homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod Oct 2014 (Page 13)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod Oct 2014
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
if the RCC did theology like the Orthodox or Protestants, the RCC would allow remarriage like everybody else. It doesn't. I think that's the point.

Wow, another great argument against change. "If we did change, we wouldn't be us any more, we'd be somebody else."

And the appeal to theology. "If the policy follows from the theology that makes everything OK. Doesn't matter if the policy is both logically incoherent and heartless (or any other criticism); being true to one's own theology is what matters. And of course, theology can never be wrong. At least when it's ours. Other people's is wrong all the time".

Any more crap arguments to offer ? Or am I misunderstanding your point ?

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The RCC theology of marriage properly understood is very coherent. The reasons why the RCC doesn't change won't make sense from a secular, Orthodox, or Protestant perspective. It makes perfect sense from a Catholic perspective which is the only one that matters to the RCC. You don't buy into what the RCC says about itself. Many Roman Catholics don't either. Why they stay makes no sense to me.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fortunately it does make sense to many who claim to be Catholics.Whilst one can be quite clear about what the Catholic church teaches,few Catholics bother too much about understanding every part of Church teaching.Their links with the Church are ties of kinship and tradition and a belief (or at least a hope) that what the Church teaches presents us with an ideal (which we don't always achieve) and accompanies us in Word and Sacrament throughout our earthly life,pointing the way ultimately to Heaven and a proper understanding of God.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh...so...they are Roman Catholic because their families have always been Roman Catholic? Why would you put your faith in the Roman Catholic sacramental system and then reject what the Roman Catholic Church says about its sacraments? How are the Roman Catholic teachings an ideal when one readily ignores all the ones they don't like and even encourages the RCC to change what its taught for centuries?

Seems to me that the Anglican Communion is the ideal for many if not most Roman Catholics in the West. Actually changing churches would be too much trouble. So, they hold out hope that one day Rome will turn into Canterbury.

Now, even though the writing has been on the wall for decades, I have some sympathy for conservatives in mainline Protestant churches who can honestly say that the current churches are not the same churches in which they were raised and ordained. Roman Catholics don't have that excuse. The RCC isn't all of a sudden teaching some new doctrine. To paraphrase a classic Chris Rock bit, JPII and Benedict didn't go crazy. They went tiger.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It does seem very much to depend on a fork in the road. Marriage as a sacrament, or marriage as a covenant?

It was a key battleground during the Reformation. Here is a link to some of Calvin's thinking.

You can scroll down to para 34 ff and read forward. There's also an interesting comment about Augustinian thought at para 3 ff.

Now of course you do not have to believe the argumentation, nor am I much interested in rehearsing it here. Some of it I tick, some of it I shake my head over.

But in this thread, it is the possibilities within Catholicism which are central. And there seems to be a growing divide between the coherence of Holy Tradition on sacramental marriage - and other aspects of sexual ethics - and the opinions of many Western Catholics about what seems to them to be fair.

A few gussets can be let out on annulment. Not sure about bread and wine for the remarried, but personally I can't see much, if any, acceptable wriggle room.

That apart, I think Beeswax Altar is right to point to the real choice facing Catholics who see this differently. In the end, it looks like "put up with it, or get out". I sympathise with their dilemma, and all for whom this continues to be a besetting ethical and pastoral challenge.

[ 30. October 2014, 10:35: 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
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Most Christians,not only Roman Catholics ,are what they are,because of ties and kinship.
Of course some people,after reflection,choose a particular religion or a particular form of that religion.I would be surprised if Beeswax Altar did not have some ties with Christianity before he asked to be ordained.I know many Episcoplians as well as Presbyterians who are what they are because accidents of birth and accidents of community where they were brought up, have encouraged them to see things in the ways which they do.
About one hour south of where I live is the border between Scotland and England.Why is it that the majority of people on the Scottish side are Presbyterian and the majority on the English side are Anglican ? How many of the Presbyterians know all the ins and outs of the Church of Scotland and how many on the English side ,who say they are Anglican, know or even care about the core doctrines of the Cof E ?Should they be abandoned because of that ? Many Catholics want to stay WITHIN the Catholic Church,just in case it is correct.We live in hope !!!
ps When I was a child I didn't understand why one should make an Act of Hope. At a much older age I understand better.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
People changing churches is quite common. I am not a cradle Episcopalian. It makes no sense to say you hope the RCC is correct and then disregard what the RCC actually says is correct. If the RCC says remarried couples are guilty of adultery and that adultery is a mortal sin, then why would you want the RCC to encourage adultery? Why would you want the RCC to encourage the couple to commit a second mortal sin by receiving communion? For those who get divorced and then remarry that they hope the Church is wrong.

