|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The authority of the Catholic Church
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
This arises out of points made on a recent Hell thread. My position there was that there were genuinely debateable issues to which the allleged faults of the Roman Catholic Church* are relevant, and I'd like to see if we can discuss one of these without anti-Catholic prejudice.
My starting point: I'd like to be a ‘catholic'. By that I mean, I'd like to belong to the Church the the apostles started, and to which all Christians are called to belong. I'd like to be part of a Church which can at least aspire to being in communion with all Christians. I'd like that Church to teach orthodox Christian doctrine, and to devote its intellectual resources to defending and promoting that doctrine, so that I can be reasonably confident that what I believe is orthodox, and that I have access to the best arguments to convince me of that. The corollory to that is that I don't want the Church to teach anything as an essential of the Christian faith about which orthodox Christians can reasonably disagree, but what it does teach as essential, I want it to teach with authority. That is what I would see as a truly universal church, and that's what I would like to join.
My question: Is the Roman Catholic Church the one I ought to be part of?
She has a strong institutional claim to direct continuity with the apostles, and represents the majority of the followers of Jesus Christ. And she claims to have authority to teach what the Christian faith actually is, in its fullness. So far, so good. However, there seem to me to be grave reasons for doubting that the RCC actually has that authority:
Reason 1: Teaching disputed points as if they were infallibly true.
Example: The papal teaching defining the Assumption of Mary concludes: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
That, it seems to me, is a as close to being demonstrably wrong as it is possible to be in matters of religion (assuming that "the divine and Catholic faith" means anything other than "what I say"). I have no problem with Christians believing that Mary was taken bodily into Heaven, but really, nothing turns on it. If one were to delete the doctrine of the Assumption from the faith, and then go through the Catechism with a blue pencil to remove everything that must fall as a consequence, and the answer would be ‘nothing at all'. A Christian can (and many do) believe as fervently in the divinity and incarnation of Christ, and the holiness of his blessed mother, as well without this doctrine as with it. It is manifestly obvious that disagreement on this disputed point is no denial of the faith whatever.
This being something that orthodox Christians can and do, doubt, a universal church ought not to define it as an essential of faith, purportedly with infallible authority.
Reason 2: Teaching that is, as far as I can tell, just plain wrong.
Examples: Contraception (a beneficial and morally unproblematic practice). Ordination of women (for a MOTR Anglincan like me, denying that women can ever be priests is like living under the flightpath at Heathrow and denying that jumbo jets could ever fly).
I don't want to debate the specifics of either of those topics (especially as one is a DH), beyond saying that I am pretty close to unpersuadable that the RCC position is at all capable of being right. Accepting that the RCC has moral authority to teach on these points would mean concluding that my best moral and spiritual intuitions are not merely flawed (I accept that) but worthless (which I cannot accept, and, if accepted, is a philosophical dead end).
Reason 3: Historical abuses.
Examples: The crusades. The inquisition. The indulgences system that set off the Reformation.
Yes, I know that these are historical, I know that most modern Catholics would repudiate them either wholly or partly, and I know that every church with a history also has a history of mistakes.
So in a sense, these things are not problems at all - they present no hinderance at all to me walking through the doors of a Catholic church and participating in the worship. Where they are a problem is that they are all institutional acts of the RCC. The Church, so it seems to me, did actually teach that making war on infidels was a pious act, that imprisoning and torturing suspected heretics, and then handing them over to certain death was morally acceptable, that payment of money helped to lift the burden of sin. And now, no one of any sense thinks that the RCC was right.
If the question were simply whether to be (say) an Anglican or a Roman Catholic, these abuses could be answered by pointing out that the Protestants, given the opportunity, have done just as badly - but that isn't the only question. The RCC claims to have infallible teaching authority on faith and morals, and when it can clearly be seen to get matters of faith and morals badly wrong this authority is damaged. The problem doesn't go away if it is pointed out that infallibility was not formally invoked for these abuses. The point is that the RCC as an institution officially endorsed actions against faith and morals, which it says are and have always been within its competence to decide infallibly.
So this is a problem - not so much for me accepting RC doctrine as it is now taught, but for me accepting the principle that RC teaching must be true because it is RC.
(Non-)Reason 4: Recent scandals.
Example: Child abuse and cover-ups thereof.
I mention this for completeness - because applying the same analysis to this issue as to the previous one, it does not undermine the Church's teaching authority in the same way. It certainly is a cause for concern, and is a reason for not trusting priests and bishops to do the right thing simply because they are priests and bishops, but I don't think it can be said that the RCC ever had any official view of sexual abuse other than that it is a grave evil. No one was promised time-off from purgatory for abusing children (as they were for going on a crusade) and no church institution was set up for the purpose of promoting child abuse (as it was for the purpose of religious persecution) - however widespread and odious, child abuse was always wrong by the standard which the RCC claimed to teach, and so is, for me, quite possible to reconcile as an ordinary human instance of knowing the right thing and failing to do it.
The rest of the points leads me to the conclusion that the RCC does not have the moral authority which it claims. It has not competently decided questions of faith and morals, and it has not properly defined what ought to be believed as a part of an orthodox Christian faith.
So:
(1) Am I right in thinking that joining the RCC would mean accepting an authority that I presently reject?
(2) If so, what arguments are there for accepting that authority?
(3) How do Catholics reconcile the difficulties they have** on these and similar issues with acceptance of their Church's teaching authority?
(*I'm using the name Roman Catholic Church/RCC here to make clear that I am talking about that specific ecclesial community, and not any protestant or other conception of ‘the Catholic Church')
(**And I think they do have them, contraception being the obvious example where many, possibly a majority, of the Catholics in the UK do not accept what their Church teaches)
[ 02. November 2012, 20:37: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Accepting that the RCC has moral authority to teach on these points would mean concluding that my best moral and spiritual intuitions are not merely flawed (I accept that) but worthless (which I cannot accept, and, if accepted, is a philosophical dead end).
How are you getting from merely flawed to worthless?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
My starting point: I'd like to be a ‘catholic'. By that I mean, I'd like to belong to the Church the the apostles started, and to which all Christians are called to belong. I'd like to be part of a Church which can at least aspire to being in communion with all Christians. I'd like that Church to teach orthodox Christian doctrine, and to devote its intellectual resources to defending and promoting that doctrine, so that I can be reasonably confident that what I believe is orthodox, and that I have access to the best arguments to convince me of that. The corollory to that is that I don't want the Church to teach anything as an essential of the Christian faith about which orthodox Christians can reasonably disagree, but what it does teach as essential, I want it to teach with authority. That is what I would see as a truly universal church, and that's what I would like to join.
My question: Is the Roman Catholic Church the one I ought to be part of?
She has a strong institutional claim to direct continuity with the apostles, and represents the majority of the followers of Jesus Christ. And she claims to have authority to teach what the Christian faith actually is, in its fullness. So far, so good.
Everything in there seems to apply equally well to the Anglicans as well (apart from the majority bit).
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
(3) How do Catholics reconcile the difficulties they have** on these and similar issues with acceptance of their Church's teaching authority?
...
(**And I think they do have them, contraception being the obvious example where many, possibly a majority, of the Catholics in the UK do not accept what their Church teaches)
When I was a new teacher and struggling to fulfil the demands of the National Curriculum, I was helped greatly by a senior teacher's observation, that "These goals are an ideal towards which we aim, not a minimum which must be attained."
I don't speak for any Catholic*, but there is something to be said for the Church maintaining the ideal rather than diluting it down. I can even see that with contraception, the ideal would be not to use it nor have to use it. Were I Catholic, I might want that ideal maintained by the Church, even though I could also be using contraception myself for practical reasons. I think the Pope recently indicated something similar when he 'allowed' the use of condoms for those working in the sex industry, for example: the care for the self and for the other that this involves could be a step on the road to a higher ideal of chastity or continence.
*will willingly accept correction if I have read this entirely wrongly.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Accepting that the RCC has moral authority to teach on these points would mean concluding that my best moral and spiritual intuitions are not merely flawed (I accept that) but worthless (which I cannot accept, and, if accepted, is a philosophical dead end).
How are you getting from merely flawed to worthless?
Because if I am wrong about contraception, I am so badly wrong that my moral instincts about it must be unreliable.
