|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The authority of the Catholic Church
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
If that was true then we'd all be screwed, because how can we have confidence that anything our corrupt and self-serving church heirarchies say is anything other than corrupt and self-serving?
Fortunately, there's the little matter of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, who guides us all to Truth. Note: guides us all, not just the blokes in fancy hats and scarves (or similar "I'm the boss" garb, depending on denomination) who lord it over the rest of us by pretending they're the only ones who have a valid relationship with Him.
We can only have confidence in them if we have faith in Jesus' promises.
It seems to me you are leaving nothing else left in the Christian message but some vague feelings in our hearts that you call the Holy Spirit. For me, there are some facts we have to maintain- facts we have to be told about, and which cannot be just thought up if we sit under the bodhi tree and think really hard. It is the Church that told me of these facts- and if I embrace them I have to embrace the Church and its Bible.
Are the people of the Church sinful and self serving? Most certainly. Have the Apostles faithfully handed down the saving truths of Jesus Christ? I can't prove it, but I believe.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fortunately, there's the little matter of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, who guides us all to Truth. Note: guides us all, not just the blokes in fancy hats and scarves (or similar "I'm the boss" garb, depending on denomination) who lord it over the rest of us by pretending they're the only ones who have a valid relationship with Him.
Agree - but the hierarchy will and do claim that the Spirit guides us all THROUGH the hierarchy's guidance and teaching 'magisterium'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ah, I must meet your exclusion with exclusion Zach82, how ... ironic.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Cara, I agree with almost everything you say.I certainly don't believe that the Catholic Church is the only 'real deal'.
Jesus died for ALL of us and His love encompasses all of the human race and even beyond.
Whatever the way that the Catholic Church may have seen itself in the past it teaches now that All of humanity are members of that mystical body of Christ,even those who are not aware of it.There is much that is good in other Christian groupings not linked formally to the See of Rome and I spend much of my Christian life seeking out the similarities and not the differences between different forms of Christianity and different religions who all in essence worship the same God.It is only our very human frailties which keep us apart.
The only place where the Catholic church might claim exclusivity is in saying who is and who is not linked formally with the Apostolic and Roman See.The Catholic church cannot judge the validity of the ministry of those who are not formally linked to it.It cannot make any judgement on their theological opinions but recognises that there is much good in other Christians - other Christians who cannot in any way be blamed for the divisions caused by the imperfections of Christians over the centuries.
Although some of these Christians may in a technical sense be'heretics' following quite different doctrines from those of the Catholic Church or technically 'schismatics' refusing to remain in communion with the Apostolic See,they are nevertheless the beloved children of God just as much as Catholics are.
You know why the Church does not give Communion to those over whom it has no control,as it takes its role as guardian of the mysteries so seriously.
If you share the faith in the eucharist which Catholics are supposed to have (and you know what that is).If you feel a genuine need to communicate.If there are no ministers of your own church around then normally the Church would admit you to Communion,even although you do not consider yourself to be a Catholic (even although you are !)
Thanks, Forthview.
Yes, I know that in extreme circumstances, such as no church of one's own denomination available-- the Catholic Church does allow Christians who believe the Catholic way about the eucharist to take Communion even if they are not otherwise Catholic....
Well, I'm not actually that far from an Anglican church, so I can't really claim these extreme circumstances, and I believe in the Real Presence but not in transubstantiation, and this exception to the rule is so hedged about with caveats and provisos....but I appreciate your mentioning it.
Cara
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Carissima CARA - I'm certainly not trying to encourage you to visit a Catholic church as there is obviously something keeping you away.
The provisos and caveats are there for a definite reason but they can be interpreted in various ways.Some people would say that if an Anglican priest were not immediately available then one could go to Communion in the nearest Catholic church - if one shared the eucharistic understanding of Catholics.
You say that you believe in the Real Presence.If for you Jesus is really present in the consecrated bread and wine then what is wrong with the word 'transubstantiation' which after all is only an attempt in words from the Middle Ages to explain that Jesus is really present in the consecrated bread and wine.If He wasn't really present in the bread and wine before the consecration and yet is present after the consecration what is wrong with using that word ?
I sense from your words that although there is something which brings you some sort of 'souvenir involontaire' of your past when you see a Catholic church that you cannot bring yourself to go in,perhaps in case you feel that you might be sucked in against your will.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Carissima CARA - I'm certainly not trying to encourage you to visit a Catholic church as there is obviously something keeping you away.
The provisos and caveats are there for a definite reason but they can be interpreted in various ways.Some people would say that if an Anglican priest were not immediately available then one could go to Communion in the nearest Catholic church - if one shared the eucharistic understanding of Catholics.
You say that you believe in the Real Presence.If for you Jesus is really present in the consecrated bread and wine then what is wrong with the word 'transubstantiation' which after all is only an attempt in words from the Middle Ages to explain that Jesus is really present in the consecrated bread and wine.If He wasn't really present in the bread and wine before the consecration and yet is present after the consecration what is wrong with using that word ?
I sense from your words that although there is something which brings you some sort of 'souvenir involontaire' of your past when you see a Catholic church that you cannot bring yourself to go in,perhaps in case you feel that you might be sucked in against your will.
Thanks for your kind concern, much appreciated! But I really shouldn't hi-jack Eliab's thread any further with discussion of my personal stuff. I should just clarify that I absolutely can and do go into Catholic Churches, often--though rarely to attend Mass, it's true. However not so long ago I did go to Mass with a family member who was visiting --at Communion time I went up for a blessing instead. Which I know has been discussed on the Ship as a controversial practice, but anyway.
I don't go to Catholic Mass often.....but then, although I call myself an Anglican, at present I'm not going much to Anglican worship either, for a variety of reasons....some practical, since as I said it's not that near, and others too nebulous to go into here.
Re Catholic churches--or rather re Mass itself, as I go into Catholic churches all the time to look at them and appreciate their freight of beauty and their almost tangible centuries of prayer, and maybe even pray myself--there may be a little inkling of the sort of resistance you describe, but it's not as drastic, and is far more complex...
As to "Real Presence" vs "transubstantiation," as I understand it there absolutely is a difference.
A belief in the Real Presence means you believe Christ is truly present somehow in the bread and wine, but with no need to define exactly how.
Transubstantiation is a particular way of understanding the Real Presence, by which the external accidents remain the same, while the substance changes...or however it is properly defined.
(A quick Google of "transubstantiation vs real presence" brings up a host of explanations.)
As far as I know, to be a Catholic and receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to understand the Real Presence strictly in the Catholic way: transubstantiation.
However, for Eliab, it's not specific doctrines that matter at the moment, so much as trying to decide whether the Catholic church really has authority, so all this is by the by.....
But these are the sort of tangents that inevitably arise in any discussion of the Catholic church and especially of her authority re dogmas and doctrines, I suspect!
cara
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
(A quick Google of "transubstantiation vs real presence" brings up a host of explanations.)
oops!!! unintentional pun. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
cara
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
One of the problems most native English speakers, whether born Catholic, converts or other have in understanding Catholicism is that the centre and sensibility of the RCC is in a Latin country. There things are not seen in such an adversarial either/or way they are in England, Australia or similar. The Vatican often makes statements, often on non-doctrinal matters, which are heard, but possibly not followed. In Italian it's called making "la bella figura" and honour is satisfied.
That's fascinating!
I can't help thinking that if I were a member of a group that told me I had to live my life a certain way and after many years met a majority from that group who said, "that? oh we don't worry about that", I'd be
- A) confused
- B) thoroughly pissed off
- C) Demand a yes or no ruling
I gather you were making a personal statement.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... Whatever the way that the Catholic Church may have seen itself in the past it teaches now that All of humanity are members of that mystical body of Christ,even those who are not aware of it.
Can you provide an authority for that claim?