Besides, if it is just a hope, why not find a church that believes what you actually believe and put your hope in that?

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
People changing churches is not that common in my experience. People will change churches if they move somewhere they can't get to a church of their denomination (unless they're stubborn like me) but otherwise will tend to stay put unless forced by some dramatic occurrence (which makes Catholics less likely to move due to the ubiquity of Catholic churches). Ordination of women in the CofE did this for some. One can debate the degree to which this was theologically motivated or simply small t tradition being upset, but it took a major change to cause that sort of movement, and even then the numbers leaving were quite small. Most people don't move around much and are as much, if not more, attached to their local church as they are to their denomination. This is (partly) why closing a church building and merging congregations can be such a big issue. Those of us with a slightly nerdy ecclesiastical obsession may think of churches by denomination, doctrine and practice, but that's not what most people do.

[ 30. October 2014, 17:41: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Must be a pond difference.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Must be a pond difference.

Quite possible. The existence of the parish system in both England and Scotland will be contributory.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On a personal level I do not stay within the Catholic church,simply because of ties and kinship, important as they are. I believe firmly in the one,holy,catholic and apostolic church and all which the Church teaches.I interpret these things in a way which I find acceptable - the way of love and respect for all,as far as I can.
I do my best to respect also others and to try to understand where they are coming from.
When we have difficulties I make an act of faith and hope that a solution can be found,trusting in the Good Lord (and His Holy,Catholic Church !)

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, by why RC over Orthodox ?

--------------------
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
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have nothing against the Orthodox Church and am happy to participate in its worship and liturgy,as I do from time to time.
From childhood,however, I have participated in Catholic worship and feel at home there.
I am happy to participate also in worship with fellow Christians who belong to different Protestant denominations .

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So why do you believe the RC church to be the one true church over and above the Orthodox church ?

[ 30. October 2014, 19:16: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

--------------------
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
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Who says I believe the RC church only to be the One True church ?
There is indeed only one true Church founded by Jesus Christ,but the Catholic Church teaches 'that she is joined in so many ways by the baptised who do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety.They are in a CERTAIN,although IMPERFECT communion with the Catholic church'.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am confused now, you are RC - the RC church teaches it is the only correct communion - do you not believe that ?

--------------------
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
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You are indeed confused,but so are many people.The Catholic church teaches that the fullness of the Church founded by Christ subsists within the visible unity of what people call 'the Catholic church'.
The Church of Christ is much greater than what is visible.Invisibly united to the Catholic church are all the baptised as well as all who would be baptised if they had the opportunity (baptism of desire).They and we are all children of God,loved by Him and as such recognised as brothers and sisters by the visible Catholic church.
That's the theory anyway.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That appears to be a fluffier way of saying the same thing. And leaves me with same question, why do you find the RC's claim about itself more convincing that that of the Orthodox ?

--------------------
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
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Orthodox is convincing but I am used to RC.
It's really as simple as that.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:


But in this thread, it is the possibilities within Catholicism which are central. And there seems to be a growing divide between the coherence of Holy Tradition on sacramental marriage - and other aspects of sexual ethics - and the opinions of many Western Catholics about what seems to them to be fair.

A few gussets can be let out on annulment. Not sure about bread and wine for the remarried, but personally I can't see much, if any, acceptable wriggle room.

That apart, I think Beeswax Altar is right to point to the real choice facing Catholics who see this differently. In the end, it looks like "put up with it, or get out". I sympathise with their dilemma, and all for whom this continues to be a besetting ethical and pastoral challenge.

I think there are three questions here:

1) is there something wrong with the way that the Catholic church deals with Catholics (and would-be Catholics) who have remarried ?

