|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglicanism and the new Pope
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Part of my wrestling is that I do not accept Catholicism as the sole Christian authority over faith and morals. The basis of my dissent is not just the direction in which my fallible reason points. in all conscience, I think some of the dogmatic positions are unjustified and have bad effects.
Your conscience is not an automatic dispenser of eternal truths. Some truths written on your heart are, but that's at the "do good, avoid evil" level ("synderesis"). The applied bits you worry about here are however largely entrained. Someone told you what is right and what is wrong, and you learned it. Whether you learned the right thing is a circular question, if you use your own conscience to judge that.
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
ISTM that the Lumen Gentium statement would not apply to sincere people of other religious bodies since they sincerely wouldn't believe that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be.
It is a general trend to use these kind of "sincere mistake" caveats to essentially totally destroy these sorts of rules. Who after all would willingly go against his clear and decisive moral knowledge? (Even being driven by impulses can be interpreted as a lack of full freedom to choose evil.) I'm afraid I do not believe it. These rules do not just apply to an empty set of absolutely determined evildoers. The "knowing" involved here will be somewhere between the mere "having heard about it once somewhere" and the extreme "being totally convinced about it on account of plentiful information". Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
--------------------
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
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[qb]Part of my wrestling is that I do not accept Catholicism as the sole Christian authority over faith and morals. The basis of my dissent is not just the direction in which my fallible reason points. in all conscience, I think some of the dogmatic positions are unjustified and have bad effects.
Your conscience is not an automatic dispenser of eternal truths. Some truths written on your heart are, but that's at the "do good, avoid evil" level ("synderesis"). The applied bits you worry about here are however largely entrained. Someone told you what is right and what is wrong, and you learned it. Whether you learned the right thing is a circular question, if you use your own conscience to judge that.
That seems to imply that no-one can get beyond a received deontological ethical position. There seem to be three problems with this:
1) It ignores the fact that people can reframe their normative ethical position by entertaining ideas about how a virtue ethics or consequentialist position might lead to different conclusions.
2) It assumes that people do not change their mind about what is right or wrong, nor lose trust in an instructional authority (parents, church, state - etc), based on experience. Failure in one principle leads others to be questioned. There is plenty of empirical evidence for this kind of judgement, from the personal scale to the tumult of the reformation. I speculate that the results of this kind of judgement involve point 1 above.
3) It assumes that people are (or should be) closed minded to the views and experience of others. That might be a part of some received ethical frameworks, but certainly not all. Some would accept that (moral) formation is a permanent condition, not something once-received, and requires continual engagement with the other.
In short, the innate human potential for reflexivity and the application (and evaluation) of certain ethical principles can lead to a spiral of moral development rather than a closed circle. A moral framework may itself provide the tools that allow the framework to be unpacked or surpassed, especially when it allows for development from experience and encounter.
One's conscience can then be seen as a deliberate commitment to continuing, personal moral formation. That is the kind of conscience that I see in Barnabas' writing, anyway.
[ 23. March 2013, 09:04: Message edited by: Cadfael ]
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
Worried about what specifically?
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
In short, the innate human potential for reflexivity and the application (and evaluation) of certain ethical principles can lead to a spiral of moral development rather than a closed circle. A moral framework may itself provide the tools that allow the framework to be unpacked or surpassed, especially when it allows for development from experience and encounter.
One's conscience can then be seen as a deliberate commitment to continuing, personal moral formation. That is the kind of conscience that I see in Barnabas' writing, anyway.
Well spoken, Cadfael. I too read Barnabas' writings this way, and I fully agree with your process perspective on moral development.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks IngoB, Cadfael and Desert Daughter for your thoughts.
Curiously enough I am reminded of a line from a Beatles song. "A long and winding road that leads to Your door".
Life is learning and pilgrimage. I travel hopefully and openly, but not alone.
quote:
From IngoB:
The applied bits you worry about here are however largely entrained. Someone told you what is right and what is wrong, and you learned it. Whether you learned the right thing is a circular question, if you use your own conscience to judge that.
Well of course there are many sources, many "someones" who tell us what is right and what is wrong. Many voices. Which ones stick? It's a good question.
Now here I am personally influenced not just by the strong sense of personal responsibility which I learned from my parents, but the remarkable insight of Ezekiel. The fathers may have eaten sour grapes but the children's teeth are not necessarily set on edge. Don't say that. Instead consider this. The soul that sins is the one which will die.
My pathway, in common with all of us, is to take personal responsibility for my choices, for my companions on the journey, for my own fallibility, and hope to learn on the way. But I am neither the captain of my ship, nor the master of my soul. There is an Author of my life and I am learning the part He has written for me. I am a beggar, learning from other beggars where food is to help with the journey. So I hear Jesus saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and "follow me". Which is what I try to do. But never on my own. I don't trust myself that much.