(I'm not disputing what you say, but it is not my understanding. I may need to read more carefully - as I've needed to in other matters.)
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I gather you were making a personal statement.
Sorry you've lost me. Personal statement about what?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I gather you were making a personal statement.
Sorry you've lost me. Personal statement about what?
A comment on what I said about the Italian way of looking at things.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Whatever the way that the Catholic Church may have seen itself in the past it teaches now that All of humanity are members of that mystical body of Christ,even those who are not aware of it.
Whilst this is a popular liberal interpretation of Vatican II, it is not actually justified by the text. More importantly for a Protestant, it is explicitly denied by the bible, which states:
quote:
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jn 1:11-13
Now - if my receiving of Him causes me to have the right to become a child of God, then I am not, by default, a child of God. Therefore 'all of humanity' cannot be 'members of the body of Christ'. If Rome is teaching the opposite, it is wrong.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Agree - but the hierarchy will and do claim that the Spirit guides us all THROUGH the hierarchy's guidance and teaching 'magisterium'.
Well they would, wouldn't they. Turkeys don't tend to vote for Christmas, and people with jobs for life that allow them to live in palaces and lord it over others don't tend to surrender them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Many of the threads concerning the CATHOLIC CHURCH complain about the exclusivity of the Catholic church and now we have a post from Ender's Shadow saying that the Catholic church is too inclusive.
Arguments can rage round and round in circles about the meaning of words,statements and ideas.What exactly does 'real' mean in Real Presence ? What exactly does 'Presence' mean in Real Presence ? What exactly does 'transubstantiation' or 'consubstantiation' mean ? Although these can be interesting to some people, for the great majority of Christians they are simply words with which we surround and attempt to explain,sometimes not too well,what are the mysteries of the Christian Faith.
To the question of AdamPater about the Catholic church's view of possible salvation for all of humanity created by a loving God the catechism of the Catholic church,an authoritative document, has the following to say.
Para 816 The sole Church of Christ is that which our Saviour,after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care ....this Church,constituted and organiserd as a society in the present world subsists in the Catholic church,which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.
817 in this one and only Church fromits very beginnings arose rifts which the Apostle strongly censures .....in subsequent centuries large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic church - for which,often enough men on both sides were to blame.....
818 ..one cannot charge with the sin of separation those born now into those communities and the Catholic church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers
819 furthermore many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic church - Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation....
832 The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of faithful gathered together through the Preaching of the Gospel and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated ... they may be small,poor or existing in the diaspora but Christ is present through whose power the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic church is constituted...
836 All men are called to this Catholic unity of the People of God .. and to it,in different ways,belong,or are ordered : the Catholic faithful,others who believe in Christ and finally all mankind,called b y God's grace to salvation.
838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptised who are honoured by the name of Christian who do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety... they are in a certain,but imperfect communion with the Catholic church.
839 when the Church delves intoher own mystery she discovers her link with the Jewish people
841 The plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims who together with us adore the one merciful God........
843 the CATHOLIC CHURCH recognises in other religions the search for God and considers all goodness and truth found ion these religioons as a 'preparation for the Gospel
846 extra ecclesiam nulla salus - no salvation outside of the Church - put positively iot means that all Salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his body
847This affirmation is not aimed at those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and his church ... those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ....but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and try in their actions to do his will according to the dictates of their conscience - these too may achieve eternal salvation.
On 11th October 1992 pope JohnPaul II on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council signed an Apostolic constitution 'Fidei depositum' introducing and commending this catechism to the whole Catholic church
'Guarding the deposit of faith is the mission which the Lord entrusts to his Churchand which she fulfils in every age....
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Forthview, I don't see how that clarifies things.
I think it is only fair to all reading this thread to point out that the Catholic Church does not teach that "All of humanity are members of that mystical body of Christ, even those who are not aware of it."
It just doesn't.
Given that, your assertion - no matter how well-intentioned - is deeply unhelpful
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
<snip> To the question of AdamPater about the Catholic church's view of possible salvation for all of humanity created by a loving God the catechism of the Catholic church,an authoritative document, has the following to say.
Para 816 .... <snip>
With apologies to Inigo Montoya: you are using these words... I do not think they means what you think they means.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
847This affirmation is not aimed at those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and his church ... those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ....but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and try in their actions to do his will according to the dictates of their conscience - these too may achieve eternal salvation.
This appears to address the issue we are focusing on: but note the restrictions - those who've not heard the gospel AND try to live according to their conscience. Therefore those who fail on either of those tests are not covered by that statement. Therefore salvation is not guaranteed - Rome has not turned universalist, however much universalists might like it to have done.
--------------------
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
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
From the Catholic point of view,being a member of the Church does not automatically guarantee salvation.
I go back to the Catechism issued by the authority of pope John Paul II and which he says is a 'statement of the Church's faith .. a sure norm for teaching the faith'.
Para 779 The Church is both visible and spiritual ,a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ.She is one,yet formed of two components,human and divine.That is her mystery,which only faith can accept.
836 ALL MEN are called to this catholic unity of the People of God... and to it,IN DIFFERENT WAYS BELONG ,or are ordered :
the Catholic faithful
others who believe in Christ
ALL MANKIND,called by God's grace to salvation.
837 Even though incorporated into the Church,one who does not persevere in charity is not saved.He remains in the bosom of the Church,but 'in body' not 'in heart'
Thus I would put it in my words that as Catholics we have to recognise all men and women as our brothers and sisters in the Lord.
All have been created by God and all are offered redemption through the Saving Blood of Jesus Christ
That is obviously not to say that all are really Roman Catholic whether they know it or not.
Apart from this Roman Catholics know that not all within the visible community linked fully to the Apostolic See are Roman Catholics.
Human frailty will make some Roman Catholics believe that they alone are special.They are indeed special but so are all members of the human race equally special.
Whilst accepting at the highest level that all men are children of God and brothers and sisters of one another,the Church nevertheless believs that it has a particular message for all those brothers and sisters the world over as is expressed in:
849 Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be the 'universal sacrament of salvation' the Church,in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality,strives to preach the Gospel to all men
851 It is from God's love for all men that the Church receives both the obligation and the vigour of her missionary dynamism... God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth.All those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way to salvation.The Church ,to whom this truth has been entrusted,must go out to meet their desire.
To me these are encouraging words which inspire me to look outwards to others,but to remain more than aware of the firm foundation which I have within the bosom of Holy Mother Church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Well, Forthwith, here's my interpretation of the CCC, which to the best of my knowledge is compatible with official RC teaching:
Who is a full member of the Catholic Church?
Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. (CCC 837)
The members of the Catholic Church in communion with the pope, Roman and Oriental, and as of recently, Anglican.
Who is an almost full member of the Catholic Church?
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC 838)
The Eastern Orthodox (and in a similar manner also some other smaller group, IIRC).
Who else can be considered a member of the Catholic Church in a sense, but clearly to a lesser degree?
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." (CCC 838)
Other Christians that have a valid baptism, like most Protestants.
Who is not member of the Catholic Church, but also privileged in the sight of God?
The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (CCC 839)
The Jews.
Who is not a member of the Catholic Church, but close to a proper understanding of God?
The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. (CCC 841)
Others who believe in a Creator God, foremost among them the Muslims.
Who is not a member of the Catholic Church, even further removed in understanding, but still to some degree doing God's will?
The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life." (CCC 843)
All other religious adherents.
Can those who are outside of the Church viably remain apart from her?
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)
No, it is required for their salvation to become a member of the Catholic Church, in particular through baptism.
Are then all who remain outside of the Catholic Church doomed?
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)
No, if they are not culpable for remaining apart from the Catholic Church, then God will not count this against them.
What about those who are members of the Catholic Church, but not fully so?
The Church's mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity. Indeed, "divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects." (CCC 855)
They are impeding the life of the Church, and such hindrance should be removed as far and as fast as possible.
