the marriage to be valid (there is an out if a convert's spouse does not convert with them and Pauline Privilege comes into play, but that's another thread).
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:I'm pretty sure that baptism when done according to the Trinitrian formula by a recognized mainstream church is recognized by the Catholic Church? But maybe that's not orthodoxy. Just the practice accepted locally.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
3. A RCC friend who takes theology seriously told me a marriage that did not take place in a Catholic church is not a spiritually recognized marriage, just like non RCC baptism is not recognized, so divorcing that partner doesn't affect ability to be accepted in the RCC or remarry in the RCC. (Is he right or wrong?)
[code]
quote:Exactly. It's Jesus' body and blood on the table, and not for any human, ordained or not, to say who may or may not receive it. If there's a problem, God can handle it. Which may or may not entail consequences for the recipient, but that's his/her choice and risk.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I think it presumptuous to stand in the way of someone receiving holy communion. After all, it is surely for God to decide who will be blessed and who won't be blessed by receiving it, not a priest.
quote:
MYTH NUMBER ONE:
A Divorced Person is Automatically Excommunicated from the Catholic Church
The truth is that divorce itself does not affect or alter a person’s status in the Catholic Church. Divorce is a function of the civil law and secular courts. Although it has been a widespread misconception for many years, it is a myth that a divorced Catholic is “excommunicated,” this is, not able to receive the sacraments within the Church.
MYTH NUMBER THREE:
Only Catholic Marriages Need to be Annulled
The truth is that every marriage is considered a promise for life, a promise until death. It makes no difference whether that promise was made in a Catholic ceremony or not. No one, no matter what their religious affiliation or membership, is considered free to contract another marriage if they were married previously. Every prior marriage must be investigated and annulled before a person can enter a new marriage. It is a myth that no annulment is required if a person wasn’t married in a Catholic ceremony.
quote:The deception here (and I'd probably include Svitlana's priest who's prepared to fudge the rules in that heading) should trouble you. Approaching the Holy Table on the sly, intending to receive Christ whilst your church thinks you unfit to do so seems like a really bad idea.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
1.[..]or that a future priest may take a different line as Svitlana has suggested, but I may never see that day.
2. I could visit another parish where my past is unknown and receive Communion on the sly. The deception of this troubles me.
quote:If, as it seems, you are worried about the sacraments in the post-reformation Churches, is it worth considering the Plot(tm)? The Orthodox have, I understand, a more charitable approach to a marriage that turns out to be a mistake than the RCs, and AFAIK, nobody denies that they have real priests and real Jesus.
3. I could abandon my quest to become Catholic and accept a Protestant Communion, where I am already welcome. I will not go into my objections to this here, but I currently see this as 2nd best
quote:I fail to see how having Christ within oneself could be a bad thing, whether one is a Christian or not.
Originally posted by Forthview:
I see no point in offering the Sacrament of Holy Communion to those who are not Christians, nor to those who have no intention of trying to improve.
quote:Is this based on 1 Corinthians 27-29? The church is doing me a favour by ensuring I do not eat and drink judgement (or even "damnation" in the KJV)? You are suggesting that the church is better placed to make that decision than the individual?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Approaching the Holy Table on the sly, intending to receive Christ whilst your church thinks you unfit to do so seems like a really bad idea.
quote:I'm not RC, but I understand that the Catholic Church does consider it wrong and dangerous to take communion if you are guilty of mortal sin (which has not been dealt with by repentance and confession).
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Is this based on 1 Corinthians 27-29? The church is doing me a favour by ensuring I do not eat and drink judgement (or even "damnation" in the KJV)?
quote:Nobody is suggesting any such thing. In fact, there is no decision-making to be done; whoever makes the sacrament available to communicants is responsible to offer it in the way they truly believe Jesus wants it done. If you were doing this, you would doubtless handle matters in the way you truly believe Jesus wants you to. The RC church (and all churches) are doing exactly the same thing. You may (and clearly do) disagree with their understanding of what Jesus wants; but believing as they do, they can make no other decision about whom they admit to the table. It has nothing to do with disrespecting you or anybody else as a person.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
You are suggesting that the church is better placed to make that decision than the individual?
quote:That is not an RC peculiarity. Although the language 'mortal sin', 'state of grace' etc is specifically RC, I think all ecclesial communities understand 1 Cor 11:27-29 in much the same way. If one receives the sacrament unworthily, carelessly etc one endangers one's mortal soul by eating and drinking judgement on oneself.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm not RC, but I understand that the Catholic Church does consider it wrong and dangerous to take communion if you are guilty of mortal sin (which has not been dealt with by repentance and confession). ...
quote:Have you considered asking a priest?
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Again, sorry, that sounds sarcastic. Those are meant as straight questions. Is this where the teaching comes from.
quote:So far I have only covered facts and processes, not the reasons why it's this way. That was enough for one evening. He recommended that I attend a RCIA course, so I hope I'll come out of that understanding a lot more about the Catholic faith. But I will be exploring the Church's position on this particular question with him before taking it any further.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Have you considered asking a priest?
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Again, sorry, that sounds sarcastic. Those are meant as straight questions. Is this where the teaching comes from.
quote:To be clear, this was my own extrapolation, and not a suggestion that any Catholic priest has made.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Does the Church really belive that he should leave his current family and renounce that marriage before he can take communion?
quote:This RCIA document from the Archdiocese of Baltimore suggests something along those lines - unless an annulment can be obtained:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:To be clear, this was my own extrapolation, and not a suggestion that any Catholic priest has made.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Does the Church really belive that he should leave his current family and renounce that marriage before he can take communion?
quote:
Does Divorce Affect my Entrance into the Catholic Church?
Please remember that a divorce alone would not affect, or hinder in any way, your entrance into the Catholic Church. However, if you are divorced and remarried a question does arise. We presume and respect all marriages, even one which ended in a civil divorce. Every prior marriage must be examined, since each is presumed to be a lasting, lifelong commitment. Until it is shown otherwise, you would not be free to enter into another marriage without the appearance or occasion of serious sin. If you are divorced and remarried, the sacraments of initiation which you desire to receive may need to be delayed until a Tribunal has examined your prior marriage(s) and issued a decision.
quote:The Catholic Church dealt definitively with this question in Pope Jon Paul II's 1981 Apostolic Exhortation "Familiaris Consortio." It doesn't give much hope to those who've erred.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
But requiring a person to either destroy a happy family or abstain eternally from communion seems like a position which goes counter to the spirit of that rule. It's one thing to tell a divorced person that they can not re-marry (I can disagree with it, but it's at least a do-able option that impacts only the individual), but dissolution of a family impacts many people, some of them entirely innocent of any wrongdoing (the children). this seems to be a situation where there is no good answer, and where the concept of "Economia" would apply in an Orthdoox setting.
quote:I'm not sure that the RCC would recognise an unconsummated marriage as a marriage.
Originally posted by Gee D:
unless a choice is made that the new marriage will be entirely celibate,
quote:Is this the best they can come up with after 2 years
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Read the Pope's latest teaching on divorce and remarriage.
quote:I suppose this is what I don't understand about the RCC. How can you believe that it offers the only valid form of Holy Communion while at the same time hold that its teachings are deeply wrong?
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
If one has come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church offers the only valid form of Holy Communion, one cannot receive those sacraments by any other means than by joining that church.
If one, prior to taking the above position, had been validly married (entirely outside the RCC) suffered a divorce, remarried and started a family with the new spouse, I understand that the RCC would not be willing to allow that person to receive the Sacraments.
Therefore a person in such a situation would be denied access to the only source (in their view and the view of the RCC) of valid Holy Communion, based on something done in ignorance and in the past which cannot be undone (short of breaking up the new family or murdering the first wife).
Can there be any justification for this?
quote:I'm not RC either. My take is that Jesus ate with sinners. I receive the sacrament because I am a sinner - unworthy and everything else being a sinner entails.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That is not an RC peculiarity. Although the language 'mortal sin', 'state of grace' etc is specifically RC, I think all ecclesial communities understand 1 Cor 11:27-29 in much the same way. If one receives the sacrament unworthily, carelessly etc one endangers one's mortal soul by eating and drinking judgement on oneself.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm not RC, but I understand that the Catholic Church does consider it wrong and dangerous to take communion if you are guilty of mortal sin (which has not been dealt with by repentance and confession). ...
quote:Though the style has changed, the doctrine hasn't. So any 'practicing' gays are in a state of mortal sin and this hell-bound, according to the trad. teaching that hasn't changed.
Originally posted by Forthview:
I see nothing in the document which suggests that gays are going to Hell in a handcart, even although the pope is unable to accept that a same sex marriage is the same as what may have been in the divine plan when God made them male and female and asked them to go forth and multiply.
quote:A now-expired canonist of my acquaintance once said that the danger of allowing anglopohones to do canon law is that they assumed that it was to be applied literally. Mediterranean types, he thought, understood that it was a counsel of perfection, and the letter only applied after everything else failed. (Since then, I've heard the same aphorism ascribed to others, so I think he simply nicked it for his own use.)
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Though the style has changed, the doctrine hasn't. So any 'practicing' gays are in a state of mortal sin and this hell-bound, according to the trad. teaching that hasn't changed.
Originally posted by Forthview:
I see nothing in the document which suggests that gays are going to Hell in a handcart, even although the pope is unable to accept that a same sex marriage is the same as what may have been in the divine plan when God made them male and female and asked them to go forth and multiply.
quote:"Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed"
Originally posted by balaam:
My take is that Jesus ate with sinners. I receive the sacrament because I am a sinner - unworthy and everything else being a sinner entails.
quote:Thanks for pointing this out.
Originally posted by Forthview:
Perhaps Anglo-Catholics remain with traditional interpretations of what constitutes 'mortal sin'
Within the big tent of what constitutes the Cat6holic Church in communion with the Roman pontiff ,there is a softening of attitudes at the highest levels.....'Every person,of whatever sexual orientation ,should be respected and treated with consideration.'
'It should no longer be said that those in 'irregular' situations are in a state of mortal sin.
quote:Apparently, two years ago, Pope Francis said much the same thing. I'm sure many Catholics who don't feel sinful in their new relationships do it anyway.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unless the RCC formally changes its teachings and becomes liberal on the family then perhaps duplicity is the only solution: find a liberal parish, or a parish where you're unknown, and take Communion there. Why not?
quote:There you go, then. The RCC is the largest Christian denomination in the world. Most of its members live in the Global South. It's hard to believe that they all feel oppressed by their church on these matters.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Apparently, two years ago, Pope Francis said much the same thing. I'm sure many Catholics who don't feel sinful in their new relationships do it anyway.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unless the RCC formally changes its teachings and becomes liberal on the family then perhaps duplicity is the only solution: find a liberal parish, or a parish where you're unknown, and take Communion there. Why not?
quote:Before you get too grateful... I don't have any privileged insight into what Francis really meant in the exhortation, but I know what the document says, and it definitely isn't that. What the English text actually says (with my emphasis) is:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Thanks for pointing this out.
Originally posted by Forthview:
'It should no longer be said that those in 'irregular' situations are in a state of mortal sin.
quote:
Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.
quote:Especially, though, when they're misquoted entirely.
Originally posted by Forthview:
Of course the pope's words, as indeed everyone else's words, can often be interpreted in different ways.
quote:I think looking at rules making the church more or less appealing is totally the wrong attitude. You're implying that we should be less strict because our strictness drives away the faithful. I think we should be strict if we can justify our strictness as God's will. I think we should be relaxed if we believe that to be God's will. We should never be strict because we want to engineer our community or relaxed for the sake of avoiding offence.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Experience shows that in the long run relaxing the rules isn't a strategy that has prevented the historical Protestant denominations from losing members in the West. I'm sure the RC leadership is aware of this.
quote:I think this is important enough not to leave uncorrected. Let's be clear about that before we say anything else.
It should no longer be said that those in 'irregular' situations are in a state of mortal sin.
quote:I see your point, but churches and denominations are human institutions, and they are influenced by pragmatism and sociological context, etc., as well as purely theological motivations. Indeed, theological perspectives are also influenced by context. That's why we talk about contextual theology these days.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
I think looking at rules making the church more or less appealing is totally the wrong attitude. You're implying that we should be less strict because our strictness drives away the faithful. I think we should be strict if we can justify our strictness as God's will. I think we should be relaxed if we believe that to be God's will. We should never be strict because we want to engineer our community or relaxed for the sake of avoiding offence.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:If I understand correctly, the RCC holds that it is NOT a human institution.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:...churches and denominations are human institutions, and they are influenced by pragmatism and sociological context, etc., as well as purely theological motivations....
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
I think looking at rules making the church more or less appealing is totally the wrong attitude... I think we should be strict if we can justify our strictness as God's will. I think we should be relaxed if we believe that to be God's will....
quote:Well, sort of. It is not merely a human institution. It is of divine foundation, its head is Jesus Christ and the gates of hell will never prevail against it. It surely can't be just Catholics who still believe this of the Church. In addition, we think the Church enjoys a divine guarantee of infallibility, but of very limited scope. The Church in the world (the Church Militant) is nonetheless made up entirely of human beings and is run by them, albeit with the aid (should we avail ourselves of it) of the Holy Ghost.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If I understand correctly, the RCC holds that it is NOT a human institution.
quote:He was wrong. Absurdly wrong. I have never even heard of anyone saying this. You never questioned his reliability?
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I mentioned to an RCC friend mulling whether to obey my church or obey God on some minor issue. (I was young, these days I don't hesitate.) He laughed and said Catholics don't have to choose between pleasing the church or God because the Church is God. I thought but didn't say "Crusades". As if reading my mind he said "the Church is sometimes wrong but the Church is God." I wandered away with a syllogism in my head "The church is God, the church is sometimes wrong, God is sometimes wrong."
quote:Quote, please. A pound to a penny he never came within a country mile of having said any such thing.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
IngoB explained it precisely and thoroughly. The primary obligation is obedience to the RCC authorities. Even when they are clearly wrong, obedience is the primary value.
quote:Unfortunately this is open to serious abuse by the Church and that has been done to the full. If an excommunicated person has no access to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist, they have, by Catholic teaching, their only route to salvation blocked. The Church retains their sins, so they are damned. This can occur when someone disagrees with Church teaching on any subject. I personally believe that I, and anyone else, can make my own peace with God and that no institution can stand in the way of anyone's salvation.