Here's a bit from a hymn I like, slightly modified by the Northumbria Community, for whom the term "companion" has a particular significance. (Interestingly, it's a dispersed ecumenical community which was founded by and contains nonconformists and Catholics.)
"We are pilgrims on a journey
We're companions on the road
Help us now to help each other
Walk a mile and bear the load"
I have found some very good companions on the way. Not infallible ones, of course. We stumble about and wind a bit. But it feels like a well-spent journey so far, it isn't over, and I'm still learning.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I cry total and utter foul on any and all claims for certainty. We all, without exception, see through a glass darkly. We cannot discern accurately the motions of the holy spirit, we cannot reliably feel the prompting of Christ's companionship and we cannot hear well the voice of God. We are, in St. Paul's terms, necessarily children, and this injunction includes 2000-year-old institutions. Only when we meet God face to face shall we know and be known.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Some fine posts on this thread.
A total tangent, but have the Northumbria Community really changed
We are here to help each other
Walk the mile and bear the load.
to
Help us now to help each other
Walk a mile and bear the load.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I stand corrected, hatless. Just double checked. I've heard it sung both ways and both have something to say. The "authorised" we are here to help, emphasises personal responsibility, the "help us now" reminds us that we need the help of God in such helping.
Actually, the last few posts have all been a tangent. I suppose they illustrates both the challenges and difficulties of putting ecumenical hope into practice, given different "leg lengths". But I'm not an Anglican, not a Catholic. Mine is a nonconformist view from the side - or outside if you like!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
I cry total and utter foul on any and all claims for certainty.
Indeed. The claims of "certainty" voiced by Rome are problematic. These are voiced by many quite reasonable RC theologians not because the supposed other end of the continuum would be "relativism", but because of a somewhat exclusivist stance inherent in much of RC thought but not shared by everyone in their fold.
I think the Orthodox approach of Apophatic Theology has a lot going for it...
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Who's demanding certainty beyond a doubt here?
Edit:
quote:
I think the Orthodox approach of Apophatic Theology has a lot going for it...
Oh Lordy, the old chestnut sitting on top of the three-legged stool.
[ 23. March 2013, 13:07: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
]Oh Lordy, the old chestnut sitting on top of the three-legged stool.
no, not even the stool, dear... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I don't like the three-legged stool analogy. I prefer my walking sticks.
Enough of this sophistry.
[ 23. March 2013, 13:17: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A lot to be said for the apophatic approach, I reckon. It can help to keep us humble. When we get too kataphatic we seem to move to scratching each others eyes out after a while. Even though we know we shouldn't do that.
Mind you, it takes practice, and practice doesn't make perfect either. I'm on the nursery slopes ..
[ 23. March 2013, 13:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The only scare quote to apologise for is 'progressive'. Unless you think it a regressive step for women to be acknowledged, in terms of language and culture, ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) in their own right?
As for the Holy Spirit. He/She/it. I know for some people it's an important issue. But I'm equally content for any of these pro-nouns to be used.
I wasn't thinking about women's roles at all here - just old english grammar, and sometimes how we re-interpret things to make problems which aren't really there at all.
But, and speaking as a male, i can see where at least some women might get weary of hearing the masculine gender always being used as the default in English, and i can see where they might legitimately get tired of this weariness not even being acknowledged as being as legitimate as old english grammar conventions. I second Anselmina's very measured comments.
[ 23. March 2013, 14:00: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
ISTM that the Lumen Gentium statement would not apply to sincere people of other religious bodies since they sincerely wouldn't believe that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be.
It is a general trend to use these kind of "sincere mistake" caveats to essentially totally destroy these sorts of rules. Who after all would willingly go against his clear and decisive moral knowledge? (Even being driven by impulses can be interpreted as a lack of full freedom to choose evil.) I'm afraid I do not believe it. These rules do not just apply to an empty set of absolutely determined evildoers. The "knowing" involved here will be somewhere between the mere "having heard about it once somewhere" and the extreme "being totally convinced about it on account of plentiful information". Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
Ingo, could you clarify that statement a little for me. I just want to make sure I follow your reason accurately and I'm getting a bit tangled and am not sure exactly that i do follow it. I mean that with no disrespect to you. It's just that poor dense me sometimes gets a bit lost around some of the more high-level theological discussion on this Ship. (And that doesn't even apply to you since I find you usually express your views pretty concisely.)
Although your statement "Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO" concerns me a tiny bit.
[ 23. March 2013, 14:15: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
It seems pretty obviously true to me that absolute certainty is not a prerequisite for moral culpability for our decisions. Some people seem to make the leap from "we can't be certain of what the true Church is" to "then it doesn't really matter which one we join up with."
[ 23. March 2013, 14:25: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
I think the Orthodox approach of Apophatic Theology has a lot going for it...