Compare, say, other disputed moral questions, like abortion, or pacifism, or capital punishment. I have views about these, of course, but I can see what the other side is saying, what good intentions motivate the other side, and why reasonable people could disagree. I might be wrong about the specifics, but I am not inept. I can imagine myself changing my mind.
On contraception, that's not the case. I can't see that there's anything to be said, morally, on the other side whatsoever - not out of ignorance or lack of thought, but because I've heard all the arguments ably put, and simply cannot discern any substance there at all. If contraception is a grave sin, then I utterly lack the faculty to see it. My moral judgement on that point could not be more deficient.
The point is that on some issues the RCC official line is so much at odds with my moral common sense, that it would require more than ordinary humility to see that it is right and I am wrong. I would be taking on trust the fact that it is right for no reason that I can see or comprehend, against all of my moral instincts. That is, it puts me in 1984 territory - the only way I could accept that the RCC is right about condoms would be almost to brainwash myself into believing that the RCC is right because it says so. This is a problem for me.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Heavens, Eliab, if you're seeking perfection, don't join us... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
From your OP it sounds like you're looking for the "original" church, as in "intended by Jesus". The problem is, nobody knows what was intended by Jesus. Just because the RC curia claims that they are the apostolic succession does not mean that they are. Under that argument, you might well consider becoming an Anglican or an Orthodox.
If you've set your sights on the RCC, please be aware that we are a very mixed bag. We've got the Opus Dei and we've got Liberation Theology. We've got charismatics and Latin-Rite fans. We've gor exclusivists, inclusivists, pluralists and those who do not agree with either of the three. In our churches, we do Baroque, Postmodern, Garish or Cistercian. Our religious orders have a wildly ranging spirituality, from Jesuits to the Franciscans...
So, which kind of RC do you want to become?
And lastly, it appears that the whole issue is boiling down to contraception. Again. As if it was all about that. Well, it isn't.
The important thing for you is not to find a reason to join the RCC. It is to find a spiritual home for yourself, one where you feel you're called to. Don't be disappointed if it is not the RCC. You might be more useful to us from the outside.
[ 02. July 2012, 13:15: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
There's plenty to discuss in the OP, but I think it is better to do this over several posts. Let's deal with a misunderstanding first:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Reason 1: Teaching disputed points as if they were infallibly true.
Example: The papal teaching defining the Assumption of Mary concludes: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
That, it seems to me, is a as close to being demonstrably wrong as it is possible to be in matters of religion (assuming that "the divine and Catholic faith" means anything other than "what I say"). I have no problem with Christians believing that Mary was taken bodily into Heaven, but really, nothing turns on it. If one were to delete the doctrine of the Assumption from the faith, and then go through the Catechism with a blue pencil to remove everything that must fall as a consequence, and the answer would be ‘nothing at all'. A Christian can (and many do) believe as fervently in the divinity and incarnation of Christ, and the holiness of his blessed mother, as well without this doctrine as with it. It is manifestly obvious that disagreement on this disputed point is no denial of the faith whatever.
Let us look at Munificentissimus Deus to understand what is actually going on:
quote:
44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:
that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
The bold highlights I have added show the real logic. There is no claim here at all that the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is totally central to the Catholic Faith by virtue of its content. One does not fall away from the Catholic Faith because one does not find this teaching obvious by and in itself. Rather, the pope is here saying: I will now make a statement concerning faith in the fullness of the power granted by God to my office: I will here make use of my infallibility to define a truth of faith, and I will unequivocally demand the full assent of faith to this of all the Church. In short, the pope has thrown all the authority that he has behind this dogma. The pope is all in. Hence if you deny this dogma, you've fallen away from the Catholic faith. Not because you've rejected the Assumption of Mary as such, but because you have rejected the pope's authority by virtue of rejecting the Assumption of Mary, which he has unequivocally told you has now become part of Catholic belief.
For all intents and purposes "the divine and Catholic faith" indeed means nothing other than "what I say", when the pope speaks ex cathedra - as he has done here. You may wish to argue that that is a problem. Fine. But that would be a different argument. It is not the case that the pope has tried here to pass off a disputed point as obvious, as you seem to think. There's nothing "demonstrably wrong" here, unless you can somehow show that it is impossible for Mary to have been assumed.
This brings us to this declaration:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The corollory to that is that I don't want the Church to teach anything as an essential of the Christian faith about which orthodox Christians can reasonably disagree, but what it does teach as essential, I want it to teach with authority.
What you are in fact saying here is that the Church should not teach anything with authority. For where all orthodox Christians reasonably agree, there is no need to teach with authority at all. The Church would there simply have to state the argument, and all orthodox Christians would say "Right, as I thought." or "Indeed. How come I didn't think of that. Thanks." Instead, teaching with authority is precisely needed where reasonable Christians do not agree. They do that a lot, disagreeing. In fact so much so, that defining "orthodoxy" apart from what has been taught with authority is essentially impossible.
You are just fundamentally wrong about religion there, IMHO. You are looking for some kind of philosopher's way to salvation, but there is none. As is rather readily apparent from the many religions and philosophies of life out there. There really is no reasonable agreement to be had on philosophy, religion, or more specifically, Christianity. That is an illusion.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's deal with a misunderstanding first:
[...]
The bold highlights I have added show the real logic. There is no claim here at all that the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is totally central to the Catholic Faith by virtue of its content. One does not fall away from the Catholic Faith because one does not find this teaching obvious by and in itself. Rather, the pope is here saying: I will now make a statement concerning faith in the fullness of the power granted by God to my office: I will here make use of my infallibility to define a truth of faith, and I will unequivocally demand the full assent of faith to this of all the Church. In short, the pope has thrown all the authority that he has behind this dogma. The pope is all in. Hence if you deny this dogma, you've fallen away from the Catholic faith. Not because you've rejected the Assumption of Mary as such, but because you have rejected the pope's authority by virtue of rejecting the Assumption of Mary, which he has unequivocally told you has now become part of Catholic belief.
That explanation is very helpful, thank you.
But then you are right to say that this makes "the divine and Catholic faith" mean what the Pope says (ex cathedra), and that is a problem. If it's not in dispute that, in and of itself, what happened to Mary's body doesn't really affect what the gospel is, if it wouldn't be an essential of the faith if the Pope hadn't gone ‘all in', then why say it? Why make this an additional and unnecessary obstacle to faith? As it isn't inherently an essential, how can it possibly be right to make it a communion-breaking issue?
The fact that the Pope believes the Assumption to be true is no problem at all for me. The fact that he teaches it isn't much more troublesome. The fact that he makes it an essential of faith is - however convinced he might personally be, the relevance of this doctrine to the question of "What makes a Christian?" is, by virtue of its content, negligible. The fact that the Pope has elevated it to a matter of the highest importance is, for me, an argument against his authority.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The corollory to that is that I don't want the Church to teach anything as an essential of the Christian faith about which orthodox Christians can reasonably disagree, but what it does teach as essential, I want it to teach with authority.
What you are in fact saying here is that the Church should not teach anything with authority. For where all orthodox Christians reasonably agree, there is no need to teach with authority at all.
The key words were "as an essential of the Christian faith". There are doctrines, I think, where if you disagree with them you are essentially practising a different religion to the one commonly called Christianity. God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, grace, repentance, forgiveness, all seem to me to be essentials - they separate what almost everyone would think of as "Christian" from "non-Christian". I have no problem with the Church saying that these are the boundaries of orthodox belief.
What I object to, as a misuse of that authority, is taking some doctrine which would never have been thought to have that significance, and making it an entry requirement, purportedly with infallible authority. If it is obviously true that two Christians could disagree about something, while they remains in agreement about what Christian orthodoxy says on every other point, I think the Church has no business defining ‘the Catholic faith' so as to exclude one of them.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
Eliab,do you still find God in your church? If so, I recommend that you stop worrying and stay with it. Fiery letters in the sky telling me to get my arse out of the CofE would shift me, but not much less than that. For all my frustration, disappointment and doubts about so much of Anglicanism, if God still hangs in there, that's good enough for me. And had I first found Him in one of his other haunts, eg the RCC, I'd feel the same. Simeon stuck it out at the temple, living among the wheeler-dealers, breathing the stench of blood sacrifice. Waiting for the Christ. We have it easier.
[ 02. July 2012, 17:46: Message edited by: Bean Sidhe ]
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If it's not in dispute that, in and of itself, what happened to Mary's body doesn't really affect what the gospel is, if it wouldn't be an essential of the faith if the Pope hadn't gone ‘all in', then why say it? Why make this an additional and unnecessary obstacle to faith?