Originally posted by Forthview:
"......whatever is bound on earth will be bound in Heaven and that 'whose sins are forgiven will be forgiven , whose sins are retained, will be retained.'
quote:Today's reading says that we are recognised by the love we show to one another, not by what we believe of by what institutions we follow or obey. This was the basis of St Francis of Assisi's comment, "Preach the gospel at all times, if necessary use words.". Our lives should be our gospel and our love our salvation.
Today's Roman liturgy (5th Sunday of Easter) reminds us that we should love one another and that it is by this that people will recognise who we are.
quote:Most certainly, but I think he's best followed by obedience to His mandatum novum. The Catholic Church expects obedience to things like Humanae Vitae, which few of it's own followers choose to obey. If the Church claims power to bind and loose, and to retain sins for things many people don't see as sinful, how can they claim that Christ requires this?
Originally posted by Forthview:
Whilst there may be some teachings which you disagree with, you surely have to accept that it is not you but rather Christ who determines best how to follow Him.
quote:I don't see how it is possible for an atheist to have the proper intention. Surely being an atheist and having the proper intention would be mutually exclusive?
Originally posted by teddybear:
According to Catholic theology, you don't have to be a Christian, even an atheist can do it as long as he/she uses natural water, the correct form and has the intent to do what the church intends.
quote:In short, atheists can baptise because the intention required is merely to do what the Church does in baptism, even if one does not believe in what the Church teaches about that sacrament.
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
quote:I don't see how it is possible for an atheist to have the proper intention. Surely being an atheist and having the proper intention would be mutually exclusive?
Originally posted by teddybear:
According to Catholic theology, you don't have to be a Christian, even an atheist can do it as long as he/she uses natural water, the correct form and has the intent to do what the church intends.
quote:This categorically not true. I may have other things to comment on the last few exchanges here, but I just want to get this one out of the way now.
Originally posted by Forthview:
But remember that we can only commit a sin if we recognise it as such.
quote:I completely agree with this. In fact it's the negative impact of our actions on others which is sin, IMO. What I disagree with is where the Church claims certain things to be "objectively" sinful when they have no negative impact on anyone. I have never seen the use of contraceptives as sinful, at least those contraceptives which don't induce abortion, because I can't regard human sexuality as being only for procreation. I would see it as positively sinful not to use condoms if the result is to infect somebody else with HIV.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And sometimes our ignorance of their being sins is itself culpable - as when we fail to consider their impact on others or when we fail to properly inform our consciences.
quote:Well yes, that's the premise on which I started the conversation. In fact there's more to it than that. As I get further through my RCIA course I'm becoming more convinced that I'm right - and finding more and more reasons to doubt myself. This could be a tangent, or could make a new thread.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's all based on one premise - that Holy Communion is only valid if performed by the RCC.
quote:I know that is how the RCC sees it, but that depends on how one defines the true church, whether one accepts that the RCC alone has the ability to make that definition or not.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
... The more I see the fracture in the church acrossCatholic/Protestant lines, the more uncomfortable it makes me feel. There is only one church, yet we split into three camps and sling mud at one another. The RCC was here first and the protestant church split off. ...
quote:The logic of what you've just said, is that lay people must join each others churches while simultaneously remaining members of the churches they already belong to.
... If we want to see one church ever, then we cannot leave it to the leaders. Lay people must reject the divide and join one another's churches as full and committed members.
This is the sense behind my desire to join the RCC. ...
quote:[Aside] Well, there's Petrine primacy. But we probably don't want to go there... [/Aside]
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even for those who do accept that the RCC has a stronger claim than the others in Western Europe, for the life of me, I can't see any reason why anyone should argue that the RCC has a stronger claim for that status than Orthodoxy.
quote:If you must, can you please at least acknowledge my response to that claim further up the thread? I really don't want to make an issue of this, but I did provide an argument that this is not what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
Originally posted by Forthview:
To go back to the idea that one cannot sin without being aware of committing sin
quote:Where, precisely, does she unequivocally give the moral all-clear for this? Certainly, some people who are not in communion with the Holy See will be blameless in that regard, but all of them, regardless?
Originally posted by Forthview:
the Catholic church does not blame those who have been cut off from Full Communion over centuries.
quote:It claims a bit more than that, actually. It claims those graces are objectively, ex opera operato available in the sacraments celebrated by the Catholic Church - FOR EVERYONE.
Originally posted by Forthview:
However the Catholic Church teaches quite openly that the graces of the Sacraments are be found FOR CATHOLICS in the Sacraments celebrated by a properly authorised Catholic minister.
quote:And what, precisely, is your point here? The Church has the power to require certain things/practices for the good of souls, such that wilfully not to fulfil those requirements becomes a serious issue. It can also dispense with these requirements for reasons of prudence. It's the same with which days are deemed days of obligation: in some jurisdictions attendance at Mass on certain feats is obligatory, and not so in others. I don't see a problem here, and I don't see how that's any different from where and when abstinence from meat was required in the past. We're not seeing things so very differently now at all.
Originally posted by Forthview:
60 years ago it was very definitely a mortal sin for a Catholic (unless dispensed) to eat meat on a Friday. Nowadays it is not.
quote:Yes, I know - but the Church continues to teach that they are wrong to do so.
Originally posted by Forthview:
In the matter of contraception, many Catholics will reason partly as Paul has done.
quote:Not only may - must. But if their consciences so "tell" them then, as Catholics, they are still responsible for not conforming their conscience with the Church's teaching. Conscience is not a magic, special, "heart of hearts" feeling: it is a matter of practical judgement, which for Catholics must involve consulting the teaching of the Church. If you know the Church has the power to teach some things bindingly and you know it has so taught in this matter, to go ahead anyway does not put you in the moral clear. Conscience is not a "get of out Hell free" card which you can play when it suits you.
Originally posted by Forthview:
If in their heart of hearts their conscience, even although informed by the Church, tells them that even ARTIFICIAL contraception is not always wrong, then they may obey the voice of conscience.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If, as it seems, you are worried about the sacraments in the post-reformation Churches, is it worth considering the Plot(tm)? The Orthodox have, I understand, a more charitable approach to a marriage that turns out to be a mistake than the RCs, and AFAIK, nobody denies that they have real priests and real Jesus.
quote:Chesterbelloc, the big problem with that statement, is that you have to be already RC to find it even remotely persuasive. Benighted, you may regard the rest of us, but we just don't find it so. As apologetic, it doesn't work. As a piece of rhetoric, it only works to keep those who are already on side remaining there.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:[Aside] Well, there's Petrine primacy. But we probably don't want to go there... [/Aside]
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even for those who do accept that the RCC has a stronger claim than the others in Western Europe, for the life of me, I can't see any reason why anyone should argue that the RCC has a stronger claim for that status than Orthodoxy.
quote:Like I said, we probably don't want to go there, but that's a somewhat bizarre dismissal of the concept. If you have never heard of anyone for whom Petrine primacy played a significant part in their conversion to the Catholic Church I could introduce you to a bunch of them. I'm one of them.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Chesterbelloc, the big problem with that statement, is that you have to be already RC to find it even remotely persuasive. Benighted, you may regard the rest of us, but we just don't find it so. As apologetic, it doesn't work. As a piece of rhetoric, it only works to keep those who are already on side remaining there.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:[Aside] Well, there's Petrine primacy. But we probably don't want to go there... [/Aside]
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even for those who do accept that the RCC has a stronger claim than the others in Western Europe, for the life of me, I can't see any reason why anyone should argue that the RCC has a stronger claim for that status than Orthodoxy.
quote:Well, I do happen to think that living a life in complete fidelity to Catholic teaching is rather more difficult than to many other philosophies, some of them avowedly Christian. But it's not a pissing competition and we've all got our crosses to bear. Both loving God above all else and loving one's neighbour as oneself are difficult.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm sure neither Forthview nor Chesterbelloc are among their number, but I do sometimes though get a bit irritated by the impression some Catholics give that it's living the Catholic faith that is so hard, rather than living the Christian faith.
[...]
The really difficult one, though, IMHO is loving one's neighbour as oneself.
quote:I'm rather baffled by that assertion. It is certainly true that for Christians it is much more than a philosophy - it is a relationship with the Triune God, the divine person of Jesus Christ, etc.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Christianity is not a philosophy. I don't think any ecclesial household would regard it as one. I am sure neither Pope Francis nor Pope Benedict do.
quote:The RC church and dioceses here have no difficulty being much more pastoral. My daughter is an Anglican and also goes to an RC church. She gets comminion at both. No one restrains her. The local bishop of the RC church has regular lunch dates. with the Lutheran and Anglucan bishops. They all talk I suppose about the shared hospital chaplaincy, retreat centre, ecumenical centre. The RC cathedral in the neighboyring diocese was used for the ordination of the previous Anglican bishop as the Anglican cathedral was under repair. All three and several more denominations of course attended.
Originally posted by Forthview:
In thinking about what Enoch just wrote I remember just a few years ago an Anglican friend who wanted to join the Catholic Church.
There were a good number of difficulties as his life contained not just one but several 'irregular' situations.
Although he wanted to join the Catholic church he also wished to continue attending and receiving Communion in his Anglican church.
Needless to say he is still a member of an Anglican church.
quote:If the priest at the RC church that your Anglican daughter attends knows that she is Anglican yet allows her to receive communion, AFAIK that is irregular. Whether I think it is commendable or not isn't the point. If I walked into a RC church the priest wouldn't know whether I was RC, so I could go to the altar rail to receive communion ... but I know that the RC church practices closed communion, so I don't. I've been to several RC churches where the bulletin politely states the closed communion policy in no uncertain terms.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The RC church and dioceses here have no difficulty being much more pastoral. My daughter is an Anglican and also goes to an RC church. She gets comminion at both. No one restrains her. The local bishop of the RC church has regular lunch dates. with the Lutheran and Anglucan bishops. They all talk I suppose about the shared hospital chaplaincy, retreat centre, ecumenical centre. The RC cathedral in the neighboyring diocese was used for the ordination of the previous Anglican bishop as the Anglican cathedral was under repair. All three and several more denominations of course attended.
I am thus having great difficulty understanding how things can be so divisive for some of you.
quote:I am no expert, but the expert commentators and canonists I have read are unanimous that (whatever His Holiness or his ghost writers may have intended) AM has de facto overturned nothing, either canonically or doctrinally, and could hardly be expected to have done so, especially whilst being so long, diverse and semmingly deliberately ambiguous.
AFAIK official RC policy on this matter has not changed. Maybe Pope Francis addressed this in Amoris laetitia, but I don't know whether an apostolic exhortation overrides canon law.
quote:For everyone ? Or only for those disposed to accept the culture and authority of the Catholic Church ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It claims those graces are objectively, ex opera operato available in the sacraments celebrated by the Catholic Church - FOR EVERYONE.
quote:Consulting is not the same as being bound by. Primacy of conscience means that the individual consults - does their reasonable best to find someone to explain both what the tradition of the church advises and why, in clear modern English - and then does their best to reconcile that with their own moral intuition, and then decides. It doesn't mean subordinating moral intuition to legitimate external authority.
Conscience is not a magic, special, "heart of hearts" feeling: it is a matter of practical judgement, which for Catholics must involve consulting the teaching of the Church.
quote:Trying to force oneself to believe incompatible or nonsensical things is hard. Trying to live in one culture while maintaining the values of another is hard.
Being a Catholic is hard.
quote:For everyone, because membership of the Catholic Church is open to all.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:For everyone ? Or only for those disposed to accept the culture and authority of the Catholic Church ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It claims those graces are objectively, ex opera operato available in the sacraments celebrated by the Catholic Church - FOR EVERYONE.
quote:This is definitely absurd. It implies that irrespective of a person's belief or lack of it concerning the sacraments it would be wrong for someone to deny them to you on that basis.
Originally posted by Russ:
If the graces of the sacraments operate objectively, like physics (a comparison that IngoB has been known to make) then it seems to me the height of wickedness to deny that Grace to anyone as a means of pressuring them into accepting one's own culture and authority, maintaining one's own power.
quote:Because God is for everybody - everyone was made by and for Him. Christ founded the Church for all men and women. The Church necessarily has "rules/values/authority" - that's what makes it a distinct body in the first place. Are you suggesting that Christ founded a body with nothing to teach and with no-one to teach it? What would the Church be without the values that Christ taught or the means of teaching and upholding those values? Because this is definitely not the kind of Church we see in the New Testament.
Originally posted by Russ:
What I don't see is how the Catholic Church can both be universal and insistent on its own culture (rules/values/authority).
quote:Right. But a failure properly to form the conscience in the first place or to maintain it by consultation with the authoratitive teaching of the Church is going to leave you with a conscience which you still must obey, but which will likely lead you seriously astray in doing so. Our moral intuitions are, after all, fallible.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Consulting is not the same as being bound by. Primacy of conscience means that the individual consults - does their reasonable best to find someone to explain both what the tradition of the church advises and why, in clear modern English - and then does their best to reconcile that with their own moral intuition, and then decides. It doesn't mean subordinating moral intuition to legitimate external authority.
Conscience is not a magic, special, "heart of hearts" feeling: it is a matter of practical judgement, which for Catholics must involve consulting the teaching of the Church.
quote:Agreed. So it's just as well that is not required for embracing the Catholic faith.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Trying to force oneself to believe incompatible or nonsensical things is hard.
Being a Catholic is hard.
quote:Indeed. And in this post-lapsarian world, trying live by the values of the Kingdom will always be hard. It's when it stops being hard that you have to worry.
Originally posted by Russ:
Trying to live in one culture while maintaining the values of another is hard.
quote:Yes - just as easy as taking up one's cross and following Him.
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't the true yoke supposed to be easy and the burden light?
quote:The Catholic faith is not a seamless garment. It is entirely possible to want to join a local Catholic community whilst at the same time believing that the governing body of the Catholic church is wrong about some particular issue (and therefore is capable of being wrong about other issues). People are drawn to those in whom they see a reflection of Jesus. They're not drawn by dogmas.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why would you want to receive Catholic sacraments if you did not accept the Catholic faith?
quote:Yes, but being "properly disposed" is about an attitude towards God, not an attitude towards the pronouncements of the government of the Church.
The grace of the sacraments is objectively available - it's really there and guaranteed - but we can louse up the channel from our side. One has to be properly disposed to benefit from the grace.
quote:No, I'm suggesting that every organisation has a culture which will attract some people and repel others according to their disposition and background. No organisation can embody or teach "mere Christianity"; every church and missionary society necessarily presents Christianity within a particular cultural context. The Catholic church presents Christ as interpreted through Roman culture (just as Anglicanism is culturally English and Orthodoxy culturally eastern-European, etc)
The Church necessarily has "rules/values/authority" - that's what makes it a distinct body in the first place. Are you suggesting that Christ founded a body with nothing to teach and with no-one to teach it?
quote:The cross is normally represented as a heavy burden - Jesus needed help to carry it and he stumbled several times...