There is a perfectly respectable current in Catholic theology called the via negativa that St Thomas reminds is is a necessary correlative to positive theology.
I think that the other aspect of Orthodoxy that those who laud its apophasis rarely seem to consider is that it requires an enormous and disciplined commitment to those kataphatic expressions Orthodoxy does recognise. Try and be creative with how you seek to express the Trinitarian and Christological
doctrines in the presence of an Easterner and you'll encounter something quite as condemnatory as any Western exercise of Magisterial authority. Apophatic theology/via negativa is certainly not an expression of the "we just don't know so let's just be friends" that many who seem so much to admire it present it as.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
All true, Trisagion. I guess the difference between us is that what I perceive as "too kataphatic" is an illustration of me being "not kataphatic enough" from your POV.
But I know the risk and the possibilities of an easy misunderstanding. Folks who start on any of the contemplative processes purely out of curiosity can end up the garden path. As best I recall, in my case it was the appreciation of a lack, an unease, of something missing, which spurred me and stirred me.
On the main theme of this thread - which currently seems a long way away - there seems to me to be a good deal of mileage in looking at common contemplative ground. Any approach which leads folks to pray more, listen more, keep silence more, seems to me to have a great deal going for it.
[ 23. March 2013, 15:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
All true, Trisagion. I guess the difference between us is that what I perceive as "too kataphatic" is an illustration of me being "not kataphatic enough" from your POV.
That wasn't the point I was making. I have no idea what is enough and what is too much in this context. What I was getting at was two points:
1. Western Catholics who think apophatic theology is the province of Orthodoxy ought to know better; and
2. The theological discipline that goes with the Orthodox practice of apophasis is in no way similar to the approach of those who hereabouts hold it up as a nice way of getting over that awful Latin habit of making positive distinctions.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The theological discipline that goes with the Orthodox practice of apophasis is in no way similar to the approach of those who hereabouts hold it up as a nice way of getting over that awful Latin habit of making positive distinctions.
Heavens, I hope I did not give the impression that we obtuse Westerners are pretending to fathom any degree of the depth of the Orthodox practise... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks Trisagion. My personal readings on contemplation, which of course lead inexorably to considerations of apophatic theology, include Catholic, Orthodox and even a few Protestant sources. My first introductions to the importance of the theme for Christian discipleship was via the Cloud of Unknowing, which I read for the first time about 15 years ago on the advice of a good friend. That may seem very late in my journey, but that's probably a consequence of a typically activist nonconformist protestantism. We're great "doers".
I like the Latin habit of making positive distinctions and I understand the avoidance point.
Contemplative prayer practices and disciplines are not at all an easy option; certainly I don't find them so. Nor is the via negativa in any way a taking refuge in vagueness. That is a given with me at least.
(xpost)
[ 23. March 2013, 18:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
That seems to imply that no-one can get beyond a received deontological ethical position.
It implies exactly the opposite, hence your further points are basically moot.
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
It ignores the fact that people can reframe their normative ethical position by entertaining ideas about how a virtue ethics or consequentialist position might lead to different conclusions.
Of course they can. That's the problem. If we all were stuck with some normative ethics, we wouldn't have any discussions about morals whatsoever. To talk about morals would be like talking about water being wet.
The problem is that making up your own morals and convincing yourself of them is pretty damn simple. Moral building and evaluation really is a largely circular exercise in practice. One could have the hope that as a community we could make some "progress" through the usual means of trial and error and mutual correction, at least over time. As a Christian, one cannot have that hope though. Humans are damaged goods, they fell off a lorry - or at least out of paradise. It may be theoretically possible to read off much of proper morality from nature, and it may be theoretically possible to stick with proper morality by natural reason and natural will power. In practice though, the rot will start immediately.
All this talk about morals from experience and consideration is just enlightenment optimism. The one and only thing of interest about that is how, how soon and how terribly it will fail.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
Worried about what specifically?
Strange, I thought I expressed myself rather clearly? Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular.
Of course, it is nowadays considered ecumenically incorrect to say anything of this sort, and by and large it indeed doesn't tend to help. But my expectation is that after sex, teachings on ecclesiology will be the second biggest source of millstones.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My pathway, in common with all of us, is to take personal responsibility for my choices, for my companions on the journey, for my own fallibility, and hope to learn on the way. But I am neither the captain of my ship, nor the master of my soul. There is an Author of my life and I am learning the part He has written for me. I am a beggar, learning from other beggars where food is to help with the journey. So I hear Jesus saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and "follow me". Which is what I try to do. But never on my own. I don't trust myself that much.
I don't know how to cut through that verbiage. Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Ingo, could you clarify that statement a little for me.