It is really quite ironic that you think of this as an "obstacle to faith"... This dogma was declared just after WWII for one primary reason: to cheer up and encourage Catholics after a trial of great darkness. See paragraph two and following in the original document linked to above.
What the pope is doing here is to throw his weight behind popular Catholic piety. It was a move to stand with his people, to say: you and me, we all believe in this. It was also a particular kind of veneration that only the pope can give to Mary, by which he can affirm and boost the veneration of the people for Mary. You light a candle for her, I declare an infallible dogma about her.
This was not a "let's make a creed against the Arians" moment. This was not intended to be controversial at all. This was the doctrinal equivalent of a pep talk! The last thing this was supposed to be is an "obstacle to faith" to anybody. Certainly not to anybody Catholic, and frankly back then pope's weren't concerned all that much with winning over other Christians. (Notably though, the dogma was defined in such a way as to be compatible with the belief in Dormition held by most Orthodox.)
Now, the language in defining the dogma had to come down like a ton of bricks on those who disbelieve in the dogma at the point of definition. Why? Because it is just this language that marks the application of infallibility. Only if the pope states unequivocally that X is to be the defined and universal truth, and non-X is anathema, only then is this a clear and intentional infallible statement. Basically, that one was for the "lawyers" (those theologians who would parse the document with a lawyer mentality).
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The fact that he makes it an essential of faith is - however convinced he might personally be, the relevance of this doctrine to the question of "What makes a Christian?" is, by virtue of its content, negligible. The fact that the Pope has elevated it to a matter of the highest importance is, for me, an argument against his authority.
The pope has not really elevated this dogma to a matter of the highest importance. He merely has declared this dogma to be certainly true. Of course, he has used the rarity of this kind of event as a sort of PR stunt. Maybe he shouldn't have. Nobody has claimed that the popes infallibly do what is best for the Church... But that this is not, shall we say, the most pressing issue ever in the life of faith is of course part of the reason why this dogma was chosen. The pope could have declared infallible dogma on predestination, stepping into centuries of heated Catholic debate. He also could have declared infallible dogma against hesychastic practices, destroying relations to the Orthodox. Instead, he declared basically "Jesus' mum was honoured by God with the assumption". That's supposed to be a crowd pleaser which hurts nobody. Little did he know that it would become an obstacle to the sort of minimalistic faith you long for...
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I object to, as a misuse of that authority, is taking some doctrine which would never have been thought to have that significance, and making it an entry requirement, purportedly with infallible authority. If it is obviously true that two Christians could disagree about something, while they remains in agreement about what Christian orthodoxy says on every other point, I think the Church has no business defining ‘the Catholic faith' so as to exclude one of them.
Firstly, anything that is in fact true is fair game for being declared infallibly true by the pope, and what anybody thinks of this is strictly neither here nor there. Secondly, if you are looking for a minimalistic faith, then surprise, surprise, Catholicism is not for you. This really is quite at odds with the spirit - or better Spirit - of the whole thing. Catholicism is like nature, gloriously complex and odd, just crammed full with all sorts of stuff. I'm as neo-scholastic as the next person, so yeah, I'm out there in the wild applying taxonomy to all that I can find. But even that is just a strange way of appreciating the wonders of it all. A good biologist is not a tax accountant.
So the pope honouring an apparently minor doctrinal point with the biggest bang of ecclesiastic power is really very, very Catholic. And by virtue of how this stuff works, I have little doubt that eventually this will turn out to have been very, very important in yet another quirky way. If there is one law to orthodox theology, it is the iron law of consequences unintended by humans but Divine. Der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt. Der Mensch dachte, Gott lachte. (Well known German proverb, roughly: "Man thinks, God directs. Man thought, God laughed." Sorry, it is snappy and rhymes in German...)
I've started my "spiritual career" with reading Zen koans, Roman Catholicism is a lot weirder still. Because the real mystery is never trivial or vague. Only if you have some strong analytical skills can you truly appreciate the zaniness of quantum mechanics or general relativity. We have characterized each of the 302 neurons of C. elegans with considerable precision, and that worm still does plenty of stuff to surprise us. Christianity is whack in that peculiar way that has the smell of truth for me. Not wishy-washy, but mind-bending. Not all over the place, but never quite where you expect it. Not contrary to reason, but at the edge of it. To be chased, but always one step ahead. Awash with humanity, but ... not ... quite ... human. Teasingly beyond.
Seriously, your concern here about the essentialness of infallible dogma sounds to me like requiring that all mammals must give birth to live young. And then comes along a platypus... Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
This is the most interesting post on Catholicism that I have read in a long time. Thanks, IngoB. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But then you are right to say that this makes "the divine and Catholic faith" mean what the Pope says (ex cathedra), and that is a problem. If it's not in dispute that, in and of itself, what happened to Mary's body doesn't really affect what the gospel is, if it wouldn't be an essential of the faith if the Pope hadn't gone ‘all in', then why say it? Why make this an additional and unnecessary obstacle to faith? As it isn't inherently an essential, how can it possibly be right to make it a communion-breaking issue?
Because it’s true, ot at least the Catholic Church believes it to be true. And furthermore, the truth of this has only been ‘controversial’ quite recently. The Orthodox believe it, and it is also no problem believing it for Lutherans. The belief that Mary was ever-virgin, and possibly also immaculately conceived, is even found in the Book of Concord, in the Smalcald Articles I.IV: “[We hold that] the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary.” (Emphasis added)
AFAIK, the Catholic Church doesn’t agree to the narrow definition of Gospel which only takes into concideration (what some people define as) the ‘core,’ and which avoids ‘controversy.’ Did the bishops at Nicea ‘avoid controversy’? Did the bishops at Chalcedon ‘avoid controversy’? Or, to use a more ‘controversial’ topic: Did William Wilberforce ‘avoid controversy’?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The fact that the Pope believes the Assumption to be true is no problem at all for me. The fact that he teaches it isn't much more troublesome. The fact that he makes it an essential of faith is - however convinced he might personally be, the relevance of this doctrine to the question of "What makes a Christian?" is, by virtue of its content, negligible. The fact that the Pope has elevated it to a matter of the highest importance is, for me, an argument against his authority.
But if it’s true, why shouldn’t he teach it? Would you say the same about the Arian controversy?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The key words were "as an essential of the Christian faith". There are doctrines, I think, where if you disagree with them you are essentially practising a different religion to the one commonly called Christianity. God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, grace, repentance, forgiveness, all seem to me to be essentials - they separate what almost everyone would think of as "Christian" from "non-Christian". I have no problem with the Church saying that these are the boundaries of orthodox belief.
What I object to, as a misuse of that authority, is taking some doctrine which would never have been thought to have that significance, and making it an entry requirement, purportedly with infallible authority. If it is obviously true that two Christians could disagree about something, while they remains in agreement about what Christian orthodoxy says on every other point, I think the Church has no business defining ‘the Catholic faith' so as to exclude one of them.
But this assumes that the Catholic Church ought to conform to a ‘minimalist’ view of doctrine that is completely foreign to it, and which has been completely foreign to it throughout history. Why shouldn’t the Catholic Church teach it, if it’s true? If people refused to believe it, they then would refuse truth. And what God desires is not merely that we should be saved (a minimalist view) but also that we might come to knowledge of the truth, as it is said in 1Tim 2:4. That is the purpose of the Pope, to be a shepheard that gives guidance on what saves us, and on what is true in matters og faith and morals. You could of course disagree with the Church on what is true or not, but that is equally true about any of the doctrine you say are essential. You will find people calling themselves Christian, who reject the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, grace, repentance, forgiveness, etc.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
But then you are right to say that this makes "the divine and Catholic faith" mean what the Pope says (ex cathedra), and that is a problem.
Sounds like maybe the Roman Catholic Church isn't the one for you then?
Going back to the OP and the desire to be a member of the/a catholic church. Taking a much more Protestant (or is it?) line on this Karl Barth argues that the key important element of belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is to recognise that the particular concrete congregation in which one worships is the Church, the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.