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Yes - just as easy as taking up one's cross and following Him.
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't the true yoke supposed to be easy and the burden light?
quote:... which was my point precisely.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:The cross is normally represented as a heavy burden - Jesus needed help to carry it and he stumbled several times...
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Yes - just as easy as taking up one's cross and following Him.
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't the true yoke supposed to be easy and the burden light?
quote:I'd be interested to hear your take on this part, Chesterbelloc.
originally posted by Russ
The OP seemed to suggest someone who thought they should join the Catholic church because it is the organisation that Jesus founded, whilst believing that those who govern the church are wrong not to recognise the reality of second marriages. Seems a perfectly plausible view, whether or not you happen to agree with either part.
quote:My short answer would be: why would one believe the massive claim that the Catholic Church is the very Church founded by Christ himself, but cavil at the relatively minor claim by that same Church to teach authoritatively that second marriages whilst both spouses were still living were prohibited?
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:I'd be interested to hear your take on this part, Chesterbelloc.
originally posted by Russ
The OP seemed to suggest someone who thought they should join the Catholic church because it is the organisation that Jesus founded, whilst believing that those who govern the church are wrong not to recognise the reality of second marriages. Seems a perfectly plausible view, whether or not you happen to agree with either part.
I agree with Russ that it's a plausible point of view to see the Catholic church as more than just one among many churches but not to believe that it is preserved by the Holy Spirit from mistakes in teaching. I would have thought that probably quite a few people hold that position, including some Catholics ( even though they are not supposed to ).
quote:It is you who has extrapolated from those words the assumption that this must mean recognising the RCC as the only one true church, the complete and only Body of Christ.
the Catholic church as more than just one among many churches
quote:Says you.
Originally posted by Russ:
The Catholic faith is not a seamless garment.
quote:Then join them: befriend, worship, chat, volunteer with them. All this is possible without receiving the sacraments in their building. If you think that only Catholic sacraments are valid, maybe you should have a think about whether the other things the Church teaches about herself and the ways she exercises her ministry might not also be right. If you don't believe that only Catholic sacraments are valid, get the sacraments elsewhere. What is supposed to be the problem here? That you can only get the sacraments of the Catholic Church under the terms of the Catholic Church? What do you expect?
Originally posted by Russ:
It is entirely possible to want to join a local Catholic community whilst at the same time believing that the governing body of the Catholic church is wrong about some particular issue (and therefore is capable of being wrong about other issues).
quote:Do not underestimete people's hunger for the truth; in my experience and that of countless others, people are drawn by both.
Originally posted by Russ:
People are drawn to those in whom they see a reflection of Jesus. They're not drawn by dogmas.
quote:That's a big fat false dichotomy for Catholics. The fact that you don't get this is part of the problem you seem to have accepting that Catholics, except in very rare cases, are only to administer the sacraments to Catholics.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes, but being "properly disposed" is about an attitude towards God, not an attitude towards the pronouncements of the government of the Church.
The grace of the sacraments is objectively available - it's really there and guaranteed - but we can louse up the channel from our side. One has to be properly disposed to benefit from the grace.
quote:A delusive, egomaniacal one?
Originally posted by Russ:
If I had medicine that would save your life, but said that I'd only give it to you if you agree that I'm the greatest and you accept my every utterance as gospel, what sort of jerk would I be?
quote:I totally don't buy your premiss, dude. The Catholic Church is called "catholic" for a reason. It is the most successfully culturally adaptive organisation on the planet. It is anything but monocultural. But truth crosses cultural boundaries. Some things are true for all cultures and all peoples, precisely because they are all people of God, created by and for Him.
Originally posted by Russ:
The Catholic church presents Christ as interpreted through Roman culture (just as Anglicanism is culturally English and Orthodoxy culturally eastern-European, etc)
quote:The idea that every utterance of every hierarch in the Church is infallible is something a sophomore would be embarrassed to entertain.
Originally posted by Russ:
And the idea of the pronouncements of the hierarchy never being wrong is a Roman overlay on the teaching of Christ and not part of it.
quote:Then nothing is. No moral or ethical or political system of thought is capable of commanding the consent of every single person who encounters it. Something can be true, of course, without everyone consenting to it. Only by making Catholicism platitudinously vacuous could it meet your standard of universality.
Originally posted by Russ:
Being open to everyone who can swallow Roman culture without gagging isn't enough to count as universal.
quote:But, again, the idea that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ is clearly not one that is persuasive only to insiders - beacause people convert to this belief all the time.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Chesterbelloc, that seems to me, as I commented about Petrine primacy, another example of reasoning that is only persuasive if one is already an RC.
quote:It would. But only because you overplay your hand.
Originally posted by Enoch:
if it did follow that there could only be one true organic and real institutional church in this world, that that church's institutional pronouncements and authority were automatically right, and that anyone who questioned this was automatically sinful, heretical, wilfully disobedient, schismatic and/or blind (choose preferred adjective(s) to suit situation), then that would be a very disturbing state of affairs.
quote:The infallibility bestowed upon the Church is real, but extremely limited.
The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter so that by His revelation they might publish new teaching, but so that, by His assistance, they might devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the Apostles, or the Deposit of Faith.
quote:Except no one gives a flying good fling at a rolling donut about such nonsense here. There is a liberal interpretation of RC canon 800something. Which apparently in parts of the world which lack old world rigidity is enough for Christians to play together. The local RC, Lutheran and Anglican bishops also hold hands together and wash with sweet grass smoke together (a First Nations Cree ritual).
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What St Hilda just said so well.
quote:I am no expert, but the expert commentators and canonists I have read are unanimous that (whatever His Holiness or his ghost writers may have intended) AM has de facto overturned nothing, either canonically or doctrinally, and could hardly be expected to have done so, especially whilst being so long, diverse and semmingly deliberately ambiguous.
AFAIK official RC policy on this matter has not changed. Maybe Pope Francis addressed this in Amoris laetitia, but I don't know whether an apostolic exhortation overrides canon law.
Therefore, the discipline remains as it was, as unambiguously set out in the Catechism and previous papal documents, such as Familiaris consortio (which AL explicitly cites).
quote:Madame and I have on many occasions taken communion at Mass in Catholic churches throughout Europe. The spontaneity issue is usually absent as we make a practice of going to speak with the priest the afternoon before. The lack of Anglican churches out in the Vaucluse, the Alto Adige etc covers the second. As to the third we say that while we don't like Aquinas's statement of transubstantiation as being overly scholastic and not stressing the love and grace of God in the sacrament, we believe that the elements become truly the Body and Blood. Even in suburban Sydney, we have been admitted - the basis being that there's no Anglican service being conducted within cooee at the particular time, usually a requiem or nuptial. Never have we been refused admission.
Originally posted by Forthview:
.
Chesterbelloc has indicated that in certain circumstances non-Catholics can be admitted to Catholic sacraments, principally Holy Communion.
There are three main conditions to be met :
If the person has a great desire to receive Communion and expresses spontaneously that desire
If there is no possibility of their receiving Communion from a minister of their own community
If they share the Eucharistic theology of the Catholic Church
quote:Thanks for your considered and constructive contribution to this discussion.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Except no one gives a flying good fling at a rolling donut about such nonsense here. [...] The point is that such rigid nonsense is of no value except to the same sort who deliberately exclude other children on playgrounds. We are having none of it.
quote:Thanks - I missed that completely.
Originally posted by Forthview:
By 'spontaneously' I mean 'of their own volition' , not because of the wishes of another person.
quote:Perfectly reasonable to say that the Catholic Church and its sacraments are for those who believe X,Y & Z and that those who don't should go elsewhere. If you believe that there's a viable elsewhere to go to.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you don't believe that only Catholic sacraments are valid, get the sacraments elsewhere. What is supposed to be the problem here? That you can only get the sacraments of the Catholic Church under the terms of the Catholic Church? What do you expect?
quote:Ok, so why would a person who is not a Catholic (and not considering becoming one) think that there's not a viable elsewhere?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Perfectly reasonable to say that the Catholic Church and its sacraments are for those who believe X,Y & Z and that those who don't should go elsewhere. If you believe that there's a viable elsewhere to go to.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you don't believe that only Catholic sacraments are valid, get the sacraments elsewhere. What is supposed to be the problem here? That you can only get the sacraments of the Catholic Church under the terms of the Catholic Church? What do you expect?
quote:Supposing we take the "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" at it strictest orthodox interpretation (various interpretations seem to hold some currency at this juncture) - what of it? Anyone may still join or at the very least explore with the Church the process of becoming a member - the Church excludes no-one who can actually commit to the Church's most basic credal requirements and will discuss membership with anyone who approaches her. How more accommodating could the Church actually be, without denying her mission (as she understands it to be) and the truth (as she believes it to be)?
Originally posted by Russ:
My problem is when you say this out of one corner of your mouth and out of the other say that the Catholic church is for everyone and that outside it there is no salvation.
quote:That doesn't seem to me to be an adequate approach to truth-finding. Sometimes - very frequently, alas - the truth does not always fit people's existing experiences, values and understanding of themselves at all or does so in not immediately obvious ways. People must allow themselves to be open to being transformed by the truth, rather than reject it because it does not on a first glance fit one's preconceptions.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'd agree that people are drawn to truth, to ideas that fit their experience and help them make sense of their lives.
quote:I don't know what you mean by "conservatism", but you make it sound as if only "conservative" people are drawn to those who will confirm their prejudices. I'm sure you can't mean that.
Originally posted by Russ:
But some people are also drawn to others who will confirm their prejudices, their conservatism.
quote:Over on the "pledge of allegiance" thread the distinction is made between the nation and the state. And between the state and particular policies of the state.
Originally posted by Cedd:
pastoral practice on the ground does not always follow the strict letter of canon law.
quote:This is what makes me so sad about the Catholic Church. I am very much in tune with the Catholic theology of the Mass. The Sacrifice, the Real Presence and asking the BVM, the saints and my brothers and sisters to pray for me. These things, which are all completely absent from Protestant theology are really where I'm at. But as Enoch says, the Church has completely knotted itself it with its contempt for human sexuality. Much of what's wrong with it can be found in Humanae Vitae. To say that all sexual acts must be open to the creation of life is Manichean. There are many very wholesome sexual acts and relationships in which it is quite sensible not to bring new life into the situation. Couples who struggle to maintain the children they already have, or young people who aren't ready for the commitment, or people who will never be ready for it. To bring children into such a situation is irresponsible.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Contrary to the impression I may have created, I've a great admiration for the RCC. It has many strengths It is undoubtedly a school in which saints are forged. But that admiration is not unqualified. As it happens, its teaching on marriage is one of the areas where I think it has knotted itself up unnecessarily with consequences that are damaging to the spiritual health of some of its weaker faithful. Idealism has trumped incarnation.
quote:Forgive me but, if I remember correctly, you had bigger issues with the Church's teaching - issues which made me surprised at the time that you were to be received into the Church. Didn't/don't you reject the idea of the Incarnation, in that you don't believe Christ is/was fully divine as well as fully human? If you think this question, which I think relevant, in any way impertinent you of course needn't respond.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is what makes me so sad about the Catholic Church. I am very much in tune with the Catholic theology of the Mass. The Sacrifice, the Real Presence and asking the BVM, the saints and my brothers and sisters to pray for me.
quote:How so, precisely?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
To say that all sexual acts must be open to the creation of life is Manichean.
quote:...have recourse to natural methods of regulating the births of their children. You may not like (or think adequate) these provisions, but many people do use them successfully and it would only be fair to mention them.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There are many very wholesome sexual acts and relationships in which it is quite sensible not to bring new life into the situation. Couples who struggle to maintain the children they already have[.]
quote:Do you mean married couples? Because if you do, the question arises whether they are really ready for the commitment of marriage in that case. If you mean unmarried ones, the Church has no advice for them except not to have sexual relations until they are ready for the commitment of marriage. There is no teaching of the Church about the use of artificial contraception outside marriage. None. To those who decide to ignore the teaching about extra-marital sex the normal requirements of prudence and ethics still apply, of course.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
or young people who aren't ready for the commitment, or people who will never be ready for it.
quote:This is categorically not what the Church teaches about same-sex relations.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is also why the Catholic Church can't give due respect to gay couples, taking the attitude that if it can't produce children they shouldn't be doing it.
quote:This hoary old argument is not as strong as you seem to think it is.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It's as the former Irish President Mary Macaleese said, why should rules on human sexuality be pronounced on by celibate old men?
quote:Thank you for that.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't, of course, present myself for communion.
quote:The point is not whether they think there's a viable elsewhere - it's whether you think so.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Ok, so why would a person who is not a Catholic (and not considering becoming one) think that there's not a viable elsewhere?
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE]Perfectly reasonable to say that the Catholic Church and its sacraments are for those who believe X,Y & Z and that those who don't should go elsewhere. If you believe that there's a viable elsewhere to go to.
quote:Not saying only conservatives at all. They're just a group that are currently attracted to Catholicism for the wrong reason. If all those who are wedded to traditional gender roles see the Catholic church as their refuge, what does that say ?
you make it sound as if only "conservative" people are drawn to those who will confirm their prejudices. I'm sure you can't mean that.
quote:It isn't impertinent to discuss things in a civilised way. I see much in the Bible as being mystical and metaphorical rather than historical. I don't reject any of the teachings, but they don't necessarily mean the same to me as they do to you.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Forgive me but, if I remember correctly, you had bigger issues with the Church's teaching - issues which made me surprised at the time that you were to be received into the Church. Didn't/don't you reject the idea of the Incarnation, in that you don't believe Christ is/was fully divine as well as fully human? If you think this question, which I think relevant, in any way impertinent you of course needn't respond
quote:By this I mean dualist, despising the things of the fallen physical world. I think Christianity, not only Catholicism, has had an unhealthy relationship with human sexuality. St Paul praised celibacy and virginity high above marriage. He only permitted marriage to avoid falling into sin. But he expected the end of the world at any moment. Origen castrated himself to make himself "a eunuch for the kingdom." St Augustine was disgusted by his own hyper-sexuality. Catholic priests are meant to be celibate. By contrast, Jewish rabbis usually have lots of kids, because their religion is much more of this world in the present moment. This all adds up to a fear/contempt for sexuality.