It would help if you indicated what part you did not understand. My point is simple. Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate and complete consent. The latter two are often understood in such an exalted manner as to make mortal sin near impossible. The slightest vagueness and/or uncertainty is taken to destroy full knowledge, and the most minuscule impulse or the weakest habit is taken to remove deliberate and complete consent. In the end, nothing anybody can ever do really is a mortal sin, unless the sinner explicitly intends to "achieve" eternal damnation through the gravely sinful act. Only then can he exhibit the singleminded clarity of evil that is supposedly required for damnation. Unfortunately, I think the real bar will be set a lot lower...
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Although your statement "Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO" concerns me a tiny bit.
Well, you are off to a good start then.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My pathway, in common with all of us, is to take personal responsibility for my choices, for my companions on the journey, for my own fallibility, and hope to learn on the way. But I am neither the captain of my ship, nor the master of my soul. There is an Author of my life and I am learning the part He has written for me. I am a beggar, learning from other beggars where food is to help with the journey. So I hear Jesus saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and "follow me". Which is what I try to do. But never on my own. I don't trust myself that much.
I don't know how to cut through that verbiage. Sorry.
Ah well. It's a bit hard to sum up 40 years pilgrimage in under 150 words. Maybe I shoudn't have bothered to try and paint a word picture?
Try this as a more analytical comment instead. There is a paradox between taking personal responsibility and living one's life in submission to the call of Christ. Obedience is called for, but not slavish obedience. That would be a denial of our freedom in Christ. Our Christian lives explore the poles of that paradox by the way we choose how to live every day. That's what I've been trying to live out, with the help of God and good companions.
You can also get some of the flavour in this old hymn
quote:
1 Make me a captive, Lord,
and then I shall be free;
force me to render up my sword,
and I shall conqueror be.
2 I sink in life's alarms
when by myself I stand;
imprison me within thine arms,
and strong shall be my hand.
3 My will is not my own
till thou hast made it thine;
if it would reach a monarch's throne,
it must its crown resign.
4 I only stand unbent
amid the clashing strife
when on thy bosom I have leaned
and found in thee my life.
That any better?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
Worried about what specifically?
Strange, I thought I expressed myself rather clearly? Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Am I supposed to regret having asked you to clarify one of your posts? Or feel crushed by your implication that I'm too stupid to understand your dogmatic assertions?
'How strange' - 'I thought I had expressed myself rather clearly'. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Whatever your message about the RCC is, IngoB - and it would appear you don't think any of what you say requires clarification - nothing about your faith, or the Church you believe in will ever speak more loudly than your attitude to your fellow human beings.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Most people here are in danger of burning eternally in hell? Bloody hell. Surely I have a get-out clause, I support Man Utd.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Am I supposed to regret having asked you to clarify one of your posts? Or feel crushed by your implication that I'm too stupid to understand your dogmatic assertions?
Whatever makes you feel better, I suppose. I was simply expressing my surprise, given that I thought I had expressed myself rather clearly.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Whatever your message about the RCC is, IngoB - and it would appear you don't think any of what you say requires clarification - nothing about your faith, or the Church you believe in will ever speak more loudly than your attitude to your fellow human beings.
I also torture cute puppies for entertainment. ... Well, I don't, but I wouldn't want to deprive you of your righteous indignation.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Most people here are in danger of burning eternally in hell?
That goes without saying, obviously. But I did point to a specific reason, which makes the statement slightly less trivial.
--------------------
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
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
So, Ingo, am i to take it that your primary motivation for professing the specific religious beliefs you profess is fear of otherwise burning in hell?
BTW, re what part of your previous statement that i requested clarification on, Ingo, it was the whole paragraph that i had difficulty following, but your re-statement was much clearer for me to follow. Thank you.
[ 24. March 2013, 03:23: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Am I supposed to regret having asked you to clarify one of your posts? Or feel crushed by your implication that I'm too stupid to understand your dogmatic assertions?
Whatever makes you feel better, I suppose. I was simply expressing my surprise, given that I thought I had expressed myself rather clearly.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Whatever your message about the RCC is, IngoB - and it would appear you don't think any of what you say requires clarification - nothing about your faith, or the Church you believe in will ever speak more loudly than your attitude to your fellow human beings.
I also torture cute puppies for entertainment. ... Well, I don't, but I wouldn't want to deprive you of your righteous indignation.
This, from the poster who posts how 'strange' it is, and how surprized he is, because one of his statements needs clarifying. And who thinks that being told his way of communicating speaks more plainly than the message he's asserting, is on a par with being accused of torturing cute puppies. (Where does that even come from ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ?!)
But as the man said, 'whatever makes you feel better'. My 'righteous indignation' (and I admit I can sound that way at times ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) makes a great diversion from whatever is your problem with debating respectfully. 'Strange'? 'Surprizing?' To be asked - on a debating thread - to elaborate on something you post? Did you think you were giving a lecture? Or leading a seminar?