So what is the big picture concerning membership in the Catholic Church?
"All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation." (CCC 836)
- Catholics: fully belonging.
- Other Christians: partly belonging.
- Everybody else: should be belonging.
--------------------
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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If one cannot have confidence in the community telling one about Jesus, one cannot have confidence in Jesus, because we don't have other sources of knowledge about him.
If that was true then we'd all be screwed, because how can we have confidence that anything our corrupt and self-serving church heirarchies say is anything other than corrupt and self-serving?
Fortunately, there's the little matter of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, who guides us all to Truth. Note: guides us all, not just the blokes in fancy hats and scarves (or similar "I'm the boss" garb, depending on denomination) who lord it over the rest of us by pretending they're the only ones who have a valid relationship with Him.
The question is not as simple as that, and cannot be solved by merely ‘pointing to the text.’ What we need to ask, is: When Christ said that the Holy Spirit would “lead you into all truth,” who was the recipients of that promise? Was it the Apostles qua Christians or the Apostles qua Aposles? You seem to assume that the former interpretation is the correct one, but you cannot point to the text itself to ‘prove’ your point. In and of itself, this text only tells us that the Church* will be lead into all truth. It doesn’t say if Christ’s promise is to the individual Christian, or the Church through the Apostles (and perhaps their successors).**
I happen to hold the latter view, because it is the historic interpretation, and was held by the Church when it canonized the Scriptures. It is still held by the Catholic Church and, quite frankly, by most historical churches, including tradtional reformational churches.
* I am not here saying anything about which Church is the correct one. I am personally a high church Lutheran.
** Some will say that this happened through Scripture alone, some primary through Scripture, some through the institutional Church, 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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
what is wrong with the word 'transubstantiation' which after all is only an attempt in words from the Middle Ages to explain that Jesus is really present in the consecrated bread and wine.If He wasn't really present in the bread and wine before the consecration and yet is present after the consecration what is wrong with using that word ?
What's wrong with the word is that it carries the implication of the whole Medieval philosophy - that spiritual matters are to be thought of in terms of a non-material substance which is perceivable only by faith.
Human understanding of the world and of the processes of thinking have moved on since then. We live in a world of matter and information - hardware and software - and spirit is software, not hardware. Faith is not a perception, it is a closing of the mind to possibilities other than the one committed to.
The Gospel is never out-of-date but some of the ways in which the saints of old thought about it and expressed it are.
But Conservatism and the Catholic church is a whole other topic...
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
From the Catechism
para 777 The word 'Church'...designates the assembly of those whom God's word convokes,i.e. gathers together to form the People of God.
778 The Church is both the means and goal of God's plan:prefigured in creation,prepared for in the Old Covenant,founded by the words and actions of Jesus Christ,fulfilled by His redeeming cross and resurrection..She will be perfected in the glory of heaven as the assembly of all the redeemed of the earth
779 The church is both visible and spiritual,a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ.She is formed of two components,human and divine.That is her mystery which only faith can accept.
(As a visible hierarchical society the Catholic Church is indeed what most people see it to be- the assembly of those baptised who recognise themselves as members of that family of God,linked together in communion with their bishops and as focus of unity,the bishop of Rome.
As the mystical Body of Christ there is also that invisible body of those redeemed by virtue of the saving death of Jesus Christ,who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of that saving death of Jesus Christ nor indeed not the same understanding of the visible society of the Catholic church.
When on the day of final perfection Jesus Christ will come again he will not ask 'Where are the Catholics ? Where are the other Christians ? where is the rest of humanity?
Rather he will ask all of humanity 'Have you fed the hungry ? Have you welcomed strangers ? Have you clothed the naked? Have you visited the sick and those otherwise deprived of liberty ?
Whether we are Catholics or other Christians or other parts of God's creation it is if we can answer positively to these questions that we will be recognised as good limbs of the Mystical Body of Christ in our service to other members of that Body.
If we cannot answer these questions positively,whether we are Catholics or other Christians or other members of God's creation,our limbs may then been severed from the Mystical Body of Christ ..at the end of time.}
In its visible,hierarchical form the Catholic church recognises the definitions made by the Church throughout the Ages.In the present catechism it has the following to say about transubstantiation:
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique......In the most Blessed Sacrament the whole Christ is truly,really and substantially contained.This presence is called 'real' by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence,as if they could not be 'real' too,but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say it is a substantial presence,by which Christ,God and man,makes himself wholly and entirely present.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What's wrong with the word is that it carries the implication of the whole Medieval philosophy - that spiritual matters are to be thought of in terms of a non-material substance which is perceivable only by faith.
Rather, you are wrong about medieval philosophy and theology. Perhaps you should study what they are saying before dismissing them?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Human understanding of the world and of the processes of thinking have moved on since then. We live in a world of matter and information - hardware and software - and spirit is software, not hardware.
Let's gloss over the endless problems in cashing out what you just said in something resembling philosophical strictures. Then it remains a simple fact that the actual philosophy and theology of the middle ages, or at least the high middle ages with its scholastics, has a lot more to do with your supposedly "modern" ideas than with what you wrote above. It is Aristotle, not Plato, who won the day in the middle ages. In consequence, something like a "form" is not some Platonic ideal floating in conceptual shape, of which material objects are imperfect instantiations. Even less did they talk about some Cartesian link between a ghostly soul and a material body. A form is simply that, the shape of things that makes them be and do what they are - from which one can abstract in thought their essence. If one sees enough humans, one can have a fair guess what being a human is like essentially, but there is no essence existing as such other than in what one can gather from observations with the mind. Your "software" is simply a medieval form. Well, actually it's a lot more complicated, since the medievals would immediately point out (upon learning about "hardware") that the body of the computer has a form as well, which significantly shapes what that computer is and does (try running PC software on an iPad). And they likely would get into a complicated discussion about all this. But at the level of glossing required for your statement to make sense, there really isn't much of a difference.
Further, while the medievals did affirm that there were incorporeal beings, like the angels and God, and while they did affirm that there are aspects of human being that are incorporeal, all that has nothing to do with transubstantiation! Nobody was then or is now supposed to "see in faith" the soul of Jesus in the consecrated bread and wine. What does that even mean? The medievals (or at least the majority thereof) put a lot of emphasis on all information about the world deriving from the senses. While they didn't know about "photons", they sure understood the "material" nature of seeing. (For example, Aquinas derives that angels must on occasion assume bodies because it is natural for illusions to be had by only one person, whereas scripture reports angels being seen by many, wherefore they must have had a body at that point in order to be detectable by "bodily vision".)
What the "eyes of faith" are supposed to see beyond the "bodily senses" in transubstantiation is rather that the appearances are misleading, and that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. There's no talk about "seeing the soul" of Christ, detecting the incorporeal, or whatever. While this surely is decidedly weird in many ways, it is precisely not weird in the sense that you are talking about. It's more like watching David Copperfield walk through a wall, and applauding rather than revising the laws of physics. While your senses report that the man just walked through a wall, your "eyes of faith in physics" let you see that there must be hole somewhere from him to get through - even if you fail to see any "physical" evidence for that. That's what transubstantiation boils down to: the senses report this, but by faith one believes that they are mistaken. Not bread and wine is there, but the body and blood of Christ. (In truth, it is a bit more complex: there is a physical necessity for this illusion, namely to make morally possible cannibalism, i.e., to achieve spiritual transfer by bodily eating.)
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Faith is not a perception, it is a closing of the mind to possibilities other than the one committed to.
True, but a rather negative way of putting it...
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Dear IngoB,
Sorry, not had a lot of free time at the computer for the last few days. So there's two or three of your posts to which I'd like to reply.
On medieval philosophy, you said
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your "software" is simply a medieval form. Well, actually it's a lot more complicated, since the medievals would immediately point out (upon learning about "hardware") that the body of the computer has a form as well.. ..there really isn't much of a difference.