"[F]irst of all, Christians are simply summoned to believe in God as the common origin, the common goal of the Church to which they are called. We are not placed upon a tower, from which we can survey all varieties of Churches; we simply stand on the earth at a definite place and there is the Church, the one Church. We believe in the unity of the Church, in the unity of the congregations, if we believe in the existence of our concrete Church. If we believe in the Holy Spirit in this Church, then even in the worst case we are not absolutely separated from the other congregations. The truly ecumenical Christians are not those who trivialise the differences and flutter over them; they are those who in their respective Churches are quite concretely the Church. 'Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst' - that is the Church. In Him, despite all varieties in the individual congregations, we shall somehow be bound up with one another." (Dogmatics in outline, 134)
He's assuredly a Protestant, but of all Protestant theologians he must be the most well-respected by the Roman Catholic Church.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
[ quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Because it’s true, ot at least the Catholic Church believes it to be true. quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The fact that the Pope believes the Assumption to be true is no problem at all for me. The fact that he teaches it isn't much more troublesome. The fact that he makes it an essential of faith is - however convinced he might personally be, the relevance of this doctrine to the question of "What makes a Christian?" is, by virtue of its content, negligible. The fact that the Pope has elevated it to a matter of the highest importance is, for me, an argument against his authority.
But if it’s true, why shouldn’t he teach it? Would you say the same about the Arian controversy? ..................................................
Why shouldn’t the Catholic Church teach it, if it’s true? If people refused to believe it, they then would refuse truth. And what God desires is not merely that we should be saved (a minimalist view) but also that we might come to knowledge of the truth, as it is said in 1Tim 2:4. That is the purpose of the Pope, to be a shepheard that gives guidance on what saves us, and on what is true in matters og faith and morals. You could of course disagree with the Church on what is true or not
I may have misread this but you seem to have moved from "the Catholic church believes it to be true" to acceptance that it is true, and therefore should be taught.
If so - is it true because the church believes it to be so or because of some unexplained evidence?
If you are arguing that something should be taught because it is believed by the teacher to be true aren't you creating a charter for the dissemination of hate (racial/religious/misogynistic/incitement to gaybashing etc.) and potentially harmful ideas such as protecting oneself from malaria through an homeopathic preparation? Even in the USA the separation of church and state precludes teaching “Intelligent Design” in state funded schools despite many of their staff fervently believing it to be true.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Ingo:
It is really quite ironic that you think of this as an "obstacle to faith"... This dogma was declared just after WWII for one primary reason: to cheer up and encourage Catholics after a trial of great darkness. See paragraph two and following in the original document linked to above.
This is definitely not the kind of thing I think of when I hear that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. It might be a scientific sort of mind that's troubled on speaking about something in a way that makes it an absolute fact (within the church) merely for the sake of a pep rally, however important the pep rally may be.
The use of ex cathedra as a political tool, even a well meaning one, bothers me. I want something that's to be that true to be true, not just to be something that the body politic feels really good about. This is also why the whole idea of infallibility bothers me. I'll have to think about this...you've definitely changed the way I look at papal pronouncements.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
Talk about being cheered up in a time of darkness. IngoB, you made my day:
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do.
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is really quite ironic that you think of this as an "obstacle to faith"... This dogma was declared just after WWII for one primary reason: to cheer up and encourage Catholics after a trial of great darkness. See paragraph two and following in the original document linked to above.
What the pope is doing here is to throw his weight behind popular Catholic piety. It was a move to stand with his people, to say: you and me, we all believe in this. It was also a particular kind of veneration that only the pope can give to Mary, by which he can affirm and boost the veneration of the people for Mary. You light a candle for her, I declare an infallible dogma about her.
I would never have seen that, not in a hundred years, without your help. I'd seen the definition as exclusionary and mean-spirited, not as displaying a particularly Catholic sort of magnaminity. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The pope could have declared infallible dogma on predestination, stepping into centuries of heated Catholic debate. He also could have declared infallible dogma against hesychastic practices, destroying relations to the Orthodox. Instead, he declared basically "Jesus' mum was honoured by God with the assumption".
Could he, though?
Unless I've misunderstood the doctrine (always a possibility) I didn't think that the point was that the pope is actually or potentially omniscient - that he could at any time be infallibly consulted about any religious truth. I thought it was just that the Holy Spirit guaranteed that when speaking so as to bind the whole church, he would not get it wrong.
That is, I didn't think there was any guarantee against the pope having mistaken personal views on predestination, or being completely ignorant of Orthodox spirituality, only that his human errors and ignorance would be kept out of official dogma. If so, he may very well not have been in a position to declare infallibly one way or another on all sorts of controversies. Or am I wrong about that?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Firstly, anything that is in fact true is fair game for being declared infallibly true by the pope, and what anybody thinks of this is strictly neither here nor there.
and:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Why shouldn't the Catholic Church teach it, if it's true?
I have real difficulty in seeing how you both can go so easily from "we think this is true" to "it's fair to teach this infallibily in the Catholic Church". There's no end of things that I think true that I wouldn't want taught as infallible Christian dogma binding on all the faithful.
The effect of authoritative teaching is to say: you must believe this in order to consider yourself a faithful Catholic. Since the Catholic Church believes that all Christians are called to be faithful Catholics, this amounts to "you must believe this". To have any right to insist on belief to that degree - to say, in effect, it would ordinarily be a sin for a Christian not to believe such - I think at least two criteria must be satisfied:
1) The Church should be absolutely certain that the doctrine proposed is true;
2) It is reasonable to expect all Christians to have absolute confidence that the Church has correctly discerned the truth.
If either of these is shaky, if either the Church could be wrong, or a Christian could reasonably fear that the Church is wrong, 100% confidence in the doctrine is unwarranted, and therefore it should not be insisted upon. It seems to me that to say "if true, why not declare it infallibly" you have to be certain that your doctrinal machinery is error-free AND that all Christians really ought to be able to see that. I know of no reason for thinking that this is so, and several for thinking that it isn't.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Secondly, if you are looking for a minimalistic faith, then surprise, surprise, Catholicism is not for you. This really is quite at odds with the spirit - or better Spirit - of the whole thing. Catholicism is like nature, gloriously complex and odd, just crammed full with all sorts of stuff. I'm as neo-scholastic as the next person, so yeah, I'm out there in the wild applying taxonomy to all that I can find. But even that is just a strange way of appreciating the wonders of it all. A good biologist is not a tax accountant.
and:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
AFAIK, the Catholic Church doesn't agree to the narrow definition of Gospel which only takes into concideration (what some people define as) the ‘core,' and which avoids ‘controversy.' Did the bishops at Nicea ‘avoid controversy'? Did the bishops at Chalcedon ‘avoid controversy'? Or, to use a more ‘controversial' topic: Did William Wilberforce ‘avoid controversy'?
I think that's a bit of a straw man. I'm not arguing for a minimalistic faith. I'm very grateful for the richness of Christian tradition, and I'm sure that I'm quite as opinionated about it as either of you. I am, if anything, arguing for controversy rather than seeking to avoid it. Also, I've said, explicitly, that I'm not troubled by the pope, or anyone else, believing every Catholic dogma, or teaching others about what they believe.
The only qualification to that is that I do object to them teaching it authoritatively, infallibly, and as an entry requirement to (what they claim is) the full Christian faith. I object to them insisting on beliefs which are not core.
And there is a core of Christian belief that is not hard to recognise. One test might be, that if the only thing you knew about someone was that she said "I'm a Christian", the beliefs that you would assume she held because of that are central to Christianity. You would not assume that she believed in the Assumption, or predestination, or veneration of icons, or creationism, or speaking in tongues (she might, or she might not, agree with any of those). You would assume that she believed in God, the incarnation, and forgiveness of sins (it is possible that she might not, of course, but it would be surprising, an anomaly, if she did not, in a way that dissent from non-core beliefs would not be surprising).
If you are a Church that claims to be the one that all Christians should join, insisting that "Christian" here means what everyone ordinarily takes it to mean is one thing, but insisting that all Christians should take your side on controversies where Christians are known to disagree is something else. You need a very clear mandate, and a very strong track record, to say that you have anything approaching a right to be the arbiter of every disputed point. I can't see that in the RCC or any other church. Do you see it? Why?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I may have misread this but you seem to have moved from "the Catholic church believes it to be true" to acceptance that it is true, and therefore should be taught.
If the Catholic Church believes something to be true, the Catholic Church could teach it as true. For the same reason it teaches the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If so - is it true because the church believes it to be so or because of some unexplained evidence?