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point is simple. Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate and complete consent. The latter two are often understood in such an exalted manner as to make mortal sin near impossible. The slightest vagueness and/or uncertainty is taken to destroy full knowledge, and the most minuscule impulse or the weakest habit is taken to remove deliberate and complete consent. In the end, nothing anybody can ever do really is a mortal sin, unless the sinner explicitly intends to "achieve" eternal damnation through the gravely sinful act. Only then can he exhibit the singleminded clarity of evil that is supposedly required for damnation. Unfortunately, I think the real bar will be set a lot lower...
(Emphasis added...)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The problem is that making up your own morals and convincing yourself of them is pretty damn simple.
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pretty much everybody on SoF has something to worry about there, IMHO.
Worried about what specifically?
Strange, I thought I expressed myself rather clearly? Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular.
Well, I have no problem with a smug writing style and a lack of politicll or ecumenical correctness, in fact I quite enjoy them myself sometimes.
But as much as Ingo is entitled to his own views I wish to say to non-RCC shipmates is that the concept about non-RCs being in danger of burning eternally in hell is not something shared by all RCs.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Recognising my own part in the meandering, I think we might nevertheless be in danger of further de-railing this thread at this point. There have been some good diversions, but critical examination of the posting styles of participants looks like a meander too far.
Given the points about the fires of Hell, some of you may want to remember we have our own preliminary version of it, to be used when conflicts of style and content become too much.
That's probably too prolix for a Host, but I'm trying to correct "in love".
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
But as much as Ingo is entitled to his own views I wish to say to non-RCC shipmates is that the concept about non-RCs being in danger of burning eternally in hell is not something shared by all RCs.
I wonder if it is shared by the new pope?
Here we are on the Ship - fully aware of RC doctrine, yet not rushing to join. Would the new pope be telling us we are in danger of burning in eternal agony?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
taking up Barnabas's hostly admonition we might consider Boogie's question to be transferred to the Pope thread, and the rest for a nice bonfire in Hell.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Shouldn't think it will feature all that highly on the Welby-Francis meeting agenda.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
So, Ingo, am i to take it that your primary motivation for professing the specific religious beliefs you profess is fear of otherwise burning in hell?
Well, no. I profess my beliefs primarily because I think that they are true. And unless I first believed it to be true that certain deeds could land me in hell, how could that scare me into anything? What you presumably mean is that I'm obedient to certain norms of faith and morals primarily because I fear hell fire. I don't think that that is quite the right way of putting it. Fear of hell is more like a last line of defence when other motivations have failed. So if I focus on my ubiquitous failings in faith and morals, then probably fear of hell features quite prominently in some statistical sense. More often than not just as the last thing being pushed aside, but still. However, fear of hell is repulsive, not attractive. It can contribute to keeping me away from things, but it doesn't really make me go anywhere. At best it maintains a kind of minimal standard. On the rare occasion where I make progress in faith and morals in some sense, it hence really doesn't feature much at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
'Strange'? 'Surprizing?' To be asked - on a debating thread - to elaborate on something you post? Did you think you were giving a lecture? Or leading a seminar?
No. I simply thought that I had expressed myself rather clearly in the relevant series of posts.
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
(Emphasis added...)
Except that it is precisely my point that I follow an external moral standard, which I have not chosen primarily because I evaluated it to be the best moral standard based on my own insights.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
But as much as Ingo is entitled to his own views I wish to say to non-RCC shipmates is that the concept about non-RCs being in danger of burning eternally in hell is not something shared by all RCs.
But I am not simply saying that this is my "own view". And if you are RC, then you cannot simply hold your own view over and against Lumen Gentium. As much as you would like to make this a mere matter of opinion, it isn't. At least not on RC terms.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I wonder if it is shared by the new pope? Here we are on the Ship - fully aware of RC doctrine, yet not rushing to join. Would the new pope be telling us we are in danger of burning in eternal agony?
That's unlikely. The new pope is a Jesuit, after all. If he is doctrinally sound on this matter (a rather big "if" on contemporary Jesuit standards), he's unlikely to make big noises about it. He also stands in the grand tradition of Jesuit failure to get their job done. As the old joke has it:
quote:
What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?
They were both founded by Spaniards, St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits.
They were also both founded to combat heresy: the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants.
What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?
Well, have you met any Albigensians lately?
--------------------
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
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point is simple. Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate and complete consent. The latter two are often understood in such an exalted manner as to make mortal sin near impossible. The slightest vagueness and/or uncertainty is taken to destroy full knowledge, and the most minuscule impulse or the weakest habit is taken to remove deliberate and complete consent. In the end, nothing anybody can ever do really is a mortal sin, unless the sinner explicitly intends to "achieve" eternal damnation through the gravely sinful act. Only then can he exhibit the singleminded clarity of evil that is supposedly required for damnation. Unfortunately, I think the real bar will be set a lot lower...
(Emphasis added...)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The problem is that making up your own morals and convincing yourself of them is pretty damn simple.