You're right that it ain't simple.
Objects ("hardware") are both made of matter and have a structure (information), whereas software is information without (or abstracted from) matter. I communicate information to you by this wonderful technology which arranges some of the matter inside your computer in the same configuration as the matter inside my computer.
If you want to say that this isn't very different from how medieval philosophy would describe it, that's fine.
I maintain that in terms of communicating with modern people, the word "information" is both more precise and more easily understood than the word "form" (recognising the common linguistic root).
quote:
What the "eyes of faith" are supposed to see beyond the "bodily senses" in transubstantiation is rather that the appearances are misleading, and that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.
Appearances are not misleading - the bread and wine remain chemically bread and wine, and the senses correctly report that.
It is the mind that makes sense of the information it receives, that co-relates the sensory input to the belief that the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ.
Faith trusts that that belief is in some sense true; the senses report that in one sense - perhaps the most obvious sense - it is not true, and the intellect interprets these data, differently in the case of different people.
The medieval interpretation is the "veil of illusion" argument - that the matter we sense isn't the real matter, that all matter has a true nature which corresponds to its apparent nature in every case except this one.
That seems to me poor philosophy.
A modern interpretation might say that the doctrine is true at the level of information rather than the level of matter. You may disagree with this interpretation.
Much has been and could be said on this subject, and this isn't really the right place. The original point was to do with what the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is doing when it seeks to impose one particular interpretation on all members of the institution.
At another point you said:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
opinions are like assholes, everybody has one
Wonderful metaphor - if it isn't an IngoB-ism, where did it come from ?
It conveys all sorts of overtones:
- that a man's opinion is, like his asshole, something that is one and undivided
- that a man's opinion is, like his asshole, something best kept to himself
- that a man's opinion is, like his asshole, something that he loves only because it is his
- that however important and worthy is the calling of a doctor who specializes in the care of assholes, this - like people's opinions - is something beneath the notice of the lofty princes of the Church.
And what I want to suggest to you is that whilst your statement is strictly true, these overtones are false.
Most people I know have many opinions. They have different levels of commitment to these, depending on a number of factors including the level of experience and knowledge that the opinions are based on.
The particular opinion you seem to want all members of the Catholic Church to hold is "Rome is always right". (I try to imagine Christ, dying on the Cross, holding such a view, and in failing conclude that such a notion is unChristian).
My opinions seem to me to be NOT ideas that have blossomed out of nowhere in the brain of Russ, ideas in which I feel pride of ownership, BUT rather judgments that such-and-such idea that I have heard or read is true, or not true. And I suspect that this lack of originality is pretty universal.
I love Isaac Newton's phrase - "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." It detaches the merits of the idea from the unworthiness of the person putting it forward.
Most opinions are judgments on the truth or otherwise of what we've absorbed from others. Any pursuit of truth results in an opinion. And the process of airing one's own opinions and listening to the opinions of others is how we learn and refine our views and approach closer to truth.
But it may be that we're talking about different things - language often seems much better developed in talking about matter rather than information.
Finally, and closer to the main topic of the thread, you said:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For me it is however a simple and straightforward application of the very Vatican I document which will determine whether these earlier documents were ex cathedra (or more precisely, whether a Catholic has to believe that they were).
but the bit that confused me was:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In a practical sense, the last two "ex cathedra" were particularly (and likely intentionally) non-novel in content. However, this need not be the case. For example, the ex cathedras against the Jansenites were novel in the sense of making a clear decision against theological opinions that were being defended as very traditional.
So on the one hand you're saying that Pastor Aeternus is definitive and straightforward to interpret, and one can deduce from this which papal statements are ex cathedra.
And on the other hand you seem to be saying that statements against the Jansenites are known to be ex cathedra and from that fact one can induce the principle that non-novelty is not a requirement, despite the implication in Pastor Aeternus that it is, from the section that you quoted. (The section which represents the triumph of conservatism over Christianity within the 19th-century Catholic church).
Do you see why this might be confusing ?
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Objects ("hardware") are both made of matter and have a structure (information), whereas software is information without (or abstracted from) matter.
Perhaps you could claim that the algorithmic concepts are "info without matter", as they sort of live in human understanding, but the actual software itself sure isn't abstracted from matter at all. Its purpose is precisely to instruct a specific kind of matter (the computer) to be in a particular way (its computational state). It is true that we humans work very hard to create "abstraction layers" in software engineering, but that's about making software more accessible to human conceptual thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I maintain that in terms of communicating with modern people, the word "information" is both more precise and more easily understood than the word "form" (recognising the common linguistic root).
Information is a "catch all" term in ordinary language use, but one of the things it catches least is what "form" would be about. You don't open the bonnet of a car and say "Oh, I see what is wrong with the information of this motor." Not that you couldn't say that in principle, but it sure would sound odd.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The medieval interpretation is the "veil of illusion" argument - that the matter we sense isn't the real matter, that all matter has a true nature which corresponds to its apparent nature in every case except this one. That seems to me poor philosophy.
First, it is supposed to be miraculous. Second, if one wants to bring philosophy into this at all, then one would have to say that it is a particularly philosophical miracle. Jesus walking on water is a physical miracle. Philosophy does not exclude people from walking on water, physics does. But a substantial change that leaves the species untouched - physics doesn't come into this, and you cannot really speak of this without bringing some philosophy to bear. Technically speaking, transubstantiation is using Aristotelian philosophy in ways it wasn't meant to be. Indeed, a scandal to the Greeks, in particular Aristotle. But is far from any sort of incompetence in philosophy. It is more like moving from Newtonian to quantum mechanics: decidedly weird stuff is being proposed, and one may well reject it by "common sense", but one cannot find simple "calculation mistakes" in the workings.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
A modern interpretation might say that the doctrine is true at the level of information rather than the level of matter. You may disagree with this interpretation.
You would have to get a lot more precise before I could answer this. Of note, information is taken seriously in modern physics as a way of understanding matter, but decidedly not in the way needed here. The "substance" of transubstantiation is not a substance in a materialist sense, and the "information" of bread and wine in the sense that physics uses that term doesn't change (appreciably). Considered in terms of physical entities, like molecules or atoms, the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. The illusion is not about physics (and in that sense my Copperfield analogy was misleading), but about what physics tells us about world. To say more than that, you have to do philosophy.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The original point was to do with what the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is doing when it seeks to impose one particular interpretation on all members of the institution.
What the RCC has actually imposed is much less specific than you might think. Because the only definition Trent has given for the terms it uses is in terms of the gospel language itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Wonderful metaphor - if it isn't an IngoB-ism, where did it come from ?
I don't know, but I first read it on the Ship.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And what I want to suggest to you is that whilst your statement is strictly true, these overtones are false.
That's your opinion...
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The particular opinion you seem to want all members of the Catholic Church to hold is "Rome is always right".
First, there really is no single entity "Rome" that one can usefully talk about like that. Second, to the extent that one can talk of "Rome" here, "Rome" isn't always right and never has claimed to be always right. Neither have I. Ever. Third, this particular rhetorical move is so old, I can barely bring myself to answer this kind of shite anymore...
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And on the other hand you seem to be saying that statements against the Jansenites are known to be ex cathedra and from that fact one can induce the principle that non-novelty is not a requirement, despite the implication in Pastor Aeternus that it is, from the section that you quoted. (The section which represents the triumph of conservatism over Christianity within the 19th-century Catholic church).
Huh? Best I can tell, you are confusing levels of description here. You stupid comment about the "triumph of conservatism over Christianity", is about the supposed state of the Catholic Church. My comment concerned the formal criteria set out for an ex cathedra in Pastor Aeternus. And "non-novelty" doesn't belong to that and isn't mentioned (except in a general sense underlying all doctrine of the RCC, namely understood as ongoing fidelity to the "deposit of faith"). I illustrated that with an example of a more "novel" ex cathedra than the last two.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you see why this might be confusing ?