Could you not ask the same about every bit of doctrine, including the Trinity?
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If you are arguing that something should be taught because it is believed by the teacher to be true aren't you creating a charter for the dissemination of hate (racial/religious/misogynistic/incitement to gaybashing etc.) and potentially harmful ideas such as protecting oneself from malaria through an homeopathic preparation?
Maybe, but that doesn’t really effect my point. I don’t believe in that. If the Catholic Church believes something to be trur that if fact isn’t true, then you probably shouldn’t join. My point is that if the Assumption of Mary is an obstacle to faith, than maybe one shouldn’t become Catholic. As it states in 1Tim 2:4: “[God our Savior] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (ESV, emphasis added) The Catholic Church believes that Mary was assumed, therefore she teaches it as true. And therefore one ought to believe in that truth to become Catholic.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Even in the USA the separation of church and state precludes teaching “Intelligent Design” in state funded schools despite many of their staff fervently believing it to be true.
So you are saying that in the USA the separation of church and state precludes teaching ‘Intelligent Design’ in church? If not, why bring it up?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The only qualification to that is that I do object to them teaching it authoritatively, infallibly, and as an entry requirement to (what they claim is) the full Christian faith. I object to them insisting on beliefs which are not core.
Which means that you are arguing for a minimalistic faith. The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with this ‘core-thinking.’ It is completely foreign to her, and has been completely foreign to her throughout history.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And there is a core of Christian belief that is not hard to recognise.
Says one who lives post-Nicea 325, post-Constantinople 381, post-Ephesus 431, post-Chalcedon 451, post-Constantinople II 553, post-Constantinople III 680, and post-Nicea II 787.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
One test might be, that if the only thing you knew about someone was that she said "I'm a Christian", the beliefs that you would assume she held because of that are central to Christianity.
Again, this assumes a minimalistic view that is completely foreign to the Catholic Church, completely foreign to Christianity before (and even periods during and after) the Reformation. As I’ve pointed out, the belief in Mary being ever-virgin (and quite possibly her being conceived immaculately) is taught in the Book of Concord, the founding documents of the Lutheran faith. It is said, in Smalcald Articles I.IV: “[We hold that] the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary.” (Emphasis added) This belief is even more controversial than the belief in her assumption.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You would not assume that she believed in the Assumption, or predestination, or veneration of icons, or creationism, or speaking in tongues (she might, or she might not, agree with any of those).
Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn’t mean that she ought not believe in that. And the veneration of Icons was in fact one of the disputed things that was taught authoritatively, infallibly, and as an entry requirement to the full Christian faith in the seventh ecumenical council (Nicea II 787).
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You would assume that she believed in God, the incarnation, and forgiveness of sins (it is possible that she might not, of course, but it would be surprising, an anomaly, if she did not, in a way that dissent from non-core beliefs would not be surprising).
But there are in fact many Christians who doesn’t believe in the Incarnation. Many pentacostals I have discussed with believe in a semi-adoptionist view, or they believe in a semi-Apollinarian view. The latter is in fact true of William Lane Craig. This search for a ‘core’ often has the habit of descending into heresy.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you are a Church that claims to be the one that all Christians should join, insisting that "Christian" here means what everyone ordinarily takes it to mean is one thing, but insisting that all Christians should take your side on controversies where Christians are known to disagree is something else. You need a very clear mandate, and a very strong track record, to say that you have anything approaching a right to be the arbiter of every disputed point. I can't see that in the RCC or any other church. Do you see it? Why?
I can easily imaging Arius saying the exact same thing. Why shouldn’t he get his will?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Firstly, anything that is in fact true is fair game for being declared infallibly true by the pope, and what anybody thinks of this is strictly neither here nor there.
and:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Why shouldn't the Catholic Church teach it, if it's true?
I have real difficulty in seeing how you both can go so easily from "we think this is true" to "it's fair to teach this infallibily in the Catholic Church". There's no end of things that I think true that I wouldn't want taught as infallible Christian dogma binding on all the faithful.
The effect of authoritative teaching is to say: you must believe this in order to consider yourself a faithful Catholic. Since the Catholic Church believes that all Christians are called to be faithful Catholics, this amounts to "you must believe this". To have any right to insist on belief to that degree - to say, in effect, it would ordinarily be a sin for a Christian not to believe such - I think at least two criteria must be satisfied:
1) The Church should be absolutely certain that the doctrine proposed is true;
2) It is reasonable to expect all Christians to have absolute confidence that the Church has correctly discerned the truth.
If either of these is shaky, if either the Church could be wrong, or a Christian could reasonably fear that the Church is wrong, 100% confidence in the doctrine is unwarranted, and therefore it should not be insisted upon. It seems to me that to say "if true, why not declare it infallibly" you have to be certain that your doctrinal machinery is error-free AND that all Christians really ought to be able to see that. I know of no reason for thinking that this is so, and several for thinking that it isn't.
Which is precisely why infallible declarations setting out dogma are rare. They bind the Church through heavenly authority for all time. So at present they are confined to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Our Lady in terms of something that all Catholics accept and believe. We believe and hold it to be so.
See, in our quest to understand and embrace the seriously whack, we know that there is always more to know and understand about the Deposit of Faith, more to discuss, more to explore in order to deepen our faith.
Infallible declarations set that part of the faith in stone, unable to be explored and deepened further. It's a bold Pope who would exercise such a power, for it not only binds the Church but it excludes anyone who doesn't hold such dogma to be divinely revealed truth from being a Catholic.
The net result is that neither the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception are matters for discussion in the Catholic Church ... because you, um, can't really.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
This is definitely not the kind of thing I think of when I hear that the Pope speaks ex cathedra.
Really? How come? I mean, the other certain instance of the pope speaking ex cathedra in modern times was the 1854 declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
It might be a scientific sort of mind that's troubled on speaking about something in a way that makes it an absolute fact (within the church) merely for the sake of a pep rally, however important the pep rally may be.
Jesus told St Peter to feed His sheep, not to teach them physics. The pope is a pastor, if you like the pastor until the Pastor returns, but still a pastor.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The use of ex cathedra as a political tool, even a well meaning one, bothers me. I want something that's to be that true to be true, not just to be something that the body politic feels really good about.
The body politic? Huh? Heaven forfend that the pope uses this as political tool, even if you merely mean ecclesiastic politics. And there is no truer than true.
Perhaps you will feel better about the previous (likely) instances of ex cathedra: against the Jansenists 1653 and 1794. That sounds perhaps more appropriate, smacking down heretics and all that. Except that the Jansenists were Catholic doom and gloom perfectionists, the darkest side of St Augustine. Curing depression among the sheep is perhaps not so different from cheering up the sheep...
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
This is also why the whole idea of infallibility bothers me. I'll have to think about this...you've definitely changed the way I look at papal pronouncements.
Good, I guess. You can always read some Pius X if you want to reaffirm your prior suspicions. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Fascinating on the Blessed Virgin Mary, thank you IngoB. I'd always wondered why the Pope decided to make such ... fringe issues as a location for infalliable statements. (Doesn't make them any more true, but makes them a lot more comprehensible).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
Reading the posts from Catholics makes me understand even better why I would never consider joining their denomination. They are as bas as their pope.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Which means that you are arguing for a minimalistic faith. The Catholic Church doesn't agree with this ‘core-thinking.' It is completely foreign to her, and has been completely foreign to her throughout history.
I fully agree with you that the Catholics reject the idea of an irreducible minimum of faith that is required, such that every other truth about God can be sidelined. The Orthodox reject that too. So do most Protestants. So do I. Deploying it here as if the alternative to full acceptance of Papal infallibility were minimalism is a strawman argument.
I disagree with the suggestion that the RCC does not recognise that some truths are core, and some aren't. For a start, the RCC recognises that there are, in actual fact, non-Catholic Christians, even amongst those who reject a lot of Catholic dogma. And it has, as far as I am aware, always distinguished heresy (doubting or denying part of the faith as a Christian) from schism (separation from the Church) from apostacy (repudiation of the faith). That distinction would make no sense at all if the RCC were not as comfortable as I am with the idea that it is possible (though wrong) to reject some part of what the Church teaches or commands but not fundamentally to reject the gospel.
And you understand the distinction perfectly well. That's why you ask me:
quote:
I can easily imaging Arius saying the exact same thing. Why shouldn't he get his will?