2) If there is something wrong, how deep into Catholic thinking and culture does the problem go ? How radical/painful or simple/superficial a change is needed in order to set things right ?

3) the politics of whether change it will happen and how it might be done

On the first, the Synod happened because of the Pope's recognition that there is a problem.

Yet the position of Beeswax Altar and others seems to be that nothing that the Catholic Church does or teaches can possibly be wrong (and that this position is what Catholicism is). For those who hold that position, the discussion can go no further. I don't think that's a majority position, but then the Catholic Church is not a democracy.

On the second, IngoB's distinction between dogma, doctrine and discipline is helpful.

Your view seems to be that doing the right thing would mean abandoning the dogma of the permanence of marriage. And that therefore there's no chance it will happen.

I'm more optimistic that dogma can be muzzled so it doesn't bite...

I can envisage a discipline-level change whereby bishops publish pastoral guidance on admission to communion. Such guidance would say that no-one should take communion in a state of rebellion against God, or in a spirit of determination to persist in sin. But rather in a spirit of thankfulness for blessings received, contrition for wrongs committed, and trust in the mercy of God.

A small section of the guidance would specifically address the issue of those who have in their past history a failed sacramental marriage.

It would acknowledge that the ideal put forward by the church is lifelong celibacy for the survivors of a failed marriage, and that no second sacramental marriage is possible.

That not everyone feels called to follow that ideal, and that for those who do not, second-chance relationships are often a blessing, a grace of God, for which gratitude is appropriate. That confession of one's own part in the failure of the original marriage is necessary in order to be right with God. That it's OK to offer trustingly to God the love and fidelity and effort put into the second marriage, in lieu of what they are unable to put into the first.

Outside the specific section, the guidance would say to the laity to talk to their local priest if in any doubt as to whether they should take communion.

And remind priests that the business of the church is salvation of souls, and that their care should be for whatever will encourage each individual to persevere in the Christian life, and their children (if any) to grow into Christian adulthood.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm more optimistic that dogma can be muzzled so it doesn't bite...

...

A small section of the guidance would specifically address the issue of those who have in their past history a failed sacramental marriage.

It would acknowledge that the ideal put forward by the church is lifelong celibacy for the survivors of a failed marriage, and that no second sacramental marriage is possible.

That not everyone feels called to follow that ideal, and that for those who do not, second-chance relationships are often a blessing, a grace of God, for which gratitude is appropriate. That confession of one's own part in the failure of the original marriage is necessary in order to be right with God. That it's OK to offer trustingly to God the love and fidelity and effort put into the second marriage, in lieu of what they are unable to put into the first.

Problem is, I think, that if you affirm that marriage is permanent, as is apparently dogma of the RCC, then any other relationship for someone who is married is adulterous and a source of ongoing sin. I don't see how you can square that circle.

[ 02. November 2014, 12:44: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Although not many people mention this,I often wonder just how cultural rather than cultual is the idea that all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. Almost all of us have strong or not so strong sexual feelings.It is a part of being human.
Marriage as a sacrament can be seen as a life long commitment but other expressions of sexual feelings,relationships could be recognised as such,but not under the name of 'sacramental marriage.' This could allow for other loving liaisons both heterosexual and also homosexual.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Although not many people mention this,I often wonder just how cultural rather than cultual is the idea that all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.

I'm confused about what distinction you are drawing here exactly ("cultual"?). But, whatever it is, in the Catholic Church this is non-negotiably doctrinal - a fact which, as a Catholic yourself, I cannot imagine has escaped you.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Almost all of us have strong or not so strong sexual feelings.It is a part of being human.

Indeed. And some of them - many of them - will if indulged be harmful or otherwise inappropriate. Which is precisely why we need some sexual boundaries. What is your point here?
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Marriage as a sacrament can be seen as a life long commitment but other expressions of sexual feelings,relationships could be recognised as such,but not under the name of 'sacramental marriage.' This could allow for other loving liaisons both heterosexual and also homosexual.

I take it that you don't mean as an extra alongside marriage for married people?

[Petty plea: it would be so much easier for me to read your posts if you were to place spaces after your commas, full-stops, etc. I have no particular reading difficulties that would make this very pressing, but I'd think it a kindness if you'd consider doing that.]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry,first of all, about spacing. I know that you are not the first to point it out to me
, and I shall try to remember your good advice which is, in no way, petty.