I don't seem to have made my point clear with this last time. Ingo, if there is more than one way of understanding mortal sin:
1) Whose position are you critiquing?
2) How do you arrive at your own thinking on where "the real bar will be set"?
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The danger of burning in Hell applies to all of us,not just to those who are not RC.'Burning in Hell' may be figurative language to describe the anguish of those who realize only too late that they have deliberately chosen to follow the wrong path and have not repented of it.
I have never understood RC teaching to say that all RCs are automatically saved and all others will automatically be damned.If anything I would say that more might be asked of RCs in the way of accepting Jesus as Saviour and following His way of life.
The Church does teach that those who are convinced of the truth of the church's message and yet choose to remain outside are in danger.
However KNOWING about the doctrine of the RC church and BEING CONVINCED OF THE TRUTH OF THE MESSAGE are two quite different things.
Some of the posters here, for example,probably have a better than average understanding of the teachings of the Catholic church,but do not seem to me to be convinced of the truth of the message of the Catholic church.If that is the case they are not endangering their immortal soul by refusing to enter the Church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The modifier to all this is that we are all in danger of burning for something, even Anglicans. The offer of grace is, as far as I can tell from the scriptures, a profoundly urgent one, one worthy of more discernment and striving than some of the posts on this thread have made it sound.
Our response to that (in terms of finding the Real Deal, anyway) has to be reading the scriptures carefully, and to pray for the grace of discernment and honesty. It's as simple as doing the best we can, while keeping in mind that the vast majority of us can probably do better. The argument here, from me anyway, is against complacency.
--------------------
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
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
In response to Ingo's Jesuit joke and Zach's warning against complacency (with which I agree), here is another joke:
quote:
The Holy Trinity wants to go on a holiday and they try to decide where to go.
-"I'd love to go to the desert", says the Holy Spirit, "I can roam freely there".
-"Well, I don't know", says the Father, "I've been trekking through that desert for decades with the people of Israel, and it was hard work. Why don't we go to Jerusalem instead?"
-"Please no, " says Jesus', "I don't have good memories of that town, last time I went there it ended badly for me. But how about going to Rome?"
-"Great!, " says the Holy Spirit. "I've never been to Rome".
For the record, I heard this joke from a Jesuit friend
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Oh dear. Where do I stand in IngoB's scheme of things? That's a rhetorical question by the way, just in case anyone wants to tell me in too blunt terms.
In CofE/Prod terms, I'm pretty orthodox. I believe the scriptures and the classic creeds, accept the first 7 Councils, the 39 Articles etc. When it comes to what happens at Consecration, I identify with Queen Elizabeth I.
I find the Catholic catechism of 2003 a very impressive document. However, I'm not Catholic even by a CofE understanding of the term. I couldn't give the 100% assent to everything RC that the RCC demands of its converts, rather than those born into it - a lot of whom clearly don't accept everything lock, stock and barrel.
One of my significant hesitations about the RCC is its take on papal authority. Another though is its reasoning process, the way historically it has tended to do theology. The approach that clearly inspires IngoB, CL and the late Evelyn Waugh (great novelist though he was) has the opposite effect on me. I just don't think it either works or leads to the well.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Another though is its reasoning process, the way historically it has tended to do theology.
I feel the same.
Believe me Enoch, it gives the creeps to some RCs too, although they would not qualify as "true" RCs by the very people who favour this approach.
We aren't all clericalists and we don't all sleep with Lumen Gentium under our pillows.
Precisely because, as you say, it does not really lead to the well.
[ 24. March 2013, 14:31: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As the old joke has it:
quote:
What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?
They were both founded by Spaniards, St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits.
They were also both founded to combat heresy: the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants.
What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?
Well, have you met any Albigensians lately?
How very droll, IngoB! Do you know many such jokes about who the Catholic Church has or hasn't managed to slaughter?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Oh dear. Where do I stand in IngoB's scheme of things? That's a rhetorical question by the way, just in case anyone wants to tell me in too blunt terms.
In CofE/Prod terms, I'm pretty orthodox. I believe the scriptures and the classic creeds, accept the first 7 Councils, the 39 Articles etc. When it comes to what happens at Consecration, I identify with Queen Elizabeth I.
I find the Catholic catechism of 2003 a very impressive document. However, I'm not Catholic even by a CofE understanding of the term. I couldn't give the 100% assent to everything RC that the RCC demands of its converts, rather than those born into it - a lot of whom clearly don't accept everything lock, stock and barrel.
One of my significant hesitations about the RCC is its take on papal authority. Another though is its reasoning process, the way historically it has tended to do theology. The approach that clearly inspires IngoB, CL and the late Evelyn Waugh (great novelist though he was) has the opposite effect on me. I just don't think it either works or leads to the well.