The only reason for mentioning Arius, and expecting his case to be one where I have to concede that he's outside the tent, is that you expect me to agree that Arius was denying a fundamental truth of the Christian faith. Merely by using that example you acknowledge that you can and do employ exactly the same reasoning that I'm using.
Arius, of course, is an example in my favour. The world-wide Christian Church decided against his doctrine and continues to decide against it pretty much regardless of whether they accept Papal authority or not. Mainstream Protestantism is as committed to the full divinity of Christ as ever it was. To deny the same, though possible, is an oddity amongst Christians. Those groups that have adopted this as official doctrine (like the Jehovah's Witnesses) don't want to associate with the rest of us - they know that they believe something different. I can defend the proposition that "An orthodox Christian ought not to be an Arian" without invoking infallibility or authority at all. I can do it simply by pointing to the ordinary understanding of what the Christian faith is, how Christians have interpreted the Scriptures, and by reference to what Christians believe.
quote:
Says one who lives post-Nicea 325, post-Constantinople 381, post-Ephesus 431, post-Chalcedon 451, post-Constantinople II 553, post-Constantinople III 680, and post-Nicea II 787.
Post-Reformation, too. History didn't stop in 787, or 1054.
I have to recognise, of course, that Church authority was used to promote (what I now believe to be) the truth. You should recognise that Christians who have come adrift from Church authority have nonetheless managed to preserve Christian truth. Neither of those facts go to the question of whether any particular Church has absolute authority, or has employed it legitimately, or what the proper limits of authority are.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
They are as bas as their pope.
I'm not sure what this word was supposed to be, but it seems to be sailing pretty close to the edge for Purgatory. Perhaps it is best to leave it as an undecipherable mistake.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd
Shipmate
# 8436
|
Posted
Eliab - the aspirations in your OP are commendable and, no doubt, most Christian would like the assurance that they belong to the One True Church (or denomination) with which they could agree on all matters of doctrine and so forth. However, reading through the thread, it sounds as though you are trying to justify either your acceptance or your rejection of the RCC on purely intellectual grounds and on some quite narrow issues. Is that really how God works? If you feel called or attracted to the RCC then go and immerse yourself in it for a bit and pray a lot and see where God leads you.
--------------------
Cedd
Churchmanship: This week I am mostly an evangelical, catholic, orthodox with both liberal and illiberal tendancies. Terms and conditions apply.
Posts: 377 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
Reading the posts from Catholics makes me understand even better why I would never consider joining their denomination. They are as bas as their pope.
Thanks for that. Now piss off for another two years, bigot.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
What an odd post.
Maybe you've been reading too much of Waugh or Chesterton or maybe even Graham Greene?
There is something intensely attractive to the RCC, probably to do with exotic culture contrasted to the sometimes grim and drizzly north European church.
I too have tried becoming a Catholic, and failed so far. Maybe I'll try again. But the post is a bit like:
I love Greece, but I totally can't stand hot weather. Should I emigrate there? Can anyone give me an argument why I should?
It's as plain as day that at present, like me, you are not prepared to submit to the authority of the RCC as it chooses to define it, and in particular to the authority of the Pope.
What is there for you to decide? I may wake up one day and find I believe it all. I've already gotten over my aversion to veneration of the BVM. So who knows. Maybe I'll die first.
I suspect you're not much different.
Mind you when I read your well written post, I did rather hope you'd lay off the most recent scandals. I've never understood why it causes people to draw conclusions about what Jesus meant when he said to Peter: You are my rock and on this rock I will build my Church.
How does a paedophile (or racist/fascist, or money grubbing) priest (or pastor or congregational elder) sort out that hermeneutical issue?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
windsofchange
Shipmate
# 13000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
They are as bas as their pope.
Well ... that's a relief. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on." (owner of Coney Island Freak Show, upon learning someone outbid him for a 5-legged puppy)
Posts: 153 | From: Reseda, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Now piss off for another two years, bigot.
You can't seriously think that this is appropriate in Purgatory. Enough.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I disagree with the suggestion that the RCC does not recognise that some truths are core, and some aren't. For a start, the RCC recognises that there are, in actual fact, non-Catholic Christians, even amongst those who reject a lot of Catholic dogma. And it has, as far as I am aware, always distinguished heresy (doubting or denying part of the faith as a Christian) from schism (separation from the Church) from apostacy (repudiation of the faith). That distinction would make no sense at all if the RCC were not as comfortable as I am with the idea that it is possible (though wrong) to reject some part of what the Church teaches or commands but not fundamentally to reject the gospel.
Indeed, this is the real problem for our hard line Catholics; given that the RCC has now joined the 'Churches Together' movement, they have clearly come to the recognition that the Christians they've joined have NOT made a shipwreck of their faith AS THE INFALLIBLE STATEMENT CLAIMS. Therefore by their behaviour they are proving that they don't actually believe their own 'infallible doctrine'. Therefore they are themselves no longer 'good' Catholics.
For me the basis for rejecting the additional features that the RCC has added over the years is that it is a denial of particular strand of biblical teaching.
quote:
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.
1 Tim 1:3-4 and
quote:
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
Col 2:16-19
All the doctrines about the BVM - perpetual virginity, immaculate conception and assumption - to me are in the category of myths which may or may not be true, but don't add to the faith once and for all received. That's all about Jesus and the difference that He's made to the universe; focusing attention on the BVM is in practice distracting attention from Him. Or at least that's my perception - YMMV. For me this list of quotes is horrendous: for example 'It is impossible to save one's soul without devotion to Mary and without her protection.' simply won't do. Whatever Galatians is about, it's about a group of Christians who are being bullied into adding to their faith in Christ an additional element. And as we've established, the RCC doesn't actually believe it anymore, so it would be a lot more healthy if they did the honest thing and withdraw those heretical* - in the technical sense - beliefs.
* Opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
Ender's Shadow:
Your first paragraph does not follow as a matter of logic. For one thing it contains the false premise that engaging in any ecumenical movement must mean abjuring aspects of Catholic dogma.
Similarly the Biblical quotes you give do not apply to divinely revealed truth - the true doctrine.You might disagree that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are part of divinely revealed truth. But that does not make them myths. It is simply an expression of your opinion.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Your first paragraph does not follow as a matter of logic. For one thing it contains the false premise that engaging in any ecumenical movement must mean abjuring aspects of Catholic dogma.
Perhaps it does; to the extent that the RCC climbs off its pedestal as the only legitimate church IN PRACTICE, it is indicating that it doesn't really believe the terms of the Assumption declaration that anyone who rejects the truth of the declaration has made a shipwreck of their faith. The old position on the pedestal is self consistent - it's just not one that the RCC is able to sustain these days.
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Similarly the Biblical quotes you give do not apply to divinely revealed truth - the true doctrine.You might disagree that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are part of divinely revealed truth. But that does not make them myths. It is simply an expression of your opinion.
Faith is being certain about God, not being sure of certain facts. Any additional beliefs - such as the Trinity - are valid derivations from the faith, but are not actually necessary for faith; given that the Trinity is practically incomprehensible, this is just as well. Given that the Marian doctrines are not valid derivations in the same way, but the result of piety, they do not form either part of the package necessary for salvation, not part of what logically follows from it. Therefore they are, IMHO, validly classed as myths which may be helpful - but which are not beliefs which should be accepted as their rejection is evidence of a shipwrecked faith.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
Reading the posts from Catholics makes me understand even better why I would never consider joining their denomination. They are as bas as their pope.
I think you meant "bad" as "d" is just past "s" on the keyboard.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I too have tried becoming a Catholic, and failed so far. Maybe I'll try again. But the post is a bit like:
I love Greece, but I totally can't stand hot weather. Should I emigrate there? Can anyone give me an argument why I should?
I think I'm saying something more like "Greece sounds great, but are you sure you're not shitting me about the weather?". If the RCC really is selling what it advertises, I'd buy it. Who wouldn't? At the moment, I'm not convinced, but I'm very interested in why other Christians are convinced.
quote:
I did rather hope you'd lay off the most recent scandals. I've never understood why it causes people to draw conclusions about what Jesus meant when he said to Peter: You are my rock and on this rock I will build my Church.
I thought I did lay off them! I mention them because they clearly are a problem for other people, so I explained that they weren't for me (as far as accepting RC authority goes, that is).