My thoughts are as follows :
almost all of us have sexual feelings - are all of these, if outside of marriage, sinful ?

is there a place for loving relationships, which may include sexual intimacy, outside of marriage ?

Jesus talks about the indissolubility of marriage, but does he give directions about sexual behaviour outside of the marriage bond ?

a second 'marriage' for someone still with the responsibilities of a sacramental marriage is not
possible,but if the sacramental marriage is no longer alive, if one of the parties has gone off with someone else, where within the scale of mortal sins,does the attempt to find friendship and possibly sexual intimacy,does a second relationship come ?

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Problem is, I think, that if you affirm that marriage is permanent, as is apparently dogma of the RCC, then any other relationship for someone who is married is adulterous and a source of ongoing sin. I don't see how you can square that circle.

I think you over-simplify. Most of the people we're talking about here are sacramentally married to one person in the eyes of the church, and for all practical purposes married to somebody else.

If adultery happened today, it would be the second spouse who would be devastated, betrayed, hurt - the victim of the wrongdoing. The heart of the first spouse is no longer breakable by this person - they are not sinned-against by the second union. The second spouse is the one putting their love on the line - trusting that no adultery will occur.

That the second marriage should be recognised pastorally - as a civil marriage - seems pretty obvious. Whilst acknowledging that the two parties are not free to contract a sacramental union. That's just seeing straight.

We're not talking about an ideal situation, but about how the church deals with those lives have been shipwrecked and who are rebuilding or have rebuilt as best they can, and who want to be fully part of the church again.

To generalise about "marriage" as if the everyday and the emotional and the sacramental aspects of the idealised state always and everywhere go together is to miss the point completely.

To say that the legal or emotional aspects of marriage are permanent would be to deny the facts. It is the sacrament that is permanent, that the church cannot undo. Maybe precision of language is the key...

This is "workers in the vineyard" territory - it's suggesting that the church should be more generous to the remarried, and that really isn't any skin off anyone else's nose.

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      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In ten thousand years time the doctrine of the RCC will not have changed. Sharia will not have changed. Nobody will be a practising Roman Catholic or Muslim in any recognisable way. Just like Jesus wasn't and more. It won't matter. Everyone will be beyond the reach of unrescindable laws of Medes and Persians.

[ 02. November 2014, 22:06: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Could I ask a few questions of those who can explain the teachings of the RCC on this? I accept that if you are a member of the RCC, you have to accept Catholic teaching on this subject as on any other. But this debate always proceeds on the basis that Catholic teaching either is or is not better than everyone else's simply because it has papal authority behind it.

First, is a RC marriage indissoluble because that is the interpretation the RCC places on the various New Testament texts or because it is sacramental?

Second, to put this in a slightly different way, is a RC marriage indissoluble because it is sacramental or is it sacramental because it is indissoluble?

Third, why does anyone allege that marriage is either sacramental or covenantal, as though those are automatically alternatives and incompatible understandings?

Fourth, why is it argued that if marriage is sacramental, that means it cannot, rather than should not, be dissolved. Nobody has really answered this one persuasively yet on any other basis than 'this is Catholic teaching and therefore must be right'. That argument is only persuasive and only validates itself if one accepts the teaching of the RCC as authoritative in its totality.

Fifth, if two Catholics have, in breach of Catholic teaching, divorced, and married other people, does the RCC recognise at all, that by doing so, they have entered into serious and binding commitments of fidelity to their new spouses? Or does it say that they should dump any new spouse they have, and any children they have had together, irrespective of whether their first spouse is willing to dump their new spouse or not?

Sixth, what is the Catholic understanding of Lev 24:1-4? That clearly states that if a couple have once been divorced and entered into another marriage, if the second marriage ends, for whatever reason, it would be an abomination for them to return to each other.

For those that are not familiar with this, this is the WEB version so as to avoid copyright questions.
quote:
24,1   When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 When she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 If the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; 4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and you shall not cause the land to sin, which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.