No, I don't. Read Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, paragraph 9. Then you know what makes for an ex cathedra. It isn't confusing in the slightest.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
In and of itself, this text only tells us that the Church* will be lead into all truth. It doesn’t say if Christ’s promise is to the individual Christian, or the Church through the Apostles (and perhaps their successors).**
The Church is the people of God. All of us. I am the Church, and so are you. The idea that the Church consists only of the people in fancy hats (etc.) is one of the most pernicious lies ever told.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The intention was to set out my difficulties and say that I'm not going to be persuaded by an argument on the issues, but if I am persuaded of the Catholic Church's basis of authority, then that just might do it.
Really? Well, OK then. Why are you not fantastically clued in on Church history then? Why have you not spent countless hours contemplating different ecclesiologies? If that is what could kick you into the Catholic orbit, then you should already be running white-hot with the fascination of it all. Instead you appear to be relying on someone like me for filling in the blanks.
I don't think I understand your point. Are you suggesting that if I were a sincere a reasonably diligent seeker of truth, then a deep study of Church histroy and ecclesiology is what I'd do? But if so, why? - since you clearly don't think that the answer is to be found there.
I never imagined that the question of Catholic truth claims would be settled by being clued up on history. That's Da Vinci Code territory. If all Christians really are called to be Catholic, then the truth of Catholic authority ought in principle to be accessible to most Christians, not just historians and academics (I'm not saying it has to be obvious, or easy, just accessible in principle).
As for ecclessiology, I know enough to know what the Catholic church believes about itself, what the Orthodox believe, and something of the range of views in Protestantism (mainly as represented by the Anglicans). Your interpretation of what the Catechism says of various groups relating to the Church, for instance, wasn't news to me - that is exactly what I understood the Catholic position to be. The blanks that I want filling in are the reasons why I personally should believe that. I see the Catholic position set out, but not argued for, in the Catechism. And I find it sufficiently challenging that I would like to know how the Catholics on the Ship (whom I mostly respect) would argue for it.
quote:
The problem is that I have no idea what excites and drives you, what you really want of religion. [...] However, whatever it may be, it is your path to the Catholic Church. For the real deal with this "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" stuff, with the universal Church of eternal truth, is not at all that she somehow will somehow illuminate life, universe and all the rest for you, and that you can check to what extent the Church is the Church by measuring her output in lumen.
Unfortunately, that is a pretty good expression of what it is that does excite and drive me about religion. That is why I believe in God, in Jesus, in the Bible - in all of those I find a truth and a beauty that illuminates life, the universe and all the rest for me, that endorses what my moral intuition already recognises as true and guides me to truths which my moral intuition would not have reached. Illumination is precisely what I want from a Church, and it is precisely how I would naturally evaluate a Church's claims.
Which is why, in ecclesiology, there are basically two models up for my serious consideration - the Catholic one, and the invisible Church of Protestantism, because both illuminate the actual position of a divided Christendom. The Catholic model explains why and how I can be separated from the true Church and nevertheless somehow connected to it through baptism and faith. The Protestant model explains in a different way the common experience of Christianity. Both, it seems to me, are superior to Orthodoxy's agnosticism about other denominations, and theories like Anglican branch theory*, because only the Catholic and Protestant theories account for, and are true to, what I and (as far as I can tell) others know by experience.
(*by which I mean the one that has Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican branches of the true church, in contrast to all the other denominations. That never made sense to me: you can make a case for comparable antiquity of Catholic and Orthodox churches, but it seems to me that beyond that you have either to exclude the Anglicans, or include a heck of a lot more than just them.)
quote:
The real deal is that wherever you turn, whatever you seek, in the depths and the heights, in the small and the large - God is always there, and the handmaiden of God is just waiting to be at your service (well, to add you to the service personnel). You can run, but you cannot hide.
An experience which I can somewhat relate to (and would no doubt relate to more if I were a better Christian). Thus far, the handmaiden of God seems sometimes to don a Catholic mask, but shows little sign of having a Catholic face.
quote:
You want to find the Church Catholic? Get hot about something in religion. God doesn't like the lukewarm. When you get really hot about something, a choice will inevitably appear. A real choice, one that you really care about. And if you are lucky (lucky in my opinion that is), then the RCC will feature in that real choice - eventually. That's all. Godspeed.
The sentiment is very much appreciated.
--------------------
"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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think I understand your point. Are you suggesting that if I were a sincere a reasonably diligent seeker of truth, then a deep study of Church histroy and ecclesiology is what I'd do? But if so, why? - since you clearly don't think that the answer is to be found there.
There is no "the answer". Not because there is no "the truth". There sure is that. But because there is no "the question" that "the human" might have. Hence it is hasty for you to dismiss an answer just because it is not the answer - for me. Or at least so unless you happen to have precisely the same question as I do (and find my judgement authoritative as well - an appreciated but rather unwise sentiment).
Now you said this: "The intention was to set out my difficulties and say that I'm not going to be persuaded by an argument on the issues, but if I am persuaded of the Catholic Church's basis of authority, then that just might do it." Well, if you are not looking for argument but for authority, then I do not know where to point to put history and ecclesiology. Well, there also could be mystical revelation, but you don't strike me as the type. (Whereas that is a significant part of the answer, to me...)
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If all Christians really are called to be Catholic, then the truth of Catholic authority ought in principle to be accessible to most Christians, not just historians and academics (I'm not saying it has to be obvious, or easy, just accessible in principle).
The authority of the Catholic Church is not necessarily the starting point for most, as you apparently want/need it to be. For many it is more of an outcome, or possibly even a side issue. Furthermore, you contradict yourself. The reason why we have historians and academics is of course precisely that history and other academic studies are neither obvious nor easy, but accessible in principle. That's basically the rationale for these professions... So by your own qualifications, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the truth of Catholic authority not being accessible to most.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The blanks that I want filling in are the reasons why I personally should believe that.
I don't normally point to lengthy texts to read. But Karl Adam's "The Spirit of Catholicism" is a classic, very readable and not a little inspiring. (Well, in German - I have not read the English translation available at the link for free.)
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That is why I believe in God, in Jesus, in the Bible - in all of those I find a truth and a beauty that illuminates life, the universe and all the rest for me, that endorses what my moral intuition already recognises as true and guides me to truths which my moral intuition would not have reached. Illumination is precisely what I want from a Church, and it is precisely how I would naturally evaluate a Church's claims.
You have a "measurement problem" there, one you danced around with admirable precision in your little aside about morals. (I guess that you thought quite carefully about what you wrote there...) Who says that the life, the universe and all the rest is actually getting brighter? You says. And if you measure the illumination of the Church by your own lights, then just whose lumen are getting counted there?
For now we see through a glass, darkly. And what seems luciferous to the advocate might well be of the devil...
--------------------
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
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
As the 500th anniversary of the English Reformation edges ever-nearer, I like to consider that ecclesial understanding within Christianity then was nothing like it is now. Back then, everybody was "in" unless you put yourself "out".
RCs today tend to behave as a denomination among many, and some say it's the right one to be in. Anglican converts can be the worst for this. It's beyond any doubt that the Pope is the world's senior Christian leader, but I think there came a point when the Vatican simply stopped believing that. Instead believing that he is leader only insofar as he is recognised as such. It's a bit like saying the Jesus is only the Messiah for Christians. And so we have denominationalism, which is not all the Pope's fault, of course.
Hence we have these bizarre sessions on who to belong to (Prots), and who belongs to us (Papa), based on whether one agrees. Instead, we (all of us) need the confidence to recognise who we are.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Beloved children, brothers, sisters of God ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
How lovely, yes. And surely baptised into the one living Church of the living Lord, recognised as such by he/those who have its charge.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
...The blanks that I want filling in are the reasons why I personally should believe that. I see the Catholic position set out, but not argued for, in the Catechism...