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
And lastly, it appears that the whole issue is boiling down to contraception. Again. As if it was all about that. Well, it isn't.
It isn't all about that, at least not for me, but the RC teaching on contraception probably is the one that would make the greatest difference to my life, if I tried to follow it. There is no avoiding the fact that doing this would place an enormous strain on my marriage (and really that's not up for debate - I do know that some Catholic couples manage to live with this teaching using NFP quite happily, but I also know my own relationship, and there is basically no chance that a ban on contraception would not be a serious problem).
Of course, if it is true that I am offending God every time I use a condom, I want to know this, and I want to stop doing it, but because that will necessarily involve putting a burden on the most important human relationship I have (and one which God commands me to maintain) I think I am right to demand a very high level of certainty before I accept the RC teaching. Since none of my moral instincts remotely support RC teaching, I would be taking the truth of the matter wholly on trust. Thus I would have to be very strongly convinced of the principle that what the Church says must be right.
That is, if I were entirely convinced that the RCC is the one true Church, its teachings on contraception would not keep me out. It's not a deal breaker. But because refusing to use contraception would be costly (whether the teaching were right or wrong), and might even (if the teaching is wrong) be positively sinful in my personal circumstances, it is a reason for looking very closely and critically at RC claims for uniqueness.
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd:
Eliab - the aspirations in your OP are commendable and, no doubt, most Christian would like the assurance that they belong to the One True Church (or denomination) with which they could agree on all matters of doctrine and so forth. However, reading through the thread, it sounds as though you are trying to justify either your acceptance or your rejection of the RCC on purely intellectual grounds and on some quite narrow issues. Is that really how God works?
The intellectual side is the one I want to discuss here, because its the area where I can most benefit from the views of others, as well as being one of the main ways in which I personally engage with my faith.
Yes, I think God can and does work in that way. And in other ways, as well. This point, though, is essentially an intellectual one. The RCC requires a degree of intellectual submission to its teachings, and that is a claim that must be intellectually tested.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Ender's Shadow:
Your first paragraph does not follow as a matter of logic. For one thing it contains the false premise that engaging in any ecumenical movement must mean abjuring aspects of Catholic dogma.
The point is (and Ender's Shadow is taking it further than I did) that engagement with ecumenism is a de facto recognition that one can be a Christian and a useful partner in ministry but not a Catholic. That is, despite what k-mann has argued here, it is not foreign to the Catholic Church to distinguish meaningful 'core' beliefs that define Christianity as a whole from the fulness of Catholic doctrine and practice.
Obviously the RCC regards many of its non-core teachings as true and important, just as Protestants do. The RCC isn't "minimalist" as regards the faith. It doesn't think that the core, the beliefs that make Christianity Christian, are the only ones that matter. But then, Protestants don't either.
Which is why it looked, to me, as if k-mann was throwing sand at the issue. I want to know how I can be sure that the pope is right on 'non-core' issues. He responds that the RC doesn't distinguish core and non-core, that therefore if the pope can't decide on condoms, he also can't decide on Christology. He argues that if my questionning of the RCC's authority is valid, I have no grounds for thinking Arianism was rightly condemned, which surely as a Christian I must think it was? The irony, of course, is that the last point can only work on the shared assumption that the Arian heresy goes to core belief.
It is a way of avoiding the real question. Sure, the pope is right on Christology, but so is almost every other mainstream Christian leader. I want to know whether he's right on condoms, and confession, and communion, and all those other points where agreeing with him might mean that I have to change my mind. Those are the issues where RC authority matters. There's no point in trying to defend the RCC's unique claims to authority by pointing out that it is right on the teachings that it holds in common with the rest of Christendom.
Prove that the RC is right generally, even when it is the lone voice, and you're getting somewhere. Prove that you're right about Arianism, and then say there's no difference between that and your more controversial views, and it does nothing to advance Catholic claims.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Ultimately, the authority of the Catholic Church, like the authority of every Church, and indeed the authority of Scripture, is circular and self referential.
With Scripture, the argument goes:
"This book proclaims the infallible truth."
"Who says so?"
"The book."
"Why do you believe the book?"
"Because it proclaims the infallible truth."
Replace "book" with "pope", and you have the argument for the authority of the Catholic Church (or, with suitable substitutions, of any other).
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
As a convert to the Roman Catholic Church, I spent a long time studying and trying to understand the significance of the processes and encyclicals of Vatican II. One point that was raised again and again in commentaries based on conciliar documents, with various stipulations and reservations, drew on the statement in the Decree on Ecumenism that there is a 'hierarchy of truths' and therefore not all official Church teachings are equally binding on all Catholics or essential to the integrity of the Catholic faith. This doesn't refer to dogmas pronounced infallible -- the example that was given to us was that Catholics were now free to believe that unbaptised babies did not end up in limbo, thereby ending centuries of emotional anguish for the mothers of stillborn infants.
There is also a certain tension that many canon lawyers point to when they talk about showing 'respect' but not 'submission' to doctrines or papal pronouncements, as when the German bishops together dissented from papal teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae, the same public opposition voiced in the Winnipeg Statement from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Most Catholics I know who use contraception justify their dissent from offical teaching by reference to the 'hierarchy of truths' and the primacy of conscience.
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Accepting that the RCC has moral authority to teach on these points would mean concluding that my best moral and spiritual intuitions are not merely flawed (I accept that) but worthless (which I cannot accept, and, if accepted, is a philosophical dead end).
How are you getting from merely flawed to worthless?
Because if I am wrong about contraception, I am so badly wrong that my moral instincts about it must be unreliable.
Compare, say, other disputed moral questions, like abortion, or pacifism, or capital punishment. I have views about these, of course, but I can see what the other side is saying, what good intentions motivate the other side, and why reasonable people could disagree. I might be wrong about the specifics, but I am not inept. I can imagine myself changing my mind.
On contraception, that's not the case. I can't see that there's anything to be said, morally, on the other side whatsoever - not out of ignorance or lack of thought, but because I've heard all the arguments ably put, and simply cannot discern any substance there at all. If contraception is a grave sin, then I utterly lack the faculty to see it. My moral judgement on that point could not be more deficient.
The point is that on some issues the RCC official line is so much at odds with my moral common sense, that it would require more than ordinary humility to see that it is right and I am wrong. I would be taking on trust the fact that it is right for no reason that I can see or comprehend, against all of my moral instincts. That is, it puts me in 1984 territory - the only way I could accept that the RCC is right about condoms would be almost to brainwash myself into believing that the RCC is right because it says so. This is a problem for me.
For me too. The Roman Catholic line on contraception isn't for me the moral equivalent of creationism. It's the moral equivalent of flat earthism. When we have photos taken from space and I've looked down on the earth from a plane. There are so many demonstrations that the world is round that if it were flat I'd have to give up on the evidence of my senses.
So to with contraception. Literally every line of moral reasoning I have says that non-abortive forms of contraception are a moral good. I can get both sides of e.g. the abortion debate. And the Roman Catholic arguments not only ignore to me every single moral issue going, they present an argument that violates my understanding of evolution, that as a designer I'd find positively annoying (seriously, I'm glad when someone finds a different use for something I created than I intended), and my aesthetic sense.
Therefore the authority of the Catholic Church demands that I throw out literally all my moral reasoning, the overwhelming majority of my creativity, and much of my sense of aesthetics. I literally can not believe that I am unequivocally wrong on all these points. And that my general creativity, repurposing things to fit new functions makes both myself and much of the mechanism of evolution evil.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Your first paragraph does not follow as a matter of logic. For one thing it contains the false premise that engaging in any ecumenical movement must mean abjuring aspects of Catholic dogma.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Perhaps it does; to the extent that the RCC climbs off its pedestal as the only legitimate church IN PRACTICE, it is indicating that it doesn't really believe the terms of the Assumption declaration that anyone who rejects the truth of the declaration has made a shipwreck of their faith. The old position on the pedestal is self consistent - it's just not one that the RCC is able to sustain these days.
Dominus Iesus
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I hope I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that one of the defining features of Catholicism is that it is, in a way, monolithic. Every bit of the doctrinal system relates to every other bit, and none can be dislodged without upsetting the whole thing.