Manichean
quote:It's very difficult to discuss same sex relations without diving into DH territory, but I don't accepts that it's sinful to be gay, because it isn't a lifestyle choice. So it can't be sinful to be in a gay relationship, except that they may be as as sinful as anyone's relationship if they involve exploitation, deceit etc. To use terms like "intrinsically disordered" is an insult nobody deserves to bear. The Catholic Church remains stuck in an age which most of the western world has mercifully learnt from and moved on.
same-sex relations
quote:This is one I've never understood. I'm not referring to methods of contraception which induce abortion. Any Christian should oppose them. But what's the difference between keeping a sperm and egg apart using a condom, or by avoiding sex during the fertile period. It seems to me that it's just that old Catholic chestnut that the answer to all problems, be they gay relationships, over population or std's is to avoid sex. Which comes back to the belief that sex is for procreation and not much else. I see this as very wrong and medieval.
.have recourse to natural methods of regulating the births of their children. You may not like (or think adequate) these provisions, but many people do use them successfully and it would only be fair to mention them.
quote:This is certainly true. I have Catholic friends from Ireland, Italy and Poland as well as from England. Many cradle Catholics who don't in any way question their Catholic identity, disagree with the Church on all the same points as I do. Most use contraceptives. A survey of the faithful at the end of 2013 found that, in western countries, the majority of Catholics were in favour of admitting remarried divorcees and people in gay relationships to communion if they were in other ways faithful Catholics. But to be a convert, you must accept the package or you are a cafeteria Catholic. You can't just cherry pick. This is why it's much harder for converts and why I can't do it.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree that to become a Catholic from being a something else, you have to accept the entire package. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are a cradle Catholic, I can't really imagine that you have to sign up afresh to the full Catechism, hook line and sinker, every time you receive the sacrament.
quote:This is a false dichotomy. I do not agree with every part of the Catholic church, or every part of what it says about the Eucharist. But I do believe that it is the Eucharist, and a real sacrament - the same sacrament given by the Orthodox church, or by my Anglican church.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:For everyone, because membership of the Catholic Church is open to all.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:For everyone ? Or only for those disposed to accept the culture and authority of the Catholic Church ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It claims those graces are objectively, ex opera operato available in the sacraments celebrated by the Catholic Church - FOR EVERYONE.
But there's something a bit absurd about the question. Why would you want to recevicve Catholic sacraments if you did not accept the Catholic faith? If you did not accept the tenets of Judaism, would you demand circumcision from a Jewish mohel?
quote:Once again, Russ, your whole argument here boils down to the assertion that the Catholic Church cannot justify its claim to universality unless it caves on issues that YOU think it should cave on. But any organisation will have at least minimal meaningful principles which comprise its identity. You can call them minimum membership requirements if you like. The point is that no matter what the Catholic non-negotiables are the Church will never meet your criteria for universality.
Originally posted by Russ:
The point is not whether they think there's a viable elsewhere - it's whether you think so.
quote:It could mean any number of things, if it were true. Including that a traditional view of gender roles was true and those who differ are wrong; such data would certainly be compatible with that thesis.
Originally posted by Russ:
If all those who are wedded to traditional gender roles see the Catholic church as their refuge, what does that say ?
quote:That's problem number one.
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:This is a false dichotomy. I do not agree with every part of the Catholic church, or every part of what it says about the Eucharist.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But there's something a bit absurd about the question. Why would you want to recevicve Catholic sacraments if you did not accept the Catholic faith? If you did not accept the tenets of Judaism, would you demand circumcision from a Jewish mohel?
quote:According to whose definition of the Eucharist and according to whose understanding of sacramental economy?
Originally posted by St Deird:
But I do believe that it is the Eucharist, and a real sacrament - the same sacrament given by the Orthodox church, or by my Anglican church.
quote:Fine. But given you think that the Eucharist is also available at your own church and with the Orthodox (who may or may not be happy for you to receive from them - I don't know), and given that you admit that your understanding of the Eucharist and the circumstances under which It is appropriate to receive It is different from that of the Catholic Church, why should just wanting It be enough to prove the Catholic Church wrong to request that you not receive It from her?
Originally posted by St Deird:
Why do I want to receive the Eucharist? Because I think the Eucharist is something I should receive.
quote:There's another big difference. According to Catholic doctrine, no-one can presume that it is always appropriate to receive the Eucharist just whenever It is offered. Almost all of us are, according to Catholic thinking, sometimes unfit by reason of unconfessed serious sin to receive the Eucharist worthily. I know I often am. So in receiving It from Catholics without having been to sacramental confession, you will (I'm guessing) sometimes be judging yourself fit to receive in circumstances in which no Catholic ought to feel themselves fit to do so. Can you see the problem here?
Originally posted by St Deird:
I think it's well worth having, and I want to have it in all circumstances that it's offered to me.
quote:We all want It. We are not all always fit to receive It.
Originally posted by St Deird:
Likewise, in a Catholic church, I don't think "Oh, well, I had communion last time I was at my Anglican church, so there's no point me having it now." No - it's the Eucharist, and Christ is offering me a physical form of his grace! I want that!
quote:My own.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:According to whose definition of the Eucharist and according to whose understanding of sacramental economy?
Originally posted by St Deird:
But I do believe that it is the Eucharist, and a real sacrament - the same sacrament given by the Orthodox church, or by my Anglican church.
quote:The Catholic Church is absolutely allowed to request that I not receive communion from them. I am not saying they shouldn't.
quote:Fine. But given you think that the Eucharist is also available at your own church and with the Orthodox (who may or may not be happy for you to receive from them - I don't know), and given that you admit that your understanding of the Eucharist and the circumstances under which It is appropriate to receive It is different from that of the Catholic Church, why should just wanting It be enough to prove the Catholic Church wrong to request that you not receive It from her?
Originally posted by St Deird:
Why do I want to receive the Eucharist? Because I think the Eucharist is something I should receive.
quote:Well, if one is speaking poetically . . .
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even if you were to maintain that it is because the RCC is the body of Christ, if it were going to be personified, it would then take a masculine one and be 'he'.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Thanks for clarifying this. I think I read something into your post that I had picked up from someone else's.
Originally posted by St Deird:
The Catholic Church is absolutely allowed to request that I not receive communion from them. I am not saying they shouldn't.
All I am saying is that, in answer to the question "Why would you want to receive Catholic sacraments if you did not accept the Catholic faith?", my answer is that I consider their sacraments legitimate (and therefore worth receiving) even if I do not agree with them on everything else.
quote:Naturally not, but you are still bound not to dissent from the core teachings and not to commit grave sins without having made a sacramental confession, otherwise you may not be in a fit state to receieve the Eucharist: this applies whether you are a convert or not. For example, no-one who does not believe that Christ is truly and substantially (not just figuratively) present in the Eucharist should be receiving the Eucharist; and no-one who thinks there's nothing wrong with their having sex outside marriage should be either.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree that to become a Catholic from being a something else, you have to accept the entire package. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are a cradle Catholic, I can't really imagine that you have to sign up afresh to the full Catechism, hook line and sinker, every time you receive the sacrament.
quote:Publicly to dissent from core Catholic teaching would put you in such a state of sin; and every Catholic is bound to make a sacramental confession at least once a year. No Catholic must receive the Eucharist more than once a year, though frequent communication is enjoined.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yes, under the traditional discipline, you would have had to go to confession, but my impression is that that was mainly interested in actual sins mortal or venial.
quote:Do you know, I think you might just possibly be right about that.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't believe that there are no cradle Catholics in good standing in the pews who wouldn't turn out if you examined them to be a touch Arian, Docetist, Pelagian or whatever. Some of them might not even think with the church on issues like contraception and remarriage.
quote:Well, everyone must be able to commit to the basic sredal and moral standards required of membership in good faith, so to that extent there is no difference. How well that standard is enforced is of course a different matter.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, even with adult converts, I suspect clergy may be less rigorous in their demands of those who convert from believing nothing as against those who convert from other ecclesial households. With those who convert from nothing, are they not inclined to welcome and to seek to encourage those who aspire to a full and complete faith, without necessarily having achieved it?
quote:The RCC (I've been told) sees itself as the sole church, as encompassing the entirety of the Bride of Christ. If RCC and Bride of Christ are essentially synonyms, "she" the appropriate pronoun.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The RC church is "it" and never "she" where I live.
quote:I really don't want this to get too personal - like Bloody Bess, I've no desire to make a window into your soul - but unless you can give assent to the Church's teaching that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man in eodem sensu eademque sententia (in the same sense and with the same meaning) as the Church, then you do reject that teaching.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't reject any of the teachings, but they don't necessarily mean the same to me as they do to you.
quote:Let me start by saying that there is plenty about human sexuality in our current state which it is eminently rational and sane to fear or contemn, because our sexual urges frequently give us very strong motivations to do utterly destructive, dangerous and heart-breakingly wrong things, to ourselves and to others. Any belief system that does not take account of this will to that extent be inadquate.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:By this I mean dualist, despising the things of the fallen physical world. I think Christianity, not only Catholicism, has had an unhealthy relationship with human sexuality. [...] Jewish rabbis usually have lots of kids, because their religion is much more of this world in the present moment. This all adds up to a fear/contempt for sexuality.
Manichean
quote:To which I say that the Church both promotes and celebrates with joy and gratitude not just the procreative but also the unitive blessings and pleasures of marital sex - an attitude hardly compatible with a hatred of the physical, embodied nature of human beings. In other words, the Church distinguishes between good and bad exercises of human sexuality, and celebrates the latter.
To say that all sexual acts must be open to the creation of life is Manichean.
quote:Agreed - and for this reason I will not respond to this section of your post at all, nor to the section on artificial contraception, another topic that has been rehashed so many times to so little benefit that I refuse to get entombed in it again.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:It's very difficult to discuss same sex relations without diving into DH territory.
same-sex relations
quote:This is a problem I've had with various strands of Christianity for almost 50 years. Because what you are saying is "believe exactly what we tell you to believe or be damned." The Tao Te Ching begins with the words:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I really don't want this to get too personal - like Bloody Bess, I've no desire to make a window into your soul - but unless you can give assent to the Church's teaching that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man in eodem sensu eademque sententia (in the same sense and with the same meaning) as the Church, then you do reject that teaching.
quote:I hope it's clear that I do see a general issue about how a church can both be universal and have a particular culture.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
your whole argument here boils down to the assertion that the Catholic Church cannot justify its claim to universality unless it caves on issues that YOU think it should cave on. But any organisation will have at least minimal meaningful principles which comprise its identity.
quote:Not an implication I intended - I didn't say "only", and I suggested that views on gender roles are neither good nor bad in themselves.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It could mean any number of things, if it were true. Including that a traditional view of gender roles was true and those who differ are wrong...
...your implication that it is true and that it means that only people who count as bigots in your book are attracted to the Catholic Church is wholly unjustified.
quote:It's utterly manifest I have said nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
[W]hat you are saying is "believe exactly what we tell you to believe or be damned."
quote:This is precisely the opposite of the case. In fact, the Manicheans thought that procreation was far worse than non-procreative sex, precisely because to have procreative sex was to condemn another soul to the prison of the flesh.
To say that all sexual acts must be open to the creation of life is Manichean.
quote:I do understand that is an issue for you, Russ, and I appreciate your efforts to clarify it.
Originally posted by Russ:
I hope it's clear that I do see a general issue about how a church can both be universal and have a particular culture.
quote:Fair enough, but you did imply that:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Not an implication I intended - I didn't say "only", and I suggested that views on gender roles are neither good nor bad in themselves.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It could mean any number of things, if it were true. Including that a traditional view of gender roles was true and those who differ are wrong...
...your implication that it is true and that it means that only people who count as bigots in your book are attracted to the Catholic Church is wholly unjustified.
quote:And that clearly is not the case.
all those who are wedded to traditional gender roles see the Catholic church as their refuge
quote:No, most of them had ostensibly believed that for a long while; but it's one thing to say you believe Catholic teaching to be authoritative and entirely something else to follow the logic of that belief (a good test of whether you really beieve it ir not) and put yourself under that authority.
Originally posted by Russ:
Now it may be unduly sceptical, but I doubt that all those who are part of the Ordinariate suddenly experienced a simultaneous revelation that Catholic teaching is authoritative...
quote:Well everything I believe about the Incarnation and the Word can be found in John 1.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As it happens, I don't know what you believe about the Incarnation - if i ever did, I've forgotten. But I can say without knowing that that if your belief entails that Jesus is not the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, very God of very God, then you reject Catholic teaching, and not in a minor issue either.
quote:Um, not omitting the first three verses of that very same chapter?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
What could be more orthodox?
quote:Look, I'm not interested in setting some kind of orthodoxy test for you pass - what you actually believe is none of my business. What is is that you claimed that what you believed was in line with (was no rejection of) what the Church teaches. But unless what you believe is consistent the idea that Jesus was fully God and fully man, eternally begotten of the Father, "through whom all things were made" then you do indeed reject what the Church teaches.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
quote:I have been unable to find a meaning for "pollard" that fits here. Can you assist?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
A "mere Christianity" which excludes such Catholic dogmas as these would be for the RCC so seriously an impaired, pollarded Christianity that it wouldn't count as the Catholic - and by that I do also mean universal - faith at all.
quote:Gladly.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have been unable to find a meaning for "pollard" that fits here. Can you assist?
quote:As a devotee of Margaret Barker's Temple Theology, I not only believe in the pre-existent word, "by whom all things were made" but I believe that teaching was part of the First Temple theology of the Jews, albeit expressed in sometimes different language. Orthodoxy of the Incarnation isn't my problem.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Look, I'm not interested in setting some kind of orthodoxy test for you pass - what you actually believe is none of my business.
quote:My problems with the Church lie much more in this direction.
The RCC's teaching about human sexuality, Petrine/Roman primacy, etc are not part of the "culture" of the RCC (like, for example, the iconography of likenesses of the saints or the particular music used in worship) - they are, she believes, part of the "core message", the deposit of faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Gladly.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have been unable to find a meaning for "pollard" that fits here. Can you assist?
My meaning was "brutally cut back".
quote:Thank you for your frankness, Paul - it is appreciated.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
OK in all fairness to openness and clarity, I'm something of an Adoptionist.
quote:Due to bad catechesis and inattention to the Church's teaching, I dare say that there are many of the faithful who are material heretics - those who don't really know what the Church teaches and develop their own (mis)understandings of doctrine, resulting in beliefs which are "accidentally" opposed to orthodoxy. But I bet there are far fewer formal heretics (i.e., those who know and understand what the Church teaches about the Incarnation and the person of Christ but consciously reject that in favour of their own, contrary understanding) regularly (and illicitly) presenting themselves for Communion week by week.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As has been pointed out on this thread, there's probably something of the heretic in many Catholics who receive communion every week.
quote:I think it's more a matter of ignorance of tree management.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert
I'm linguistically intrigued by this. Chesterbelloc's meaning was straightforward to me. Are 'pollard', 'pollarded' and 'pollarding' some of those words like 'fortnight' that we are told are normal to us but not used on the other side of the Atlantic?