--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
In ten thousand years time the doctrine of the RCC will not have changed. Sharia will not have changed. Nobody will be a practising Roman Catholic or Muslim in any recognisable way. Just like Jesus wasn't and more. It won't matter. Everyone will be beyond the reach of unrescindable laws of Medes and Persians.

Jesus was Roman Catholic and so was Mohammed. In ten thousand years, everybody will be Pentecostal Moravians. That's right, Pentecostal Moravians. You saw it here first.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543

 - Posted      Profile for Planeta Plicata   Email Planeta Plicata   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
First, is a RC marriage indissoluble because that is the interpretation the RCC places on the various New Testament texts or because it is sacramental?

Second, to put this in a slightly different way, is a RC marriage indissoluble because it is sacramental or is it sacramental because it is indissoluble?

It's not really an either-or proposition. The RC position is supported by a number of pieces of evidence, including a plausible interpretation of certain passages of the NT, the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers of the Church, and the consistency of the teaching with other aspects of Catholic sacramental theology.

As I noted earlier, the Church doesn't just teach that "RC marriages" are indissoluble: even a marriage between two baptized non-RC Christians is thought to be sacramental and therefore indissoluble, and natural (i.e., non-sacramental) marriages are nearly so: they can only be dissolved under certain unique circumstances.

quote:
Fourth, why is it argued that if marriage is sacramental, that means it cannot, rather than should not, be dissolved. Nobody has really answered this one persuasively yet on any other basis than 'this is Catholic teaching and therefore must be right'. That argument is only persuasive and only validates itself if one accepts the teaching of the RCC as authoritative in its totality.
That's not true at all. People have pointed out that that interpretation may be a colorable reading of Mk 10:9, but it's harder to square with Lk 16:18 (and Mk 10:11-12) or 1 Co 7:10-11 – and especially the way the early church interpreted these verses. The fact that the RCC is unwilling to ignore this "cloud of witnesses" is hardly a "because we said so" argument.

quote:
Fifth, if two Catholics have, in breach of Catholic teaching, divorced, and married other people, does the RCC recognise at all, that by doing so, they have entered into serious and binding commitments of fidelity to their new spouses? Or does it say that they should dump any new spouse they have, and any children they have had together, irrespective of whether their first spouse is willing to dump their new spouse or not?
If there are appropriate pastoral reasons, like the fact that the new couple is raising children, they may be able to continue to live together tamquam frater et soror (as the canon lawyers coyly phrase it), as implied by CCC 1650.

quote:
Sixth, what is the Catholic understanding of Lev 24:1-4?
The Catholic understanding acknowledges the obvious fact that divorce was permitted under Jewish law.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Russ

In the end, it is a matter of authority. The pastoral proposals you suggest seem very sensible to me (of course they would) but they can only be implemented if the Roman Catholic Church does the implementing. Which will not happen if those responsible for such a general implementation see them as "squaring the circle", as Arethosemyfeet puts it.

I do believe that from the beginning marriage was intended for life. Like you, I also believe that the best possible pastoral care and consideration should be given to those for whom this has not worked out. That is also the position of Catholics. But we don't agree on what is best or possible. That's the sadness.

[ 03. November 2014, 08:29: 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
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Seems to me that the Anglican Communion is the ideal for many if not most Roman Catholics in the West. Actually changing churches would be too much trouble. So, they hold out hope that one day Rome will turn into Canterbury.

quote:
Besides, if it is just a hope, why not find a church that believes what you actually believe and put your hope in that?

It seems to me that many cradle Catholics who would never consider being anything else, live in open rebellion to Church teaching, but square it with their conscience along the way. I've spoken to Catholics who believe in married priests, women priests, who ignore Humanae Vitae, support gay unions and approve of communion for the remarried. This was what, at least in the West, the faithful told the Synod in last year's questionnaire. But a convert can't be like that! Converts should all be like IngoB. They joined up to a package and they should accept it.

That is why, after much soul searching, on Sunday 2nd November, I was received back into the Church of England. When I joined the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in 2011, I thought it was the logical end point of Anglo-Catholicism. The Holy Father had responded to requests worldwide for a pathway back to full communion. I also thought that Anglo-Catholicism was dying, especially when Monsignori Newton, Broadhurst and Burnham quit their positions as Anglican suffragen bishops, and became the first to be received into the Ordinariate. I had for many years loved such catholic things as solemn worship, praying for the dead and asking the intercessions of the saints. But I jumped too quickly.