I would suggest you are still missing the point. The job of the Catechism isn't to argue for the truth of Roman faith, but to inform you, in some detail, of what it consists of. If you were a good Roman Catholic, then you wouldn't have those sorts of questions, you would accept the truth of what you were taught, because you would accept the authority of the Magisterium. The whole point is learning to obey, not deciding whether or not you agree - once you have decided to submit your will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church, then the question of whether you 'agree' becomes moot. Thereafter, you may study and read about Roman Catholic doctrine in the tiniest and most excrutiating detail, (and write the most eloquent and long-winded posts) but you will never for a moment doubt the truth of it.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
The whole point is learning to obey, not deciding whether or not you agree - once you have decided to submit your will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church, then the question of whether you 'agree' becomes moot.
Perhaps, but this thread is (ISTM) about the reasons why one might decide to submit one's will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church in the first place. Do you have an answer to that question?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...but this thread is (ISTM) about the reasons why one might decide to submit one's will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church in the first place. Do you have an answer to that question?
Not an adequate answer. I've not seen any argument that isn't basically circular, so I would only conclude that those who do decide to convert make the choice first, and look for reasons after, rather than the other way around, which is what Eliab seems to be trying to do. Why people do decide to convert (and I'm excluding conversion for reasons of marriage, domicile, etc.) I don't pretend to know, but then I don't assume that everybody thinks the same way that I do, or that they have the same basic motivations. If they did, then there wouldn't be many Roman Catholics left, at least, not in this country.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
...The blanks that I want filling in are the reasons why I personally should believe that. I see the Catholic position set out, but not argued for, in the Catechism...
I would suggest you are still missing the point. The job of the Catechism isn't to argue for the truth of Roman faith, but to inform you, in some detail, of what it consists of. If you were a good Roman Catholic, then you wouldn't have those sorts of questions, you would accept the truth of what you were taught, because you would accept the authority of the Magisterium. The whole point is learning to obey, not deciding whether or not you agree - [b]once you have decided to submit your will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church, then the question of whether you 'agree' becomes moot.[\b] Thereafter, you may study and read about Roman Catholic doctrine in the tiniest and most excrutiating detail, (and write the most eloquent and long-winded posts) but you will never for a moment doubt the truth of it.
Faith with no room for doubt, that doesn't sound right. This Smoke is a bit too acrid for me to be around. You haven't factored in the cultural/identity issues but that is a very big subject in itself and accounts for the vast numbers of nominal Catholics in Ireland as opposed to actual practice.
[ 21. August 2012, 16:53: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Faith with no room for doubt, that doesn't sound right...You haven't factored in the cultural/identity issues but that is a very big subject in itself and accounts for the vast numbers of nominal Catholics in Ireland as opposed to actual practice.
Ronald, I am (and I'm assuming other people on this thread are) talking about a practising and theologically-aware Christian planning to convert to Roman Catholicism from another denomination (as we see it), without any extenuating circumstances, such as marrying into a Irish Catholic family. Would there be any other way into the RCC other than complete acceptance of the church's teachings, and it appears not because of what you have to say when you convert (and especially if you look at the extraordinary form of the service). The fact that many cradle Catholics put two fingers up when it suits them is neither here nor there, or at least according to some people. I just wonder why the RCC continues to insist on this submission thing for converts, but if it does, then that really is their problem, I'm not Roman Catholic so it's not much point me trying to argue for its reform from the outside when there are perfectly good alternatives for people like me (i.e. not 'culturally' Catholic).
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Originally posted by Vaticanchic: quote:
It's beyond any doubt that the Pope is the world's senior Christian leader
Er... Excuse me?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic: quote:
It's beyond any doubt that the Pope is the world's senior Christian leader
Er... Excuse me?
Actually, and despite my not being a Catholic nor likely to become one any time soon, I have no problem with that statement.
I think the Pope is the most senior Christian leader, and what he says is worthy of consideration. I'm not Catholic (nor likely to become one) because I don't see that as meaning the Pope is infallible and what he says is what I must believe. Even as the most senior Christian leader he can be wrong. Even as the most senior Christian Church, the RCC can be wrong. And if the RCC would be happy accepting me on the basis of that statement I would be happy to convert*, but it's not.
.
*= Other factors also apply, of course - not least that I'm very happy in my current church family. But that's the only theological thing stopping me becoming RCC.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
The whole point is learning to obey, not deciding whether or not you agree - once you have decided to submit your will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church, then the question of whether you 'agree' becomes moot. Thereafter, you may study and read about Roman Catholic doctrine in the tiniest and most excrutiating detail, (and write the most eloquent and long-winded posts) but you will never for a moment doubt the truth of it.
The problem with this common and insulting caricature is that it is difficult to overcome as a piece of rhetoric. Anything not amounting to open and complete rejection of some RC doctrine or the other can always be twisted into supposedly slavish obedience against one's better insight and knowledge. But if the RCC is what she claims she is, then one should not be in open rebellion against her. Why? Not because one has handed over one's brains at the church door, but rather the opposite: for after all, the RCC then teaches God's truth - not perfectly, but in essence infallibly. Hence in these circumstances reasonable and well-informed doubt necessarily acts in favor of the RCC. One may not be able to fully understand how something or the other the Church teaches could be correct. However, if what is being taught is actually true, then the more reasonable and well-informed one is the more will one have occasion to doubt that one can reject the teaching.
Naturally, if the RCC is not what she claims she is, then all this does not apply. Then it is most likely that she will teach some falsehoods. Furthermore, then the more reasonable and well-informed one is the more likely it is that one will reject some of her teachings (and importantly, the right ones - hardly a guaranteed outcome!). Then doubt works in favor of exposing whatever truth might be left in the RCC.
This is then what the sophist wants to achieve with the caricature: Reject the claims the RCC makes for herself implicitly and without argument. Suggest in consequence that being reasonable and well-informed would require some clear rejection of RC doctrine. Thereby encourage those who are thinking about rejecting some RC doctrine, making them think of themselves as reasonable and well-informed in doing so. Have them reject some RC doctrine, and thereby at least implicitly agree with the sophist's attitude concerning the RCC. And if the RCC happens to be what she really is, then this underhanded method of spreading one's point of view targets precisely the weak: those least reasonable and worst informed.
Like most sophistic attacks this one too has a soft underbelly of lacking factual support. Instead of counter-argument, one could simply point at the next Catholic Church and ask who the hell the sophist is talking about in the first place. Certainly not about most Catholic sitting in the pews... And since I'm probably a target of this caricature, I might add that even for the rare self-appointed defender of the faith this caricature totally misses the mark. This is simply not the psychological dynamics at play. It's hard to prove such introspection, of course. But long-winded arguments are not usually a sign of unthinking obedience, short slogans followed by ad hominems is more what one would expect there.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB (to Eliab):
Why are you not fantastically clued in on Church history then? Why have you not spent countless hours contemplating different ecclesiologies? If that is what could kick you into the Catholic orbit, then you should already be running white-hot with the fascination of it all. Instead you appear to be relying on someone like me for filling in the blanks.
I'm not trying to speak for Eliab, but felt there was something here for me too.
I take it for granted that being a Christian means being part of a Christian community, and all Christian communities have a culture above and beyond "mere Christianity". (Some shipmates are Christian in a Baptist way, some in an Orthodox way, and so forth). It is clear to me that there is such a thing as Catholic culture (albeit with a number of subcultures).
I don't feel any particular fascination with Catholic culture or Catholic history. In my ideal Europe of German engineers, French chefs, British policeman etc - I'm sure you've heard that joke - Italian church bureaucrats do not figure.