End of tangent alert
quote:All head stuff cf. Steindl-Rast's heart stuff.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The simple fact remains that unless you can subscribe to the belief that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, eternally begottten of the Father you do indeed reject Catholic teaching.
quote:I would agree. I leave myself open to the criticism of being too much heart over head, but Steindl-Rast is a great favourite of mine.
Originally posted by leo:
All head stuff cf. Steindl-Rast's heart stuff.
quote:Indeed - but there are people on here who insist that orthodoxy is all about intellectual assent rather that credo/cordo/I give my heard to...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think it's all "head stuff", leo. In any case, we're called to love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind.
quote:And what's wrong with sycretism? Maybe you looked at the wiki pages about him, where it says that he studied sufism etc.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:Paul, all this stuff about Barker and Steindl-Rast (who sounds syncretist to me) [/QB]
quote:This from a man whose last post to me over on this thread consisted entirely of a reading list of academic theology books.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Indeed - but there are people on here who insist that orthodoxy is all about intellectual assent rather that credo/cordo/I give my heard to...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think it's all "head stuff", leo. In any case, we're called to love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind.
Faith becomes, for them, as series of intellectual propositions rather than a relationship.
quote:On second thoughts, better not go to the trouble of naming and shaming since (a) it's probably over-personal for Purg (b) it might distract you from repsonding to my lastest reply to you on the "Why did God create this universe" thread (which of course has nothing to do with your recent comments on this thread whatsoever).
[Christianity] is much more than a philosophy - it is a relationship with the Triune God, the divine person of Jesus Christ, etc. [...] An encounter with the truth at it's most transcendent is also one with the truth at its most personal: it is an encounter with the Person who is the Way and the Light as well as the Truth.
quote:Well, as a Catholic, the fact that it is completely contrary to Catholic principles tends to influence my attitude. Also, I'm not much into blending contradictory beliefs.
Originally posted by leo:
And what's wrong with sycretism?
quote:This is a perfectly Humpty-Dumpty definition of Catholicism.
Originally posted by leo:
Catholicism = according to the whole = holistic. He sounds most holistically catholic.
quote:I'll give you three guesses...
Originally posted by leo:
I'm going to order his book - Common Sense Spirituality. Are you?
quote:I'll give you three guesses... [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by leo:
I'm going to order his book - Common Sense Spirituality. Are you?
quote:Sp. mistake = heart will do a review tomorrow of Cantwell-Smith.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Oh, and what does "cordo" mean, and in what language? For that matter, what does "I give my heard to" mean?
quote:At the same time I'm asking myself, "Is that post for real?", I'm already chuckling at the realisation that it absolutely is.
Not sure what you are afraid of most - though I am saddened that it is so limiting for you and I think you are a recent convert so maybe not yet open to the generous orthodoxy which is real catholicsm.
quote:This is too personal for Purgatory, both of you.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:At the same time I'm asking myself, "Is that post for real?", I'm already chuckling at the realisation that it absolutely is.
Not sure what you are afraid of most - though I am saddened that it is so limiting for you and I think you are a recent convert so maybe not yet open to the generous orthodoxy which is real catholicsm.
God love you, leo - you're a class act.
quote:This is why I hate organised religion so much. Catholics can't blend contradictory beliefs with Protestants. Vice versa. Orthodox Christians are sure that the rest of Christendom slid into error in the first millennium and that the only hope is that they repudiate a thousand years of their history and return to the fold in penitence. In spite of some of the fluffy language of Vatican II which sees people as belonging to Christ even if they don't know it, the historical teaching of the Church has always been extra ecclesiam, nulla salus. Not to mention the impossibility of meaningful dialogue with Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus. This is all bollocks.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Well, as a Catholic, the fact that it(syncretism) is completely contrary to Catholic principles tends to influence my attitude. Also, I'm not much into blending contradictory beliefs
quote:Thanks. I'm reading your posts on this thread with great interest and would rather not see an informative discussion derailed.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
My apologies, Eliab - that was a bad call on my part.
quote:You're a gent, sir.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Thanks. I'm reading your posts on this thread with great interest and would rather not see an informative discussion derailed.
quote:The law of non-contradiction's a real bitch sometimes, but it might just keep you sane.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Catholics can't blend contradictory beliefs with Protestants. Vice versa.
quote:Dogmas are like arseholes, Paul - everybody's got 'em.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Dogmas and definitions divide humanity.
quote:I digression. About 8 years ago I had a discussion with a Catholic priest in which he told me that, growing up as a Catholic in England gives a different perspective on English history to the mainstream national psyche. I had most of my schooling in the 1960's, at a time when English history was still taught in a way which was generally positive to our nation, a view I retain to this day. We all knew of Bloody Mary, who burned and tortured those good Protestant founders. And of Popish plots like the Armada, designed to yoke us back into Rome against our will. We all knew how Guy Fawkes was a Catholic terrorist who tried to blow up James I in 1605.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Bloody Bess.
quote:Tempted though I am to wade in here, this really is a digression too far.
your mention of Bloody Bess leads me to think you've converted in much more than just your religious belief.
quote:But we try not to let them define us ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Dogmas are like arseholes, Paul - everybody's got 'em.
quote:Does that mean that as long as we're talking about issues which you see as genuinely cultural, you agree with the principle I'm suggesting:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The problem I have is that I completely reject your division between culture and (my words) "core message". I think, if that line can be drawn coherently at all (and I think it can), you draw it in completely the wrong place. The RCC's teaching about human sexuality, Petrine/Roman primacy, etc are not part of the "culture" of the RCC (like, for example, the iconography of likenesses of the saints or the particular music used in worship) - they are, she believes, part of the "core message", the deposit of faith.
quote:You're right. I should not have said "all". Apologies.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
you did imply that:quote:And that clearly is not the case.
all those who are wedded to traditional gender roles see the Catholic church as their refuge
quote:I apologise to you and to Chesterbelloc for that post. I'd had two glasses of wine when I wrote it and it went on a bit. I agree with everything you say. I just noticed that Chesterbelloc, as a Catholic convert, now speaks of "Bloody Bess." The standard English view is of "Bloody Mary." It just speaks of one's loyalties.
Originally posted by Forthview:
you mention the history which you were taught in school. No doubt all the things you learned are true, but it is equally true about the 500 + Catholic martyrs of England and Wales, several of whom have been beatified or canonised.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:What things about Christianity are there which any honest person from any culture would have to agree with ? Very few I would have thought.
originally posted by Russ
Or do you think that said positions follow from what Jesus did teach in such a logically watertight way that an honest person from any culture who studied the matter long and deeply enough would have to reach the same conclusions as the Vatican-approved Catholic theologians have reached ?
quote:In priciple and in general, yes - although I'm guessing you won't like some of the ways I might cut the culture/core line. Let's see.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Does that mean that as long as we're talking about issues which you see as genuinely cultural, you agree with the principle I'm suggesting:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The problem I have is that I completely reject your division between culture and (my words) "core message". I think, if that line can be drawn coherently at all (and I think it can), you draw it in completely the wrong place. The RCC's teaching about human sexuality, Petrine/Roman primacy, etc are not part of the "culture" of the RCC (like, for example, the iconography of likenesses of the saints or the particular music used in worship) - they are, she believes, part of the "core message", the deposit of faith.
quote:Yes. But some musical styles/traditions may be inherently more suited to Catholic worship across or within many cultures than others.
Originally posted by Russ:
- that all ecclesial bodies have a shared culture, some styles of music that they use and some that they don't use ?
quote:You got a bit carried away there, I think. It is certainly not any part of what the Catholic Church teaches that only one style of music is appropriate for worship, and I've never heard anyone try to make it so, but some (e.g., plainchant) might be in general preferable to others (e.g., hip-hop). It just so happens that certain styles of music have more appeal across and within cultures than others - more conducive to worship and devotion, that is.
Originally posted by Russ:
- that they should try not to make that musical taste part of the message they preach. That to do so is an adding to the gospel, a failing, a falling-short of universality, a step towards being a club for those who like {bagpipes, plainchant, whatever} and a step away from being the church for everyone ?
quote:I think this too is being a bit silly. Most people can embrace a culture new to them and approprite it as their own, independently of their pre-existing preferences. Sometimes the encounter with that culture can be an epiphany. I had that experience with the Church's musical tradition when I encountered it as a very young man. Never looked back. So no - hip-hop is not equal to plainchant when it comes to Catholic worship.
Originally posted by Russ:
- that even if the church is scrupulous about not preaching its culture, to the extent that people make their culture part of their identity, that the drummers and the jazz-lovers feel less part of the church than those who are into bagpipes or plainchant, so - through nobody's fault but just through the brokenness and Babel of humanity = some small element of universality is lost, the ideal not achieved ?
quote:Yes. And I don't think they're at all "political".
Originally posted by Russ:
But you think that when we move beyond music to some of the more political things that I count as part of culture - the democratic vs hierarchical dimension, the traditional gender roles vs gender equality dimension, the {not sure what the shorthand for this is, but the mindset which makes the church organisation want to decide who is married to whom in God's eyes, rather than merely exhort people to aim for lifelong fidelity to their current life-partner and repent their failure to do so in the past} - are in fact aspects of the gospel ?
quote:There's rather a bitter, cynical note in your description of such a process of what the Church believes is the working out God's revelation, don't you think? If the Church has authority (as she has always believed she does) to discern and teach the Christian truth "with and under Peter" then who else should generally exercise that office than "Vatican-approved Catholic theologians" and bishops (whose true role is teaching and guarding the deposit of the faith, with adssistance from the theologians).
Originally posted by Russ:
So how does that work ?
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 remarrige after divorse, for example.
Or do you think that said positions follow from what Jesus did teach in such a logically watertight way that an honest person from any culture who studied the matter long and deeply enough would have to reach the same conclusions as the Vatican-approved Catholic theologians have reached ?
quote:Depends what you mean by feminist. The Church positively teaches the idea that women are equal in dignity and worth as creatures of God and that any discrimination against them in violation of those properties is wrong.
Originally posted by Russ:
That to be a feminist Christian or a democratic Christian is literally a logical contradiction ?
quote:No. Though I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that.
Originally posted by Russ:
Or is that the Catholic Church has historically arrived at these positions, and even if it is the case that a church with a cultural predisposition to gender equality or democracy would have reached different conclusions, the fact that history fell out the way it did means that this is what God has willed ?
quote:Appreciated, Russ.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You're right. I should not have said "all". Apologies.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
you did imply that:quote:And that clearly is not the case.
all those who are wedded to traditional gender roles see the Catholic church as their refuge
quote:is mine.
Yes, sometimes directly. In the case of remarriage after divorce, for example
quote:If you agree that there is such a thing as a culture/core line, and that making issues from the culture side of the line part of the faith that you preach is a Bad Thing, then that's a good start.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm guessing you won't like some of the ways I might cut the culture/core line.
quote:I only mentioned music because I thought you were putting forward music as something that was on the culture side of the line. I'm not out to criticize Catholic music; I'm trying to get clarity about you think and what I think about the general question of Christianity and culture.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
some musical styles/traditions may be inherently more suited to Catholic worship across or within many cultures than others.
quote:I'd probably agree that most people can. The question is whether it is right to make that ability a condition of membership in the Church if one believes that there is no salvation outside such membership.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Most people can embrace a culture new to them and appropriate it as their own, independently of their pre-existing preferences.
quote:I think there's at least a grain of truth in the suggestion that the Vatican spent the nineteenth century in reaction against democracy and the twentieth century in reaction against equality for women.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
what's the beef with democracy? Are you suggesting that the Church opposes democracy in principle?
quote:I agree that there is a culture/core line, but it may sometimes be a bit blurred. Putting something that is definitely on the culture side on to the you-must-believe/do-this side would be wrong. But can we be a bit specific here? What things that you think should be purely cultural do you think are actually being put on the core agenda?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If you agree that there is such a thing as a culture/core line, and that making issues from the culture side of the line part of the faith that you preach is a Bad Thing, then that's a good start.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm guessing you won't like some of the ways I might cut the culture/core line.
quote:Let's have a specific, then.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm very aware that I haven't defined "culture". If you want to argue from first principles that something in particular is or isn't core, or is or isn't culture, go ahead.
quote:That very much depends on what you mean by "preaches", doesn't it? The Church doesn't tend to preach stuff (at an authoritative level) that isn't what we think of as core. It may practise or commend some non-core stuff as being conducive to the ends of the faith, but that is not the same thing. Once again, without a specific example, it's difficult to get my head around. Remember, it's the Church that determines what is core rather than culture in matters of the faith for her members.
Originally posted by Russ:
But it seems question-begging to say that something is "core not culture" because your particular Christian church preaches it.
quote:Alright, then it seems to me that the Church can require that people not perform certain types of music during the Mass, not as a matter of faith but as a matter of prudence and discipline. Does that help?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I only mentioned music because I thought you were putting forward music as something that was on the culture side of the line. I'm not out to criticize Catholic music; I'm trying to get clarity about you think and what I think about the general question of Christianity and culture.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
some musical styles/traditions may be inherently more suited to Catholic worship across or within many cultures than others.
quote:Look, if you're talking about culture in general, the Church is inherently culturally and historically steeped in first-century Judaism, and that is not something which it can do anything about (and probably shouldn't try to). If that's going to put certain people off because the 1st-c. Judaic outlook or background to be found in the New Testament rankles with them or is alienatingly foreign then there's only so much the Church can do to accommodate that. She is what she is. If you're talking about something piffling like whether we shake hands or kiss or bow profoundly as a sign of peace in the post-1962 Mass - that is something which is broadly culturally relative and is not something the Church requires assent to for membership. So what is it you think the Church is actually requiring that it shouldn't?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I'd probably agree that most people can. The question is whether it is right to make that ability a condition of membership in the Church if one believes that there is no salvation outside such membership.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Most people can embrace a culture new to them and appropriate it as their own, independently of their pre-existing preferences.
quote:No. It's more like signing a blank cheque: I don't know how much you'll want to clobber me for later. So it's not so much reticence as plain, simple suspicion, frankly. Why won't you just come out and say what it is that is bugging you about the Church so we can discuss it specifically?