As the late Ken, whose contributions I miss greatly, used to say, his experiences of Anglo-Catholics is that they are very formal in their style of worship, but are often theologically liberal. I fit comfortably with that definition. I am not suited to obedience to the Magisterium. I love the impress of Catholic spirituality combined with the freedom of thought from the Protestant tradition. I disagree profoundly with Humanae Vitae, seeing it as dangerous in an overcrowded world with a large HIV problem. If we don't eventually limit world population, famine and war will do it for us. Of course the Church tells us that abstaining from sex will solve most human problems, governed as it is by its Manichean dualism, but it isn't reality.

Neither do I agree with Apostolicae Curae. The Orthodox Church rejects ecumenism because it believes that the rest of the world has schismated away from it and its only way back is to repent of being in schism. Catholics accept Orthodox orders, but the differences over marriage among many other things are serious. They reject the validity of other ecclesial communities. I've never gone in for the "my sacraments are more valid that yours" arguement. When two or three people are gathered. So this is the end point of a year of deep reflection on the issues raised at this synod, among many others.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Votive] for you PaulTH.

I find a lot of things about the RCC attractive, but like you I cannot accept Humanae Vitae, or Apostolicae Curae. In short I don't think I could, in all conscience, be received into the RCC, though I long for the unity of the Church. Fortunately for me the SEC is probably a better fit for me than the CofE is for you, but I hope you manage to be satisfied with the decision you have made.

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jesus' and Paul's literalist interpreters said so and that makes them a cloud of witnesses?

--------------------
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      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Converts should all be like IngoB. They joined up to a package and they should accept it.

Well... Converts should all accept their faith in their mind and their heart, and turn it into practice. I'm pretty darn good at one out of three. And if we average over all three, then I agree that converts shouldn't really do much worse than me. That does not however mean that I think all converts have to be like me in how they accept their new faith...

(For the mathematically inclined: consider mind, heart and practice as three axes of a 3D coordinate system. Then there is a minimal radius away from the origin of "zero faith" one should get across to be a decent convert. I've done that to a considerable extent by moving along one axis. That does not mean that there isn't an entire sphere of other directions of travel by which one can get across this limit...)

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
That is why, after much soul searching, on Sunday 2nd November, I was received back into the Church of England.

Makes perfect sense to me, from a purely "formal" point of view. Of course, my faith tells me that I should feel really sad about this and be very concerned about the state of your soul now. But since I remain a self-centred grumpy bastard I mostly feel relief that there will be no more of these cognitive dissonances induced by Anglican squaring of Catholic circles....

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
So this is the end point of a year of deep reflection on the issues raised at this synod, among many others.

We will see if this is going to be a general trend. I would cautiously welcome that. I think the "numbers" game has been overdone in the West.

[ 05. November 2014, 21:39: 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
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A friend of mine recently converted to the RCC, while still ticking all of Paul TH's boxes: supports married priests, women priests, ignores Humanae Vitae, supports gay unions and approves of communion for the remarried. He intends to campaign for reform from within.

I don't understand all of his reasons, but I feel more comfortable with InigoB's position - if you convert your intention should be to go for broke.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, my faith tells me that I should feel really sad about this and be very concerned about the state of your soul now.

In Robert Bolt's masterful play, "A Man For All Seasons" when Sir Thomas More is on the scaffold, he says to the executioner, "Be not afraid for your office, for you send me to God." To which Cranmer replies, "Are you so sure of that, Sir Thomas?" More then says, "He will not refuse one who is so blythe to go to Him."

I've always believed that I can make my own peace with God. Another reason which would make me a bad Catholic! But I trust in His mercy which I genuinely seek every day of my life. Perhaps I'm wrong and I'll pay the price. Who really knows?

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849

 - Posted      Profile for Jon in the Nati   Email Jon in the Nati   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
It seems to me that many cradle Catholics who would never consider being anything else, live in open rebellion to Church teaching, but square it with their conscience along the way.
The Catholic Church is the Hotel California of churches. You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.

Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
... That is why, after much soul searching, on Sunday 2nd November, I was received back into the Church of England. ...