Indeed. The notorious "zeal of the convert" would unchurch most of us born RC. Why do you think Rome created the Reservation, I mean the Ordinariate? It's a long way from Cardinal Kasper's appreciation of Anglican Cathedral Liturgy.
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
On the Albigensians 'joke' - somebody was complaining about the lack of Christian comedy - well, here it is. We can even make genocide seem comical!
[ 24. March 2013, 15:03: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
What happened to the Albigensians is no laughing matter. Reminds me of Montaigne's famous aphorism.
"After all, it is rating one's conjectures at a very high price to roast a man alive on the strength of them".
This is Wiki
quote:
However, since most Cathar parfait (male) or parfaites (female) refused to recant and embrace orthodox Catholic doctrine they were burnt to death as a matter of course. And this was specifically as a result of their religious beliefs as judged heretical by the Dominican Inquisition - not due to revolt against the temporal order. The latter resulted in thousands more being executed as at the siege of Béziers in 1209 - 7000 in total amounting to the entire population. Arnaud Amoury, the Cistercian abbot-commander wrote to the Pope:
"Today your Holiness, twenty thousand citizens were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."
And the Catholic Encyclopedia article which is at variance with the Wiki article over some of the facts, nevertheless says this.
quote:
Properly speaking, Albigensianism was not a Christian heresy but an extra-Christian religion. Ecclesiastical authority, after persuasion had failed, adopted a course of severe repression, which led at times to regrettable excess. Simon of Montfort intended well at first, but later used the pretext of religion to usurp the territory of the Counts of Toulouse. The death penalty was, indeed, inflicted too freely on the Albigenses, but it must be remembered that the penal code of the time was considerably more rigorous than ours, and the excesses were sometimes provoked.
I'm rather glad the Jesuits were set on our tails, rather than the Dominicans. The words of Elizabeth Bennet to Mr Darcy come to mind, after he had confessed that his good opinion, once lost, was lost for ever.
"That is a failing indeed ... but I really cannot laugh at it."
But I do not think Justin Welby will bring that up either.
Seriously, there are aspects of both Protestant and Catholic history which are much more a matter for shame than for jokes. Another thing on which I suspect Archbishop Welby and Pope Francis will have little difficulty agreeing.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
One of the problems the Church of England has (not, perhaps, Anglicanism generally) is that there's a tendency to look at other religious traditions and to see what is attractive. So, for instance, we look at Pope Francis and we see a charismatic servant-leader who preaches a gospel for the poor and washes the feet of prisoners.
The problem is that finding it attractive, we're inclined to believe that attractiveness has something to do with truth. Now, I happen to agree wholeheartedly with what (I think) IngoB says in this regard. If you believe that Roman Catholicism is true, then for the sake of your own salvation, you must become a Roman Catholic. Wilfully to remain outside Christ's flock, which is under the care of Christ's vicar on earth, is to risk damnation. That is a central claim of the Roman Catholic Church.
But a few hundred years ago, our Anglican ancestors believed that "the Church of Rome hath erred ... in matters of faith". They believed that the moral imperative lay in the opposite direction: to part from an erring community in search of truth. It should not matter one jot whether the Pope is a nice man or a monster; whether we happen to agree with him on certain matters (even important matters) or not; whether Catholic liturgy is noble, or beautiful, or whatever; whether we like our Catholic neighbour and their charming priest, or not. No: the thing that matters, the only thing, ultimately, that matters, is - Where is truth?
I believe that in Christian faith, everything, ultimately, must be sacrificed for the answer to that question. And if you find truth in the Church of Rome, then for the sake of your soul, that is where you must be. And I believe it's considerations such as this that must necessarily define the relationship between Anglicanism and Rome. I think it was Paul Avis who said that ecumenism in the 70s and 80s was like papering over the cracks, and then drawing attention to the attractiveness of the wallpaper. For the sake of what's true, let's not do that.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The use of 'we' in these discussions is problematic. Maybe 'we' look at the new Pope favourably, as he seems a nice chap. But then again, some of 'us' also still query the ban on contraception and abortion, and the proscription of gay sex. And other things of course.
So I don't think 'we' are singing a universal paeon to the Pope.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Oh dear. Where do I stand in IngoB's scheme of things? That's a rhetorical question by the way, just in case anyone wants to tell me in too blunt terms.
It is indeed the teaching of the RC Church that remaining outside of it while knowing it is the Real Deal merits damnation, but the judgement that most of the ship is culpable for remaining outside of the Real Deal is IngoB's judgement. Whether you in particular are guilty of it is between you and God, to be worked out "in fear and trembling," as the Scriptures say.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I sort of agree with Adeodatus, except that surely 'truth' and 'attractiveness' (in the sense, any rate, of someone like the Pope living out Christian virtues) must be related. It's an example of 'by your fruits you shall know them.' Like many here, and presumably like Adeodatus, I part company with +++Francis on the Dead Horse issues and doubtless on many other doctrines. But I recognise the presence of Christ's truth in the RCC as in my own Anglican communion. I suspect the difference is that unlike the (official?) Catholic position I see the Church as a community of seekers after the truth rather than the possessor of the truth.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
Ingo, if there is more than one way of understanding mortal sin: 1) Whose position are you critiquing?