Originally posted by Russ:
Am i imagining a certain reticence ? Is giving unequivocal and clear assent to a principle by which the Catholic church could conceivably be criticized an unCatholic thing to do ?
quote:There were lots of political problems that the Church explicitly spoke out against in the 19th c. and the distinguishing feature of them all was that the Church believed them to be weapons directed against the Church (the faithful as well as the "govenrnace") and were inimical to natural justice. Think (appropriately enough) Bismarck's Kulturkampf. Think exploitation of workers. Think also revolutions, Il Risogimento and Italian unification, etc. But she never spoke out against democracy as such - not in any binding way. And she pissed off a lot of her own people by not doing so.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I think there's at least a grain of truth in the suggestion that the Vatican spent the nineteenth century in reaction against democracy and the twentieth century in reaction against equality for women.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
what's the beef with democracy? Are you suggesting that the Church opposes democracy in principle?
quote:At the least end. I mean, of course. The Church makes no pretence to being democratic. That's not how she functions and never has. She is hierarchical, from the Vicar of Christ, down through to the bishops in their dioceses. Because that is part of her divine constitution (as she believes it to be).
Originally posted by Russ:
If one were to rank the various christian ecclesial bodies on a scale from most democratic to least democratic, where do you think the Catholic church would come ?
quote:Does matter. It's certainly not accidental or "cultural" - it's part of her very identity, her mission. That's what episcopal headship, apostolic succession, the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, papal infallibility, etc. is all about. I make no bones about that. I hope that speaks to your subsequent remarks.
Originally posted by Russ:
Doesn't matter - it's just part of the culture of the Catholic church. I'm suggesting that it is not a right/wrong question. It's just cultural.
quote:Not so much, actually. The document de jure opens up no such door to change - seriously, read it. The break in unity is not caused by disagreement about the contents or meaning of a non-binding document (non-binding not by its very nature but by the absence of any new authoritative teaching) but by the pre-existing differences over whether the Church's actual existing teaching about re-married divorceesand communion should be follwed or not.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It seems that the Germans have already got to work on their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. Here Cardinal Kasper is indicating that he got what he wanted from the document. Most telling is where it says:
"Some time ago, a priest of his acquaintance had decided not to prohibit a remarried mother from receiving communion herself on the day of her daughter’s first communion. And he himself, Kasper, had helped that priest to make this decision, certain that he was “absolutely right.” The cardinal then reported the matter to the pope, who approved of the decision and said: “That is where the pastor has to make the decision.”
But if you read here, Cardinal Mueller, another German, has a much different take on AL. None of this comes as any surprise. We all could have predicted what the two opposing cardinals would have said. But doesn't this open up a de facto schism? How can two cardinals treat the same document so differently? Perhaps these matters will be decided by bishops conferences. Perhaps by individual bishops or by individual pastors. In any event, unity is broken.
quote:CORRECTION: This affirmation of paranoid authoritarian avoidance of thought, which is of course all the more effective if self-policing, sends shivers down my spine.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Goes to show how different people are.
This kind of paranoid authoritarian thinking sends shivers down my spine.
quote:Avoidance of thought?
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This affirmation of paranoid authoritarian avoidance of thought, which is of course all the more effective if self-policing, sends shivers down my spine.
quote:Yebbut. Organisations like the Women's Institute or the Old Etonian Association, both organisations with whose core eligibility requirement I cannot comply, don't claim a monopoly on access to the kingdom of heaven, the ship of salvation or eternal life.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Any club/society/voluntary organisation is entitled to set its own rules for membership. As someone who regards himself as catholic, there are several teachings of the Catholic Church, which that Church regards as core. I therefore cannot be a member, and accept that.
Some recent posts on this thread seem to me to be based in the nasty days of sectarianism which existed here - and I gather also in several other countries - which I had hoped had long since disappeared.
quote:So what? I mean, really - if you don't believe the Church's claims about herself, why are you in any way bothered by them?
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Yebbut. Organisations like the Women's Institute or the Old Etonian Association, both organisations with whose core eligibility requirement I cannot comply, don't claim a monopoly on access to the kingdom of heaven, the ship of salvation or eternal life.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Some recent posts on this thread seem to me to be based in the nasty days of sectarianism which existed here - and I gather also in several other countries - which I had hoped had long since disappeared.
quote:Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:So what? I mean, really - if you don't believe the Church's claims about herself, why are you in any way bothered by them?
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Yebbut. Organisations like the Women's Institute or the Old Etonian Association, both organisations with whose core eligibility requirement I cannot comply, don't claim a monopoly on access to the kingdom of heaven, the ship of salvation or eternal life.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Some recent posts on this thread seem to me to be based in the nasty days of sectarianism which existed here - and I gather also in several other countries - which I had hoped had long since disappeared.
I don't believe Islam's claim that Muhammad is the prophet of God and reject the requirements of the other four of the Five Pillars. I cannot accept the claims of Islam and therefore cannot become a Musilm. But it doesn't in the least bother me that most Muslims would think that I cannot therefore get to heaven.
Do the "exclusivist" claims of Islam bother you as much as the Catholic claims? If not, why not?
quote:So the majority opinion amongst the Muslim sects is that people who reject all five pillars* will nonetheless get to paradise? Citation, please.
Originally posted by leo:
Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
quote:Needs a little refinement. What I mean is more precisely that too much thinking happens at the wrong time. It happens in advance of the arrival of people into a situation. DH issues in particular are decided in the abstract, and people's lives condemned as a result. The realities of the lives of individuals are not allowed to cloud the picture. Thought in the face of real, individual human situations is avoided in favour of abstraction.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:CORRECTION: This affirmation of paranoid authoritarian avoidance of thought, which is of course all the more effective if self-policing, sends shivers down my spine.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Goes to show how different people are.
This kind of paranoid authoritarian thinking sends shivers down my spine.
quote:I get none of it in western Canada. Sure people disgree with both each other and their churches' teachings - half of the population is RC - and they absolutely pick and choose about what to follow. Hence the small size of families, frequency of living together before marriage, broad acceptance of indigenous cultural traditions. I have heard the local RC bishop talk a number of times. Good fellow, very pastoral and kind.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Any club/society/voluntary organisation is entitled to set its own rules for membership. As someone who regards himself as catholic, there are several teachings of the Catholic Church, which that Church regards as core. I therefore cannot be a member, and accept that.
Some recent posts on this thread seem to me to be based in the nasty days of sectarianism which existed here - and I gather also in several other countries - which I had hoped had long since disappeared.
quote:"Too much" thinking, eh?
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What I mean is more precisely that too much thinking happens at the wrong time.
quote:This is called arriving at general principles, directed by discernment from (what Catholic conceive of as) divine revelation. The alternative is to take every single case as if it were the very first of its kind ever encountered and to give no general advice in advance on what sorts of thing are to be striven for and avoided. This would be as impossible as it would be stupid to attempt.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It happens in advance of the arrival of people into a situation.
quote:Nothing is decided in the abstract - everthing is discerned with a deep knowledge of and respect for human nature in its fallen but still noble state.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
DH issues in particular are decided in the abstract, and people's lives condemned as a result.
quote:Any irrelevant "realities" (i.e., concrete particular circumstances that have no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the action) are not allowed to mask the reality of sin where sin is present.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The realities of the lives of individuals are not allowed to cloud the picture. Thought in the face of real, individual human situations is avoided in favour of abstraction.
quote:More like helping people avoid dangers and pitfalls (and healing them when they are damaged) than nonchalantly neglecting to give them any guidance or help to choose what is right in the name of some specious concept of "respect" for personal autonomy.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
More like the mosaic law than an absence of stone-throwing....
quote:But every religious group which claims to have such a 'monopoly', as you put it, will make some demands in terms of doctrines and lifestyle that someone somewhere is going to disapprove of. I can't see any way of getting around that.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Organisations like the Women's Institute or the Old Etonian Association, both organisations with whose core eligibility requirement I cannot comply, don't claim a monopoly on access to the kingdom of heaven, the ship of salvation or eternal life.
quote:It was around here very strongly in the fifties when I was at school, but faded rapidly in the sixties - perhaps co-incidentally when the battle against State Aid for church (largely parochial Catholic) schools was lost and money began flowing. By the mid-seventies, it had all but gone.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I get none of it in western Canada. Sure people disgree with both each other and their churches' teachings - half of the population is RC - and they absolutely pick and choose about what to follow. Hence the small size of families, frequency of living together before marriage, broad acceptance of indigenous cultural traditions. I have heard the local RC bishop talk a number of times. Good fellow, very pastoral and kind.
quote:I think you've got this the wrong way round - Islam teaches that 'people of the book' i.e.Jews and Christians, along with themselves OK
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:So the majority opinion amongst the Muslim sects is that people who reject all five pillars* will nonetheless get to paradise? Citation, please.
Originally posted by leo:
Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
*I.e., have actually heard of but reject Islam.
quote:So, where? Specifically.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I think you've got this the wrong way round - Islam teaches that 'people of the book' i.e.Jews and Christians, along with themselves OK
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:So the majority opinion amongst the Muslim sects is that people who reject all five pillars* will nonetheless get to paradise? Citation, please.
Originally posted by leo:
Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
*I.e., have actually heard of but reject Islam.
quote:I seem to equate this in my mind with the junior choir singing Joy is like the Rain to an earnestly played guitar in about 1971 as a recessional hymn. And the congregation joined in. Shedding tears of joy.
Originally posted by Gee D:
It was around here very strongly in the fifties when I was at school, but faded rapidly in the sixties - perhaps co-incidentally when the battle against State Aid for church (largely parochial Catholic) schools was lost and money began flowing. By the mid-seventies, it had all but gone.
quote:Sura 3 113-115 teaches that faithful Jews and Christians, as 'People of the Book' will stand before God and be accepted as being amongst the righteous
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:So, where? Specifically.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I think you've got this the wrong way round - Islam teaches that 'people of the book' i.e.Jews and Christians, along with themselves OK
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:So the majority opinion amongst the Muslim sects is that people who reject all five pillars* will nonetheless get to paradise? Citation, please.
Originally posted by leo:
Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
*I.e., have actually heard of but reject Islam.
quote:Leo, to say that your interpretation of these verses is a bit of a stretch would be like saying that Himmler was a bit of a Nazi. This online Englishing of the Quran (almost the first result in a google for "quran in English") even glosses it (bracketed sections) thus:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Sura 3 113-115 teaches that faithful Jews and Christians, as 'People of the Book' will stand before God and be accepted as being amongst the righteous
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:So, where? Specifically.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I think you've got this the wrong way round - Islam teaches that 'people of the book' i.e.Jews and Christians, along with themselves OK
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:So the majority opinion amongst the Muslim sects is that people who reject all five pillars [i.e., have actually heard of but reject Islam] will nonetheless get to paradise? Citation, please.
Originally posted by leo:
Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
quote:But the kicker is the very next verse in the same sura:
113. Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of Allah during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer.
114. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'ruf (Islamic Monotheism, and following Prophet Muhammad ) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and opposing Prophet Muhammad ); and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous.
115. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knows well those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).
quote:So, leo, what I'm looking for here is evidence that the preponderant Muslim opinion is that those who do not accept Muhammad as the ultimate prophet may still go to paradise.
116. Surely, those who reject Faith (disbelieve in Muhammad as being Allah's Prophet and in all that which he has brought from Allah), neither their properties, nor their offspring will avail them aught against Allah. They are the dwellers of the Fire, therein they will abide. (Tafsir At-Tabari, Vol. 4, Page 58).
quote:
There are many verses in the Qur'an that label Christians and Jews as disbelievers, and numerous more that explicitly condemn them and other disbelievers to Hell. There is scholarly consensus on the fact that Christians and Jews are viewed by Islam as kafirs, because of "the clear nature of the texts about this".
If you read verse 2:62 in context, it is referring only to those Christians, Jews, and Sabiens who believed in the time of their own Prophet/Messenger.
Each Revelation abrogated the previous. Thus, after the advent of Prophet Muhammad and Islam, no individual can make it into Paradise unless they accept Allah as God, Muhammad as his last Prophet and the Qur'an as Allah's final book of guidance.
Therefore, the concept of Heavenly rewards in Islam are now exclusively offered to Muslims. Christians and Jews may believe in a single monotheistic god, but they do not believe in "His Messenger". Thus they are destined for the "burning fire".
quote:Am I waiting in ambush to sandbag you ? Don't think so. I carry no "Aha" with me.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I get the impression you're looking for me to condemn something in general terms so that you can then point to some as-yet-unnamed specific thing and say, "Aha! So what about this [Catholic violation of a general principle I've endorsed in general] then?"
quote:Would you not in general recognise that the decision-making processes of a government or a firm or a charitable institution were part of its culture ? And separable from its mission (to govern in the interests of the people, to make top-quality widgets at a reasonable price, to protect and defend the interests of lame animals, whatever) ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's certainly not accidental or "cultural" - it's part of her very identity, her mission. That's what episcopal headship, apostolic succession, the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, papal infallibility, etc. is all about.
quote:Alright, I agree. But it should be quite clear already, from my recent exchange with ThunderBunk, for example, that I am not in any way opposed to having sets of general priciples and applying them as circmustances require.
Originally posted by Russ:
But I do feel that people ought to have principles. And that principles are two-edged - when one professes a principle, one is not only saying that other people should behave in a certain way but that oneself and the people and institutions that one loves should behave in this way also. Any stick I metaphorically beat you with ought to be a stick that's valid for you to chastise me with also.
quote:This is where I get a bit nonplussed. What do you mean by a "Catholic" violation of a general priciple? Do you mean a clear violation by a Catholic person/body of a Catholic principle? In which case, yes, in general I would condemn such inconsistency and have no qualms about doing it as a faithful Catholic. I can think of concrete instances of that right now, but I won't share them out loud, if you don't mind.
Originally posted by Russ:
Having principles should mean that if a "Catholic violation of a general principle" that you've endorsed were ever brought to your attention, you would be obliged to say that in this instance the governance of the Catholic church has made a mistake and should (if you've understood the situation rightly) change their position. And you should be able to say it whilst remaining a loyal member of the Catholic body who is passionately attached to the Catholic faith. If that's what you feel.
quote:Who precisely is suggesting otherwise? I mean, the usual criticism of the Catholic Church is that it is too strict and non-nuanced in the application of its princiles (again, see my exchange with ThunderBunk).