My best subject at school was not French, where something is right or wrong, good French or bad French, according to what French people collectively tend to say and do. It was maths, where something is right or wrong because it does or does not represent an eternal truth that is built into the fabric of the universe.
So wherever within Catholic thought there is a "real transferable truth" about how God works or how humankind works, I want to know it and add it to my understanding. Where there is something in Catholic thought that is neither good nor bad but merely cultural, well that's just the way they do it in Rome. And where there is something wrong, something dishonest, I'd want to see it exposed so that all good Catholics will reject it and the world be the better for it.
That sort of quest is what (on my good days) sparks my enthusiasm. If as you suggest it is only enthusiasm that can bring anyone into the fullness of Christianity, then that's the way that I shall be brought.
You've said that most Catholics do not think like that, & I believe you. But I want you to be distinguishing how Catholics actually think from how the hierarchy would like them to think. Because I've been exposed as much to the various caricatures as to real Catholics speaking their own minds about their understanding.
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
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...But if the RCC is what she claims she is, then one should not be in open rebellion against her. Why? Not because one has handed over one's brains at the church door, but rather the opposite: for after all, the RCC then teaches God's truth - not perfectly, but in essence infallibly. Hence in these circumstances reasonable and well-informed doubt necessarily acts in favor of the RCC. One may not be able to fully understand how something or the other the Church teaches could be correct. However, if what is being taught is actually true, then the more reasonable and well-informed one is the more will one have occasion to doubt that one can reject the teaching.
Well naturally, if it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the RCC teaches infallible truth, then it would be foolish to say the least to reject her, and everything you say applies. But unfortunately, that is not the case, and the arguments put forward by the RCC basically boil down to "it's true, because we say so".
quote:
Naturally, if the RCC is not what she claims she is, then all this does not apply. Then it is most likely that she will teach some falsehoods. Furthermore, then the more reasonable and well-informed one is the more likely it is that one will reject some of her teachings (and importantly, the right ones - hardly a guaranteed outcome!). Then doubt works in favor of exposing whatever truth might be left in the RCC.
It would be arrogant in the extreme to suggest that I knew which of your church's teachings are demonstrably false, but I'd hazard a guess most of the important ones, at least, in terms of her particular interpretations. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) (And, of course, I'm sure there is much of value, especially at a day to day level).
quote:
This is then what the sophist wants to achieve with the caricature: Reject the claims the RCC makes for herself implicitly and without argument. Suggest in consequence that being reasonable and well-informed would require some clear rejection of RC doctrine. Thereby encourage those who are thinking about rejecting some RC doctrine, making them think of themselves as reasonable and well-informed in doing so. Have them reject some RC doctrine, and thereby at least implicitly agree with the sophist's attitude concerning the RCC. And if the RCC happens to be what she really is, then this underhanded method of spreading one's point of view targets precisely the weak: those least reasonable and worst informed.
And methinks the pot is calling the kettle black here. How does the RCC spread her point of view (I'll pass over some of the more extreme methods) - not by reasonable evidence-based discussion, but by claiming everything she says is the complete truth, and trying to bully people into swallowing the whole package on an all or nothing basis.
[quoteLike most sophistic attacks this one too has a soft underbelly of lacking factual support. Instead of counter-argument, one could simply point at the next Catholic Church and ask who the hell the sophist is talking about in the first place. Certainly not about most Catholic sitting in the pews... And since I'm probably a target of this caricature, I might add that even for the rare self-appointed defender of the faith this caricature totally misses the mark. This is simply not the psychological dynamics at play. It's hard to prove such introspection, of course. But long-winded arguments are not usually a sign of unthinking obedience, short slogans followed by ad hominems is more what one would expect there. [/QUOTE]
Most people I think would say that it is up to the person making the extraordinary claims to back them up, not the sceptic to refute them. As for the psychological dynamics, I suppose I can see the attraction for a certain type of person, if they are able to convince themselves somehow that your church's claims are true - then, as I said, everything else follows, and they have the reward, common to most wishful thinking, of peace of mind and freedom from anxiety, but then I doubt whether that applies to more than a tiny minority of Roman Catholics, and I'm sure there are a host of reasons and rationalizations why people continue to believe and practise, just as there are in any other denomination.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I take it for granted that being a Christian means being part of a Christian community, and all Christian communities have a culture above and beyond "mere Christianity".
Correct, there are many particular Churches - 23 to be exact, 22 Eastern plus the Latin one - and of course even more variety according to different rites. To this we may add a degree of local variation in customs, which adds even more colour. And of course there are many Catholic organisations of all kinds, from internationally operating monastic orders to local groups collecting money for new church bells. There's nothing wrong with all that, for Catholicism embraces all such licit expressions of the faith in one global community, one church. As Christ intended.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It was maths, where something is right or wrong because it does or does not represent an eternal truth that is built into the fabric of the universe. So wherever within Catholic thought there is a "real transferable truth" about how God works or how humankind works, I want to know it and add it to my understanding. Where there is something in Catholic thought that is neither good nor bad but merely cultural, well that's just the way they do it in Rome. And where there is something wrong, something dishonest, I'd want to see it exposed so that all good Catholics will reject it and the world be the better for it.
Well, if you are as good at maths as you claim you are, then you know that without axioms no mathematical truth can be proven. And if you are as fascinated by what is built into the fabric of the universe (more the realm of physics than maths) as you claim you are, then you know that without data no physical theory can show its usefulness. Where then do your religious "axioms" or "data" derive from? What are the sources of your judgement?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That sort of quest is what (on my good days) sparks my enthusiasm. If as you suggest it is only enthusiasm that can bring anyone into the fullness of Christianity, then that's the way that I shall be brought.
Sure. Follow up the questions I asked above with the drive of enthusiasm, and you may well find a change of heart.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But I want you to be distinguishing how Catholics actually think from how the hierarchy would like them to think. Because I've been exposed as much to the various caricatures as to real Catholics speaking their own minds about their understanding.
So one is a "real" Catholic by speaking one's own mind about one's own understanding? Well, when I was still working in theoretical physics, I had a guy come into my office. He explained to me at length how he would measure gravitational waves in his bathtub. He was very serious indeed about speaking his own mind about his own understanding. I guess he must have been a real scientist then, by your logic how this whole truth thing works...
[ 22. August 2012, 18:22: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
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:
I don't normally point to lengthy texts to read.
And I don't normally read lengthy links - but that one does seem to be worth making an exception for. I'm away for the weekend and I'll respond next week.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Well, if you are as good at maths as you claim you are, then you know that without axioms no mathematical truth can be proven. And if you are as fascinated by what is built into the fabric of the universe (more the realm of physics than maths) as you claim you are, then you know that without data no physical theory can show its usefulness.
The only claim I made was that it was better than my other subjects...
Yes, data is important, and distinguishing between the data and the theory is important. It is to the credit of the Church that it has kept the Bible as it was, and not rewritten it to reflect a developing understanding.
You're right that in proving a result, to come to a certainty that it is true and to convince others that it is true, one starts from definitions and axioms. But the prior step, of coming to a belief that something is likely to be true, does not in general proceed in such a logical step-by-step fashion, but is much more intuitive.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
when I was still working in theoretical physics, I had a guy come into my office. He explained to me at length how he would measure gravitational waves in his bathtub. He was very serious indeed about speaking his own mind about his own understanding. I guess he must have been a real scientist then, by your logic how this whole truth thing works...
If he followed up his discussions with you by carrying out experiments and modifying his hypotheses as a result then I'd have to say that he was doing science. And if this was a regular activity then one would naturally call him a scientist. However mistaken he may have been in some of his ideas.
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
...endorses what my moral intuition already recognises as true and guides me to truths which my moral intuition would not have reached.