I'm not aware that there is more than one way. Hence I'm not critiquing false principle, but simply false application.
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
2) How do you arrive at your own thinking on where "the real bar will be set"?
Concerning details, largely by following various official documents of the RC magisterium. It's been a while since I last had access to a RC priest who actually bothered discussing sin in anything but soothing generalities...
However, my real point here is more a philosophical principle. I do not believe that any doctrine of the RCC is taught in vain. But if the usual excuses about Church membership are to be believed, then the doctrine that rejecting the RCC can be a mortal sin is in vain. For we can always argue that the rejection itself demonstrates that the person doing the rejecting has insufficient knowledge and consent. The way this is usually considered, nothing less than a full declaration of rebellion against God by virtue of rejecting His Church would rise to the level of mortal sin. But of course, nobody ever does that. The error of rejection is always projected onto the RCC: one rejects the RCC because one is unhappy with this or that doctrine, or this or that institutional feature. Hence in practice this doctrine is pushed aside, as it applies to nobody. I say however that no RC doctrine is empty, hence that some real people in their actual actions are in significant danger of burning in hell due to their rejection of the RCC. The details of that I do not know, but since the doctrinal fudge is invariably carried out by arguing against full knowledge and consent, some of these arguments must be wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
'Burning in Hell' may be figurative language to describe the anguish of those who realize only too late that they have deliberately chosen to follow the wrong path and have not repented of it.
Proper Christianity is incarnational and sacramental, hence I expect that the "anti-sacrament" of hell fire has the same weird properties of being a real symbol that actualises its meaning. Or in other words, while I'm not sure what really awaits the doomed, I doubt that their anguish will be a theoretical metaphor.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
If anything I would say that more might be asked of RCs in the way of accepting Jesus as Saviour and following His way of life.
Nice sales pitch... maybe I should become Protestant to avoid such challenges? Anyway, this ignores the entire sacramental order and assumes that more knowledge means more danger for salvation, rather than less. This is inimical to the Christian message of truth setting us free, and is precisely based on believing that "ignorance" will always excuse sin.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
However KNOWING about the doctrine of the RC church and BEING CONVINCED OF THE TRUTH OF THE MESSAGE are two quite different things.
This is the central doctrinal fudge, as I keep saying. It is not limited to this specific case, but a quite universal mechanism. So the RCC says that fornication is wrong, but I'm not convinced of that message, no matter how often I hear it. Therefore, fornicating is not sinful for me, since I'm ignorant of its sinfulness. And I happily fornicate as much as I want. Really? That's how it works? Or does there come a time when I start being responsible for not listening to the RCC on this matter? Likewise, there must come some point where rejecting the RCC actually becomes the responsibility of the person doing the rejecting. Otherwise, the doctrine becomes empty. We can always find excuses, but they do not always count.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Another though is its reasoning process, the way historically it has tended to do theology. The approach that clearly inspires IngoB, CL and the late Evelyn Waugh (great novelist though he was) has the opposite effect on me.
That's a pretty lame excuse. The modern RCC can hardly be accused of rampant Thomism. Just because I'm a frequent poster here does not mean that my positions dominate Catholic thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
How very droll, IngoB! Do you know many such jokes about who the Catholic Church has or hasn't managed to slaughter?
Nope. But this one is pretty funny in a black humour sort of way. As it happens, the Albigensian crusade is further demonstration that when religion and politics mix, people tend to get hurt. It was basically a war of conquest of the French Crown against the Crown of Aragon, hidden under the fig leaf of driving back the Cathars provided by the pope.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
No: the thing that matters, the only thing, ultimately, that matters, is - Where is truth? I believe that in Christian faith, everything, ultimately, must be sacrificed for the answer to that question.
Spot on. But the question I'm raising is when a "honest mistake", which does excuse falsehood, turns into a "hardening of heart" which doesn't. I think people often project negligence and even rebellion onto ignorance. That's a dangerous game.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It is indeed the teaching of the RC Church that remaining outside of it while knowing it is the Real Deal merits damnation, but the judgement that most of the ship is culpable for remaining outside of the Real Deal is IngoB's judgement.
I was a bit more cautious than that: "Most people on SoF are in some danger of burning eternally in hell for refusing to become (or remain) RCs. Because most people on SoF are not entirely inculpable in and through their ignorance about religion and Christianity in general, and the claims of the RCC in particular."
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Isn't there an inherent theological problem with aspiring to be more catholic than the pope ? Or priests not repudiated by him ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