Originally posted by Russ:
The alternative - to have no principles - amounts to being the sort of weasel who would commit or condone any atrocity if instructed to do so by the appropriate authority (in this case ecclesial authority).
quote:In most cases, I proabaly would. But as I've already explained, the Church's general "governance structure" is itself part of the deposit of the faith - something given to it as an intrinsic part of its identity in order to work out its mission. It's core because we believe that episcopal governance with and under the successor of Peter is part of the esse (very identity) of the Church, not just part of the bene esse (well being). This may be controversial for non-Catholics, but it's surely neither news nor particularly difficult to grasp.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Would you not in general recognise that the decision-making processes of a government or a firm or a charitable institution were part of its culture ? And separable from its mission (to govern in the interests of the people, to make top-quality widgets at a reasonable price, to protect and defend the interests of lame animals, whatever) ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's certainly not accidental or "cultural" - it's part of her very identity, her mission. That's what episcopal headship, apostolic succession, the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, papal infallibility, etc. is all about.
quote:Sorry, that's merging two quite different issues both of which might be important, but which are nothing like the same.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:In most cases, I proabaly would. But as I've already explained, the Church's general "governance structure" is itself part of the deposit of the faith - something given to it as an intrinsic part of its identity in order to work out its mission. It's core because we believe that episcopal governance with and under the successor of Peter is part of the esse (very identity) of the Church, not just part of the bene esse (well being). This may be controversial for non-Catholics, but it's surely neither news nor particularly difficult to grasp.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Would you not in general recognise that the decision-making processes of a government or a firm or a charitable institution were part of its culture ? And separable from its mission (to govern in the interests of the people, to make top-quality widgets at a reasonable price, to protect and defend the interests of lame animals, whatever) ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's certainly not accidental or "cultural" - it's part of her very identity, her mission. That's what episcopal headship, apostolic succession, the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, papal infallibility, etc. is all about.
quote:This is the reality of what Pope Francis has discovered since 2013. Although, as a Jesuit, he's doctrinally conservative, he believes that pastoral considerations should trump doctrinal purity, just as mercy trumps justice for a God of infinite love. But he's hit a brick wall with the Institution.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In a given environment, pastoral and sociologial realities will influence how heavily a denomination enforces its official position, but the RCC is a highly centralised global institution so I suppose there are limits as to how far it can go in making wholesale changes. Any changes would delight some but alienate others
quote:The exclusivist claims of any institution, religion or philosophy bother me equally, especially when they relate to such important matters as where, and in what state, we may spend eternity. Catholicism, some forms of Protestantism and Islam have nothing to choose between them in this respect. This is because I hold to an opinion that anything we can say about God is wrong, or at best speculative. It often surprises me that some devotees of a particular religious tradition can't see this.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Do the "exclusivist" claims of Islam bother you as much as the Catholic claims? If not, why not?
quote:To be honest, I don't think I merged anything. I was pretty much exclusively talking about your A.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry, that's merging two quite different issues both of which might be important, but which are nothing like the same.
quote:I think I would broadly agree. That too, surely, is rather uncontroversial.
Originally posted by Enoch:
B. is whether, if an organisation claims to be Christian, that should have implications for the ethos, the level of care and integrity etc within it, whether being Christian should make a difference to how as an organisation it behaves, in its dealings with the world around, its members and particularly, its staff.
It is possible for an organisation to have a management structure that is fully compliant with its doctrinal understanding of A and for it to ignore B. Complying with A does not protect it from its way of conducting itself being a complete travesty of every way in which the belief it should have in B should bear fruit.
quote:FWIW, the Calvinist/Reformed view is that the specific structure of church government is de bene esse, not de esse.
Originally posted by Enoch:
A. is whether the management structure for running the church is divinely commanded, of the esse rather than just the bene esse. If you are RC or Calvinist by background, you are likely to insist that it is, though from scripture and tradition, you will deduce a markedly different structure.
quote:That's interesting, and I would certainly bow to your knowledge as one who unlike me, comes from that background. I have though met people from that tradition who have given the impression that they regard the creation and following of what they would call a New Testament church structure as being a binding requirement, with full doctrinal force.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
FWIW, the Calvinist/Reformed view is that the specific structure of church government is de bene esse, not de esse.
quote:Ok, that's funny. I stopped trying to work out by how many decades that is wide of the mark when I got to over 6.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Although, as a Jesuit, he's doctrinally conservative
quote:This is true.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Then he called to Extraordinary Synod of 2014, followed by the Ordinary Synod of 2015. There he found that the Church, as a whole, is unable to budge anything like as much as he would have wanted.
quote:That's an interesting way to put it. Some of us would instead say that it became clear that between the settled doctrine and the pastoral implementation of that teaching, there was not nearly as much wiggle-room as there was assumed by many (including the Holy Father himself) to be. Familiaris consortio (1981) had, of course, already covered the same ground; a proper reappraisal of that document (treating it as a step rather than a stumbling-block) could have saved a huge amount of strife, uncertaintly, disappointment and ink.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The Pope's pastoral instincts which were honed in his native Argentina, have come to nothing against the sclerotic institutions of the machine.
quote:I have no doubt that you have met such people. But they would be the exceptions on the edges, not the mainstream.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That's interesting, and I would certainly bow to your knowledge as one who unlike me, comes from that background. I have though met people from that tradition who have given the impression that they regard the creation and following of what they would call a New Testament church structure as being a binding requirement, with full doctrinal force.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
FWIW, the Calvinist/Reformed view is that the specific structure of church government is de bene esse, not de esse.
quote:What would be your view, Chesterbelloc, of an institution like a golf club restricting membership to male players only ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Do the "exclusivist" claims of Islam bother you as much as the Catholic claims? If not, why not?
quote:Snap.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:What would be your view, Chesterbelloc, of an institution like a golf club restricting membership to male players only ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Do the "exclusivist" claims of Islam bother you as much as the Catholic claims? If not, why not?
My view would be that as a private club, as one institution among many, there's no problem with that. And indeed that the principle of freedom of association requires that male golfers are allowed to choose to hang out in a male-only group if they so wish.
quote:What is the point you're trying to make with this (analogy?).
Originally posted by Russ:
But that on the other hand, if in a small mountainous country there were only one area of non-built land suitable for playing golf, then to reserve that land for the use of male folders only would be an injustice, an abuse of monopoly power.
And similarly, if the club in question had been set up by the state and funded by the state for the purpose of encouraging healthy sporting activity in the citizens then it would be a betrayal of that mission to restrict the benefits to male citizens only.
And no doctrine of the proper role of women that the existing male clubmembers may hold would make such an action OK.
quote:And your point is that the Catholic Church is adding cultural requirements not necessary for salvation? Have I got that right? If so, it would be really useful if, without instead just proposing more hypothetical situations, analogies or questions, you would just confirm that and then tell me which cultural add-on the Church is forcing on would-be adherents.
Originally posted by Russ:
So with regard to Muslims, on the one hand general principles apply just as much to them as to everyone else. If Allah says to Mohammed "go make disciples of all" or the equivalent, and Mohammed says "only the ones willing & able to learn Arabic" then that's a falling-short.
(I don't know enough about Islam to know how far it aspires to universal conversion. It's just an example of adding requirements which exclude some people).
quote:I entirely agree. I think it probably started as a more-or-less Christian heresy, premissed on a misunderstanding of Christian sources, which gradually developed into its own, radically distinct thing.
Originally posted by Russ:
But, not being Muslim, I don't believe that God gave Mohammed any imperative to universality. Rather I see Islam as an Arabic cultural response to a partial insight into God.
quote:But what are these shortfallings, according to you? Because Catholicism seems to me to be one of the most culturally diverse religions on the planet.
Originally posted by Russ:
Whereas I do believe that Christian sectarianism is a contradiction, that Christians are called to a universal brotherhood (but not to a common culture). And my wife is Catholic. So the fallings-short in Catholic culture are of greater personal interest to me.
quote:This is so true. I think back in 2013, the Holy Father perhaps didn't quite realise the extent of the lack of wiggle room. His questionnaire to the faithful was meant to give him the ammunition he needed to instigate pastoral change. The two synods brought home to him the realities of constraint. Even Pope Benedict XVI, back in 1972 as a theologian, made proposals not dissimilar to those made by Cardinal Kasper. But he later claimed that once the Magisterium had pronounced on the issue, with Familiaris Consortio, the matter was settled.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Some of us would instead say that it became clear that between the settled doctrine and the pastoral implementation of that teaching, there was not nearly as much wiggle-room as there was assumed by many (including the Holy Father himself) to be. Familiaris consortio (1981) had, of course, already covered the same ground; a proper reappraisal of that document (treating it as a step rather than a stumbling-block) could have saved a huge amount of strife, uncertaintly, disappointment and ink.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In which case, yes, in general I would condemn such inconsistency and have no qualms about doing it as a faithful Catholic. I can think of concrete instances of that right now, but I won't share them out loud, if you don't mind.
quote:I'm not sure how those two statements aren't rather problematic, taken together. Why do you get to confine yourself to hypotheticals when your opponents have to be specific?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If so, it would be really useful if, without instead just proposing more hypothetical situations, analogies or questions, you would just confirm that and then tell me which cultural add-on the Church is forcing on would-be adherents.
quote:I think the point is that, while my reasons for thinking that you might not be a good fit with the rest of my private prayer group might be very convincing, I would need to be a lot surer of my ground before declaring that you are excluded from the universal Church of Jesus Christ, which is the primary mode of salvation for the whole world*.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What is the point you're trying to make with this (analogy?)
quote:The Catholic Church believes that it is the primary mode of salvation for all of God's people. True. Other Christians have different ideas and think that this Catholic claim is erroneous. Such Christians naturally need not concern themselves about not being able to sign up as members of the Catholic Church, since they do not believe they are jeopardising their chances of salvation thereby, and Catholics can't stop them living their own faith life to the full. Each having explained their position to the other, and each deciding how to practise their own faith, the matter rests. God, meanwhile, will save those whom He will, no matter what either group believes.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think the point is that, while my reasons for thinking that you might not be a good fit with the rest of my private prayer group might be very convincing, I would need to be a lot surer of my ground before declaring that you are excluded from the universal Church of Jesus Christ, which is the primary mode of salvation for the whole world.
quote:True (though I don't see the "blurring" you talk about). But we can't make others agree with us, and if they are right we ARE just a club amongst others. We can deal with that. If others can't accept this, and they can't bring themselves to sign up to membership of our "club", what do you think we should do about this?
Originally posted by Eliab:
Your arguments have a tendency to blur two, very different, lines of defence for the Catholic position. The first is the "our club, our rules" approach that Russ is (I think) primarily attacking, on the grounds that you don't really think that the RCC is just "our club" or that its teachings are merely "our rules".
quote:Hold on - who's doing the "separating"? We think what we think about divorce/remarriages; others think differently. We believe we are right; we cannot make everyone else do so. So we are mutually separated by that lack of agreement. If you're talking about other Catholics not agreeing with the Church's teaching on this, then we ask them to stay with us but also to respect the Church's teaching by not violating it, or if they cannot do that to refrain from receiving Communion unless/until they can "make a good confession" re such a violation. And we can't even enforce that!
Originally posted by Eliab:
The second approach is to defend the teachings themselves as God-given, which is in my view the stronger and more consistent position, but then the challenge for you is to argue that on something like the divorce/remarriage question, the Catholic line is not only right, and important, but so important as to be worth separating from otherwise-faithful Christians if they disagree with you.
quote:Well, that's a relief!
Originally posted by Eliab:
The doctrine/culture thing is a red herring, I think.
quote:Again, who's "dividing the Church" here?
Originally posted by Eliab:
The more important distinction is the worth-splitting-the-church-over/Christians-may-reasonably-differ one. You're not being asked "why are you right?" but "why do you think it's right to divide the Church over this?"
quote:I may be, for all I know. But if I genuinely believed you to be wrong in your view of my chances of salvation, I could regret that we differ, without letting it worry me personally about my salvation. If it niggled me, against my better judgement, that's when I might get back to you to talk it through again.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I suspect from your posts that you would personally be exactly as indifferent to my opinion about your ultimate salvation as you would be about my view of your suitability for a prayer group, and that you're slightly baffled why anyone confident in their own views would see an important distinction between the two. I think you're unusual in that respect.
quote:I don't think Russ's analogy works.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Russ's analogy distinguishes can't-join-this-golf-club from can't-play-golf-at-all to make a similar distinction, which I think was the point).
quote:Of course I am not Eliab but for me it would be far short of the Catholic church ceasing to believe that.
If you think there is a problem with this situation, 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?
quote:Obviously I do think that the Catholic Church should cease believing that it’s “the Church” in a way that the rest of us aren’t, because I think that claim is untrue. If I didn’t think it untrue, I’d become a Catholic. But since that’s not going to happen, I think the general rule to apply is this:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you think there is a problem with this situation, 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?
quote:I don’t think I agree. I’m not a Catholic, but I don’t think you’re just a club. You’re the largest part of a Church that ought to be united – and arguably (the Orthodox differ) the most senior part. You’re the default expression of Christianity in much (most?) of the world. I don’t think any Christian should be indifferent to what the RCC teaches. You are “our religion” in an important sense, despite our divisions.
But we can't make others agree with us, and if they are right we ARE just a club amongst others.
quote:Well obviously the side that says “we can’t be united unless you agree with me about X” is doing the separating and dividing.
Hold on - who's doing the "separating"? We think what we think about divorce/remarriages; others think differently. We believe we are right; we cannot make everyone else do so. So we are mutually separated by that lack of agreement.
[…]
Again, who's "dividing the Church" here?
quote:Only because it’s obvious whether a person is playing golf, but not obvious whether they are part of a true church. I think it works find to make the point that more is required to justify excluding someone from an activity absolutely, than to justify excluding them from one particular group that practices that activity.
I don't think Russ's analogy works.
quote:Chesterbelloc, I accept that you'll almost certainly disagree fundamentally with me on this, but I don't think the core commitment of a Christian is about "accepting - giving willing assent to - the idea that the Church is an authoritative teacher of faith and morals". Nor, and for the same reason, which I'll come to, is it about "making a decision to accept the Church's claim to be an authoritative teacher of faith and morals." This is a different facet of what I was trying to express a few weeks ago about Christian faith being something much more than and quite different from, a philosophy.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I can understand that sort of dilemma, moonlitdoor. I recognise some of it from the period before my own conversion.
But the nub of it is this: becoming a Catholic involves accepting - giving willing assent to - the idea that the Church is an authoritative teacher of faith and morals. That she has the charism of teaching the truth. This is the key for converts, it seems to me.