If this is true, then it doesn't really make much sense to talk of "the Catholic line on (x, y, z...)" as an isolated doctrine. Take contraception, for example. (And again, I'm very open to correction here.) Catholic teaching on contraception arises from the idea that there is, in normal circumstances, a specific purpose to sex. Anything that intereferes with that purpose is sinful. This idea arises from Augustinian teaching on sex as related to original sin. The teaching on original sin is, in turn, related to the whole of Catholic teaching on the relationship between God and humankind, and to the teaching on salvation itself. Disrupt one element of this, and none of it makes sense any more.
In other words, there is ultimately no pick-and-choose with Catholicism. Opting in to it seems to me to be a matter of rejoicing in the things you can assent to, but submitting to the rest anyway.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
As a convert to the Roman Catholic Church, I spent a long time studying and trying to understand the significance of the processes and encyclicals of Vatican II. One point that was raised again and again in commentaries based on conciliar documents, with various stipulations and reservations, drew on the statement in the Decree on Ecumenism that there is a 'hierarchy of truths' and therefore not all official Church teachings are equally binding on all Catholics or essential to the integrity of the Catholic faith. This doesn't refer to dogmas pronounced infallible -- the example that was given to us was that Catholics were now free to believe that unbaptised babies did not end up in limbo, thereby ending centuries of emotional anguish for the mothers of stillborn infants.
There is also a certain tension that many canon lawyers point to when they talk about showing 'respect' but not 'submission' to doctrines or papal pronouncements, as when the German bishops together dissented from papal teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae, the same public opposition voiced in the Winnipeg Statement from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Most Catholics I know who use contraception justify their dissent from offical teaching by reference to the 'hierarchy of truths' and the primacy of conscience.
This is the problem with people using Vatican II as there reference point for everything as if the Church only started in 1962. The Rhine polluted the Tiber and we are still living with the consequences.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Your first paragraph does not follow as a matter of logic. For one thing it contains the false premise that engaging in any ecumenical movement must mean abjuring aspects of Catholic dogma.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Perhaps it does; to the extent that the RCC climbs off its pedestal as the only legitimate church IN PRACTICE, it is indicating that it doesn't really believe the terms of the Assumption declaration that anyone who rejects the truth of the declaration has made a shipwreck of their faith. The old position on the pedestal is self consistent - it's just not one that the RCC is able to sustain these days.
Dominus Iesus
Come, come CL. You've been here 18 months so you should know that mere assertion does not constitute proof!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I hope I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that one of the defining features of Catholicism is that it is, in a way, monolithic. Every bit of the doctrinal system relates to every other bit, and none can be dislodged without upsetting the whole thing.
If this is true, then it doesn't really make much sense to talk of "the Catholic line on (x, y, z...)" as an isolated doctrine. Take contraception, for example. (And again, I'm very open to correction here.) Catholic teaching on contraception arises from the idea that there is, in normal circumstances, a specific purpose to sex. Anything that intereferes with that purpose is sinful. This idea arises from Augustinian teaching on sex as related to original sin. The teaching on original sin is, in turn, related to the whole of Catholic teaching on the relationship between God and humankind, and to the teaching on salvation itself. Disrupt one element of this, and none of it makes sense any more.
In other words, there is ultimately no pick-and-choose with Catholicism. Opting in to it seems to me to be a matter of rejoicing in the things you can assent to, but submitting to the rest anyway.
Indeed; the doctrine of the Church is a seamless garment, just not in the way that heretic Bernardin had people believe.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
This is the problem with people using Vatican II as there reference point for everything as if the Church only started in 1962. The Rhine polluted the Tiber and we are still living with the consequences.
No, Cl, it isn't my reference point for everything, but most converts do study the 1960s aggiornamento of the Roman Catholic Church as a matter of course.
The opposition to Humanae Vitae was unprecedented in the 20th century in that many lay Catholics found that their bishops openly supported them if they chose to use contraceptives and that those bishops remained bishops and practising Catholics despite their public dissent.
The Belgian bishops stated: "Someone, however, who is competent in the matter under consideration and capable of forming a personal and well-founded judgment--which necessarily presupposes a sufficient amount of knowledge--may, after a serious examination before God, come to other conclusions on certain points. In such a case he has the right to follow his conviction provided that he remains sincerely disposed to continue his inquiry."
The Scandinavian bishops stated: "No one should, therefore, on account of such diverging opinions alone, be regarded as an inferior Catholic."
The Canadian bishops stated: "These Catholics should not be considered, or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful."
Cardinal Suenens, if I remember correctly, referred to papal teaching that rejected contraception as 'another Galileo affair'.
[ 04. July 2012, 12:59: Message edited by: Mary LA ]
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd like to be part of a Church which can at least aspire to being in communion with all Christians. I'd like that Church to teach orthodox Christian doctrine, and to devote its intellectual resources to defending and promoting that doctrine, so that I can be reasonably confident that what I believe is orthodox, and that I have access to the best arguments to convince me of that. The corollory to that is that I don't want the Church to teach anything as an essential of the Christian faith about which orthodox Christians can reasonably disagree, but what it does teach as essential, I want it to teach with authority. That is what I would see as a truly universal church, and that's what I would like to join.
You don't want much then!
In essence, your question is "I want to join a church that's teaching and following the Christian faith as it is meant to be."
So you want to know how can you tell what this looks like.
The best check/ balance is the Bible. Is the Church teaching what the Bible teaches?
On all important matters of doctrine, the things we really need to know, contrary to modern popular theories, the Bible is very clear.
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
you are arguing for a minimalistic faith. The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with this ‘core-thinking.’ It is completely foreign to her, and has been completely foreign to her throughout history.
I disagree.
The Catholic church calls it "subsidiarity" - the principle that those things that can be decided at lower levels should be.
There are matters on which individuals - the lowest level - may reasonably differ. Matters which are appropriate for decision at parish level, diocesan level, or national level. And matters which the Pope should decide for the benefit of the whole Church.
This doesn't mean "the Church should shut up about everything except the bare essentials". But it does say that the onus is always on the higher authority to justify the need for a decision at that level.
As with any other human organisation, the fallible human beings in the Catholic church don't always live up to this Catholic ideal. (And as with most things, there are two opposite ways in which to get it wrong).
Worship of order, uniformity and centralised power is fascism. That too was invented in Rome.
It is clearly conceivable that the RC church may be of all churches closest to the truth, and yet still wrong in some respects. Maybe it is what is Catholic about it that is good and what is Roman about it that isn't...
Most people have heard that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I read recently that the author of that remark, Lord Acton, was a British observer at the First Vatican Council.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The Church is here to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.He said that we should 'love God and our neighbour as ourself'.
Everything which ecclesiastics say should help to elucidate how we carry out these commands of Jesus.
Over the centuries churchmen have written screeds and screeds attempting to answer questions which people have put but all of these words should point us in the direction of the ideal of loving God and our neighbour and having respect for ourselves as children of God.
Most of us realize that we fall short of the ideals -ideals which the Church tries to put in front of us - eeven those of the ideals of having sexual encounters open to the possibility of the creation of new life.
In terms of the Roman Catholic church - by far the largest of all organised Christian bodies - it is not the case that by recognising and honouring other Christian communities it dilutes its own message.Rather does it recognise only that the Church is a much greater edifice than simply those who recognise the authority of the Roman pontiff.
The word 'Roman' refers us immediately to this world and not to the world to come. Inevitably there are cultural differnces amongst the tribes of this world - some of whom feel themselves culturally comfortable within Roman culture and others not so.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
you are arguing for a minimalistic faith. The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with this ‘core-thinking.’ It is completely foreign to her, and has been completely foreign to her throughout history.
I disagree.
The Catholic church calls it "subsidiarity" - the principle that those things that can be decided at lower levels should be.
There are matters on which individuals - the lowest level - may reasonably differ. Matters which are appropriate for decision at parish level, diocesan level, or national level. And matters which the Pope should decide for the benefit of the whole Church.
This doesn't mean "the Church should shut up about everything except the bare essentials". But it does say that the onus is always on the higher authority to justify the need for a decision at that level.
But that does not refer to doctrines. The Immaculate Conception is doctrine.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
I wondered when the Immaculate Conception would pop up as it is much more contentious than the Assumption!
So many theologians, from Anselm to Aquinas.....help I have only mentioned 'A's so I will add that Marian apologist Bernard....have disagreed with it. I don't think Anselm had ever heard of the idea and Aquinas is probably more agnostic about it. Bernard just opposes the whole thing...and we haven't got beyond the Middle Ages yet.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