That seems to me how the "authority of expertise" works - if someone makes sense when talking about what you already know or think you know, and can explain in a plausible way what is immediately beyond your knowledge, then you're inclined to trust them when they make statements about something that is way beyond your current knowledge.
My impression is that the authority of the Catholic church is not of this kind. The discussion of papal infallibility - the highest level of authority in the Catholic church - makes clear that a doctrine is being moved from the category of "Catholics may in good conscience hold different views about this" to the category of "all who wish to remain loyal members of the institution must hold this view". That's the authority of position - like when the referee says that we're going to play this game on the basis that he was offside, or the boss at the office decides that some other firm should be considered as rivals rather than potential partners.
Any papal reference to "apostolic authority" means "I'm saying this as the boss, the successor of Peter". The papal documents don't say "I came to this view in a particular way, and knowledge thus gained has been shown by experience to be always reliable".
If somehow you were to become convinced that this is the only possible way to run a church that is faithful to Christ, then you might conceivably over-ride your own views based on a faith that this is the way things have to be - that the institution has to be treated as right even when it's wrong by any conceivable test.
But that's not a happy place to be. That's like invoking martial law - sacrificing what makes a society worth fighting for in order that the society will survive unconquered.
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."
IngoB,
Thanks for the link. I can see how one might quite naturally read Pastor Aeturnum as if the final paragraph is the definition and all that goes before is merely preamble which does not qualify the definition in any way.
But if you believe that the Pope can infallibly declare new doctrine, how does that work ? Given that the above extract that you quoted earlier seems to rule out it working by the power of the Holy Spirit ?
I'm arguing to Eliab that it doesn't have to "work" - that this is in essence just the rules of the club. Feel free to agree or disagree.
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What amuses me is that the vast majority of Roman Catholics throughout the Americas, Southern and Eastern Europe, Ireland, countries which are 110% Roman Catholic, are really lousy Roman Catholics yet are all superior to me. They are all more Christian in some ineffable, elitist, esoteric way by definition.
Which they ARE in Christ of course, but not the way the nicely patronizing catechism puts it.
In the homeless outreach I'm privileged to have an insignificant, ineffectual part of, in Leicester, a disproportionate number who come to be served are Roman Catholic. Some straddle both 'worlds' - a continuum in reality - very well. One woman in her sixties is marvelous. A total heretic by Roman Catholic and oecumenical criteria, completely heterodox and in our totally open 'God slot' I tell her so. I've told her, in a totally acceptable, nice, fraternal way, to get to confession. She won't of course.
A guy who is emerging from a narrow conservative evangelical background said to her that she was a lousy Catholic but a GREAT Christian.
The tiny minority, middle-class, intellectual understanding of Roman Catholic 'authority' typified here bears NO relation to the lives of ANY Roman Catholic I have ever met. My very middle class, intellectual best friend and best man and his entire family included.
GREAT people, great Christian and Christianized people, a mix of good and bad (non practising, non believing) Catholics.
Are the confessing Roman Catholics who are foul human beings, irredeemable in this broken life, in the Mexican drug gangs or whatever (former Fascist juntas or whatever), not Christian in any sense that Jesus would recognise, superior Christians to me in the Roman Catholic sense ? Does Roman Catholic authority extend down through them to me in some sense and will do in the resurrection ?
The answer must be yes, surely and "it's a mystery", no ?
Don't worry, I'm starting to Zen this ... more and more. With a LONG way to go. It's all rhetorical and NO Roman Catholic here can reach out to me I know. Reach out to me in this failure of grace. Mine. NO Roman Catholic can publically or privately UTTERLY lay down their 'authority' here and reach out to me, become as me, in Christ, as my brother, because I'm a schismatic heretic to their 'authority', whatever that means.
Isn't there something missing here guys ? Or rather isn't there something occluded ? Isn't there something in the way of Someone here ? There is in me.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Indeed there is something missing here - you have no understanding of what the Catholic church is, you have no understanding of what the Catholic church teaches,nor does it seem that you want to have any understanding.
The church does teach that she has a divine command to go out and tell the world about Jesusu christ.Certainly those who in this world are not linked in communion with the Roman pontiff are not memebers of the visible Catholic church as it is constituted here on earth,whether they follow the roman rite or any other authorised rite. And most of those who are not Catholics in this sense,do not want to be Catholics in this sense.
However I see no teaching of the catholic church whioch says that 'members of the Roman obedience' are in any way superior to any other human beings.
From those to whom much has been given,much is asked.Many are called,but few are chosen.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
0 / 1 / ...
[ 26. August 2012, 11:45: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But if you believe that the Pope can infallibly declare new doctrine, how does that work ? Given that the above extract that you quoted earlier seems to rule out it working by the power of the Holy Spirit ?
The question is what you mean by "new". There is a "newness" which is licit in Catholic theology, and a "newness" that isn't. The essential claim of Catholic theology is that in its fundamentals it is nothing but the "deposit of faith", though expounded and elaborated. These are the teachings of the Lord, with nothing added or removed in principle. Hence they can have Divine authority. No priest, bishop or pope can have Divine authority in their own right, of course. However, the exposition and elaboration itself can be new, and indeed on occasion must be as the Catholic faith encounters new people and new problems. It is also in general human and hence fallible. Up to this point a clean analogy to Protestant thinking can be made: there is scripture, and there is the interpretation of scripture. Nothing can be added or removed from scripture, since it has achieved its final state. However, plenty can be added or removed from its exegesis. There is the word of God, and the word of man about the word of God. One unchanging in principle, the other developing with time. The same can be said about the "deposit of faith" and the "development of doctrine" in Catholic theology.
However, unlike in Protestant thinking Catholics believe that - precisely by the action of the Holy Spirit - the successors of the apostles as a community in unity with the successor of St Peter, and indeed St Peter on his own, can take some part of this "doctrinal development" and declare it as an infallible truth. It is as if a Protestant could say: this is the correct exegesis of these verses in scripture, and henceforth this interpretation will be normative for all, and all incompatible interpretations will be considered false. This would not turn the exegesis into scripture, but it would make it function much like scripture. Such a normative exegesis could be both "new" (in the sense that it arose at some point in time after scripture, perhaps even contentiously so) and "old" (in the sense that it remains an exegesis, not a statement in its own right, hence fundamentally relying on the unchanged scripture).
So the power of the pope, in terms of the Protestant analogy, is simply that he can decide to point at scripture and say "These verses you must understand in this way, or you shall not be part of the Church that I head." When he does so, this can be surprising ("new") to the members, or not. If you like you can call these "club rules", but they are not just arbitrary. The pope (in the analogy) has to point to scripture, he cannot simply make things up. In that sense all such "club rules" are "old". The only real difference between this Protestant analogy and the Catholic reality is that Catholics considered tradition as much as scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
They are all more Christian in some ineffable, elitist, esoteric way by definition.
You wish that this was somehow ineffable, elitist and esoteric, for that is your beloved excuse. Actually, it isn't in the slightest mysterious. It is as down to earth as anything. They are - whether by choice or accident of birth - members of the Roman Catholic Church, in communion with the successors of the apostles and the successor of St Peter. You are not. That's all. There is no depth to that. If you want to go all mystical about it, you can, but then it is about the general mystery of God stooping so low as to be with people. With chosen people. With - by Divine standards - unworthy yet still chosen people. With Adam, with Abraham, with Israel, with the disciples, with the Church. Nobody needs to "qualify" for this by being a "better" Christian than you are. There is no Pelagian competition here. There is a simple decision to be made with whom you wish to stand. And in your case it will have to be an explicit decision. Hence you can just stop this annoying whine about being a second-rate Christian and your prideful boasting about your good works. All that is painfully irrelevant. If you so desire becoming a "first-rate Christian", then get the RCIA upgrade. Its free for those who want it and there hasn't been a time in history when it was more accessible to all. If you cannot bring yourself to do that, well, it sucks to be you.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