It's not about accepting a whole list of things - it starts and ends with this one big thing. And when one's own judgement conflicts with the Church's definitive teaching on some matter (and by no means everything the Church teaches is a definitive matter requiring complete assent) one is required to endure that tension that rather than simply rejecting the doctrine for one's own opinion.
Thus it's not a matter of working through a checklist as much as it is making a decision to accept the Church's claim to be an authoritative teacher of faith and morals. No-one is going to get you to sign off specifically on each and every defined doctrine, and not all of your individual reservations are necessarily going to disappear overnight. But it requires making an act of trust, of faith, an affirmation in the Church's doctrinal charism, and a commitment at least not openly to oppose or undermine in the Church's authority in teaching those doctrines with which one struggles to give full intellectual assent. I.e., not to make it a habit to prefer one's own opinions to the Church's core teaching, but rather to continue to leave oneself open to the possibility of being surprised by the truth.
That one bare minimum requirement is a big ask, of course - no doubt about that. But 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.
quote:Suppose for a moment that you're right about this.
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.
quote:That's rather a good analogy. It gets a
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Suppose for a moment that you're right about this.
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.
What I'm saying is that what this means depends on whether you see the Catholic church as one liferaft among many (the original ark of salvation having fragmented long ago) or as the only seaworthy fragment amongst the wreckage.
If you believe it's one among many, then informing people's choice of vessel by telling them what type of people would be deeply unhappy aboard yours is a thoughtful and considerate act.
If you believe it's the only one that will stay afloat, then what you're saying is that we can come aboard and have our lives made miserable by you and those who think as you do, or we can drown, and you don't really care either way. ...
quote:That's fair enough, Eliab.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Obviously I do think that the Catholic Church should cease believing that it’s “the Church” in a way that the rest of us aren’t, because I think that claim is untrue. If I didn’t think it untrue, I’d become a Catholic.
quote:And I'm afraid that that is what I do claim.
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. If you ask for less, then you risk misleading your members, if you ask more, you are imposing a barrier to salvation where God did not. Both of these things are self-evidently bad.
It is, of course, open to you to say that the RCC does just that.
quote: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. But it does not require you specifically to forswear any particular one of your existing beliefs in detail or by name: just to place your personal opinions in general under the Church's doctrines when she teaches something definitively. 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.
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.
quote:It's not so much that each and every one of her teachings are separately salvation-issues, but that submitting to the Church's authority to teach is an "ordinary requirement" for salvation. As the Catechism puts it, "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
Originally posted by Eliab:
Therefore unless the RCC thinks that all its controversial teachings are matters of salvation (and if so, the current Pope’s talk of pastoral accommodation sounds downright misleading and dangerous to me), it is in fact placing unwarranted obstacles in the way of my joining it..
quote:Well, I thank you for that frank expression of respect for the Catholic Church's position in the Christian world. Let me phrase it differently then: if we are wrong, then others are right that membership of the Catholic Church is not an "ordinary requirement" of salvation. And, if they really believe that, I don't understand why they would be concerned about their chances of salvation on that score.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:I don’t think I agree. I’m not a Catholic, but I don’t think you’re just a club. You’re the largest part of a Church that ought to be united – and arguably (the Orthodox differ) the most senior part. You’re the default expression of Christianity in much (most?) of the world. I don’t think any Christian should be indifferent to what the RCC teaches. You are “our religion” in an important sense, despite our divisions.
But we can't make others agree with us, and if they are right we ARE just a club amongst others.
quote:That's a rather misleading way of putting it. 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.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Well obviously the side that says “we can’t be united unless you agree with me about X” is doing the separating and dividing.
Hold on - who's doing the "separating"? We think what we think about divorce/remarriages; others think differently. We believe we are right; we cannot make everyone else do so. So we are mutually separated by that lack of agreement.
[…]
Again, who's "dividing the Church" here?
quote:Right, depending on your definition of united, of course. Given enough disagreements, there's unlikely to be full organic communion.
Originally posted by Eliab:
There’s no inherent reason why Christians can’t be united despite disagreements – everyone disagrees with someone in their church about something. Mutual disagreement does not imply necessary separation:
quote:What do you mean by that? It is clear that the Church disagrees with those outside her about what it is necessary to believe (ie., give assent to) to be a member of the Church that Jesus Christ founded - obviously. But such disagreements have implications and consequences. I don't see how that makes it "more than" a disagreement, though.
Originally posted by Eliab:
the person who make X a criterion for membership or unity is doing something more than merely disagreeing about X. That’s a quite different question to “who is right about X?”..
quote:Precisely. And also because the Church doesn't try to stop other Christians from doing anything. 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.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Only because it’s obvious whether a person is playing golf, but not obvious whether they are part of a true church.
I don't think Russ's analogy works.
quote:I think the RC would say it is the surest one to stay afloat, but in your analogy would say that complaining about not being let on board despite not wanting to follow all the rules is like arguing with the captain about putting out a cigarette before boarding the flammable hull, or refusing to take part on rowing with all the other passengers when the engines fail. The RC would say that the rules aren't some sort of arbitrary decision to make its hierarchy happy but an important part of a safe and successful voyage. So while they would like to have you aboard they reluctantly can't while you won't sign up to the package.
Originally posted by Russ:
If you believe it's the only one that will stay afloat, then what you're saying is that we can come aboard and have our lives made miserable by you and those who think as you do, or we can drown, and you don't really care either way.
quote:This.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I think the RC would say it is the surest one to stay afloat, but in your analogy would say that complaining about not being let on board despite not wanting to follow all the rules is like arguing with the captain about putting out a cigarette before boarding the flammable hull, or refusing to take part on rowing with all the other passengers when the engines fail. The RC would say that the rules aren't some sort of arbitrary decision to make its hierarchy happy but an important part of a safe and successful voyage. So while they would like to have you aboard they reluctantly can't while you won't sign up to the package.
Originally posted by Russ:
If you believe it's the only one that will stay afloat, then what you're saying is that we can come aboard and have our lives made miserable by you and those who think as you do, or we can drown, and you don't really care either way.
quote:First, I think you're setting up a false dichotomy - certainly, for Catholics it will seem so. I was premising my remarks to moonlitdoor on the assumption that he had already nailed his colours to the banner of Christ - which is of course the basic requirement of being any kind of Christian. But we also have to work out how to follow Christ, and for Catholics it is by belonging to and following the teachings of the Church that He founded and guides - which the Holy Spirit is "leading into all truth". So Christ is the who/what/why and the Church is the how.
Originally posted by Enoch:
The Christian faith is about a personal commitment to Jesus Christ as Son of God and Lord, the New Testament equivalent of Joshua's charge 'choose you this day whom you shall serve, but as for me and my family, we will serve the LORD'. The Church is the society of those who have responded to that challenge and are trying to live it out. Although I accept that organisation is in practice necessary, being a Christian - whether a Catholic one, or some other, and as you would see it, some inferior sort of Christian - is a matter of personal fealty to a person, not commitment to an organisation, or even, for that matter, a collection of teachings or ethical propositions.
quote:Naturally, I agree with you here entirely - as does (and always has) the Church.
Originally posted by Enoch:
To put it very simply, to be a Catholic is the recommended way of being a Christian, rather than to be a Christian is part of how to be a good Catholic.
quote:Only to those who think there really is a monopoly. And why the heck would non-Catholics who have rejected the Church's definition of herself believe that there was any such thing?
Originally posted by Russ:
Monopoly makes a difference.
quote:I don't entirely agree with your point here.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't think the core commitment of a Christian is about "accepting - giving willing assent to - the idea that the Church is an authoritative teacher of faith and morals". Nor, and for the same reason, which I'll come to, is it about "making a decision to accept the Church's claim to be an authoritative teacher of faith and morals." [...]
The Christian faith is about a personal commitment to Jesus Christ as Son of God and Lord, the New Testament equivalent of Joshua's charge 'choose you this day whom you shall serve, but as for me and my family, we will serve the LORD'. The Church is the society of those who have responded to that challenge and are trying to live it out. Although I accept that organisation is in practice necessary, being a Christian - whether a Catholic one, or some other, and as you would see it, some inferior sort of Christian - is a matter of personal fealty to a person, not commitment to an organisation, or even, for that matter, a collection of teachings or ethical propositions.
quote:And that that very appearance of difference is a scandal to those who might otherwise join the Church is a very grievous wrong which I think the Catholic Church must urgently address. I say appearance because, if you look at actual defintive teaching documents, as opposed to the non-definitive asseverations of individual popes and other bishops, that difference disappears. It is still clear what the Church actually teaches if one goes to the effort to search for it, but it is lamentable that one has to look so hard to discover it.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I don't believe it because I don't find the church's teaching to remain the same over time, so I don't see how it could all be right. For example I think that things which Pope Pius X
considered modernist heresy are considered acceptable by Pope Francis. I don't mean that to sound as though I am taking one side or the other, I just think their teachings are quite different.
quote:This is an interesting issue, because I think some Christians make less of a distinction between these two things than others appear to do.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Yes, sometimes directly. In the case of remarriage after divorce, for example.
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 ?
quote: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 ?
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote:You're right that whether there is only one valid church is a matter of belief and not an observable fact.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Yes, sometimes directly. In the case of remarriage after divorce, for example.
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 ?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote: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 ?
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.
quote:Yes - the doctrine that the Church has been given the authority to teach the faith.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You've said that you believe in a doctrine of authority.
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?
quote: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.
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).
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
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...)
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:And I'm afraid that that is what I do claim.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:If so, the vast majority of non-Catholics are wrong.
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.
quote:That is my opinion too, and I think you expressed it well.
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.
quote:Yes, this.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.]
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:If so, the vast majority of non-Catholics are wrong.
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.
I don’t think there’s a binary choice between “infallible” and “no authority”.
quote:Naturally, I agree. But I'm not sure most non-Catholics would - not by a long chalk.
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.
quote:And when would you know that she was authoritatively right about something as opposed to authoritative but wrong about it?
Originally posted by Eliab:
And clearly I can say that and not accept that the RCC must be infallible.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Terribly sorry.
I can say that and still think on such-and-such an issue, an error has been crystallised into the Catholic tradition.
quote: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."
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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).
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:People can become much too devoted to a particular form of government... ...to the neglect of the purpose of government in the first place.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote: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 ?
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.
quote:Is that not getting in the way of the purpose of the Catholic church ?
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.
quote: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).
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your "authoritarian conservatism" thing is a complete red herring.
quote: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 ?
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.
quote: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...
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
So, if I rejected Islam's most central claims...
quote: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" ??
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
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:And again, complete theological and institutional unity is not necessarily what is being suggested.
Complete theological and institutional Christian unity is fantasy land. And again, it would probably be very boring.
quote:Boring? Like everyone agreeing that the world is round* is boring?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Complete theological and institutional Christian unity is fantasy land. And again, it would probably be very boring.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
Making definitions and expecting everyone else to agree to the letter is the source of all division in the Church.
quote:When in the field of purely contingent political models, yes. Whe talking of the divine constitution of the Church, not so much.
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).
quote: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.
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 ?
quote:No.
Originally posted by Russ:
But you're telling us of your doctrine of authority
quote:Is that not getting in the way of the purpose of the Catholic church ?
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.
quote: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.
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 ?
quote: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).
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).
quote: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.
Originally posted by Russ:
Stubborn refusal to countenance change is part of the conservative impulse in humankind. There's nothing Christian about it.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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).
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote: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.
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.
quote:Yes - very much so.
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you not recognise the history of division as a falling-short from what Jesus wanted of his followers ?
quote: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.
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...
quote: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.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote: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" ??
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
quote:Given that you appear to be a relativist, I don't think you ever need to worry about that.
Originally posted by balaam:
quote: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.
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.
Being right is overrated.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote: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.
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.
quote:This is very similar to a quote from
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Forthview:
She was unaware of what the actual Communion was and what it was not.
quote:Given that we do already acknowledge this, you're quite right.
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.
quote:I think there was an implied "...and that's okay" in there.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Given that we do already acknowledge this, you're quite right.
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.
quote: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.
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 ?
quote: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.
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 ?
quote: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.
Originally posted by balaam:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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 ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't think Russ's analogy works.
quote: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 ?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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).
quote: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.
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.
quote:It is both your "monopoly" analogy and your logic which lead you there.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote: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 ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't think Russ's analogy works.
quote: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?
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 ?
quote: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.
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...
quote: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.
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.
quote: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).
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I find this paragraph difficult. What does "lexically prior" mean ?
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.
quote: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.
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 ?
quote:What's Andrex?
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.
quote:So are you saying that it's a good thing nobody explained it to her, because she was happier that way?
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.
quote:Happy to help.
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's Andrex?
quote:Why don't we just shut the ship down entirely? No point in discussing things when we can just google them.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Happy to help.
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's Andrex?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote: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.
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?
quote:So replace "the" with "a" in the above. Share with other ecclesial bodies the aim of being a means of salvation.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't buy that the Church's claim to be the ordinary means of salvation is a "monopoly"
quote:Feel free to give examples...
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
and I don't think that any or all monopolies necessarily impose obligations.
quote:It's a simple argument.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't acknowledge your general principles as having any bearing on the case.
quote: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).
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).
quote:"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.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:So replace "the" with "a" in the above. Share with other ecclesial bodies the aim of being a means of salvation.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't buy that the Church's claim to be the ordinary means of salvation is a "monopoly"
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Feel free to give examples...
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
and I don't think that any or all monopolies necessarily impose obligations.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I get that you'd like people to make up their minds first whether the Catholic church "teaches with authority".
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).
quote:"Vatican policies" are not binding; definitive teaching on faith and morals only is binding.
Originally posted by Russ:
And if yes then you'll point to an authoritative teaching in support of whatever Vatican policy is being disputed.
quote:Seems like a good way of letting the facts get in the way of a misleading sidetrack to me.
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems like a way of shutting down discussion.
quote: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.
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."
quote: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.
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 ?
quote:You've been quite clear in saying that you believe that gender roles are not merely cultural (whereas I think they are).
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:"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.
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.
quote:That's the sort of binary choice you've suggested before - we're perfect or we're nothing. Excluded middle.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:I'm not suggesting all - only those whose differences are "merely cultural".
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What use would the Church be if it admitted all regardless of belief...
quote: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 ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
, or admitted that there were many different and equally valid means of salvation?
quote:Sorry, you'd have to spell that one out for me; I don't see the argument.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If we did either, our claim to the other would automatically collapse.
quote: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.
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
quote: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.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The Church doesn't "dish out" salvation like pints in a pub: instead, she is more like a "field hospital"
quote: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).
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.