Welcome home PaulTH*.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PaulTH I have always found it interesting to read
your thoughts with their honest searching after what you see as the truth, as well as your explanations of the difficulties you found and no doubt still find, when one is in full communion with the wider Catholic church.

You have given Catholicism a try and have, I think, noted the huge differences of emphasis between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.

Whilst one can be fairly sure of what the Catholic Church teaches, it is much more difficult to KNOW what the ordinary Catholic actually believes.

Many Catholics ,sometimes out of ignorance,sometimes because of intellectual limitations and other times through honest disagreements, are unable to give 100% assent to all of the Church's teachings.

It doesn't necessarily mean that they will abandon everything because of this.The Church is a community of the faithful and all should be able to feel a welcome and a sense of belonging,no
matter what stage of their religious journey they are at.

For those who have come from another religious community that 'sense of belonging' often still belongs to the earlier community which they have known and understood for so long.

Though,of course,in a way,I am sad, that you have chosen to go back to the Church of England , I wish you well.

What unites us,in our love of God and man,in our desire to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ,is so much more important that our limited understanding of ecclesiastical differences.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Welcome home PaulTH.

Thank you Enoch. I've come back with a newfound appreciation for things I used to take for granted, like welcoming all who present themselves at the Lord's Table, with the spiritual sustenance they need to grow into ever closer union with Christ.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
What unites us,in our love of God and man,in our desire to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ,is so much more important that our limited understanding of ecclesiastical differences.

That's the most important thing which unites ALL Christians, and the various Christain groups probably understand each other much better now than they did 50 years ago. From The Windsor Statement it was established that there's no substantial difference between Catholic and Anglican understanding of the Eucharist. I just find it difficult to accept how the Church can judge people to be unworthy to receive the Eucharist because of, for example, sexual orientation. None of us is worthy, which is why the Book of Common Prayer says:

"And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences..."

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Paul TH, I meant to say welcome back at the end of my last post too. Forgive me; I have a bad habit of posting when I really should be sleeping.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
What unites us,in our love of God and man,in our desire to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ,is so much more important that our limited understanding of ecclesiastical differences.

That's the most important thing which unites ALL Christians, and the various Christain groups probably understand each other much better now than they did 50 years ago.
Now, it is really difficult to pinpoint the damage that such appeasement does, because its very design principle is to sound nice. However, the sweet irony of someone affirming this who has just changed denomination - again - over presumably serious concerns makes it slightly easier to see the true nature of such apparently salubrious affirmations. Actually, PaulTH* here undermines the very actions he has just taken. But in fact the ecclesiastic differences are very important, both in a general sense and in a personal sense; and the understanding individuals, like PaulTH*, have thereof indeed can be sufficient to motivate them to switch denominations. There might be everything wrong with the decision PaulTH* has made, from a RC perspective, but it is neither wrong nor indeed petty that he has made it. Of course, I do not for a second believe that Forthview said this in order to cleverly attack the decision PaulTH* has made. It is part of the nastiness of this "niceness" that it is usually produced in order to be nice to another. But such proclamations of faux unity through vague motivations actually are damaging, as they implicitly suggest that we all really should be able to step beyond these minor squabble that separate us. Yet they are not that minor and stepping beyond them would precisely be a betrayal of that mission that supposedly (but not actually) unites us all.

I sometimes wonder if my allergic reaction to words like those of Forthview here is not some kind of strange malfunction of my mind. It is occasions like this one that convince me that it is more like being able to taste the drop of arsenic that has been mixed into some delicious almond dessert.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
From The Windsor Statement it was established that there's no substantial difference between Catholic and Anglican understanding of the Eucharist. I just find it difficult to accept how the Church can judge people to be unworthy to receive the Eucharist because of, for example, sexual orientation.

The RCC does not deny anybody the Eucharist over their sexual orientation, but some over their sexual practice. However, going beyond such typical and crucial imprecision, we see here the same problem once more. Is the contradiction in the two statements that you have made not apparent to you? Is it not clear that either RC and Anglican doctrine on the Eucharist differ as demonstrated by their practice, and that if the ARCIC document fails to reflect that then it does not reflect the fullness of these respective understandings. And that if the ARCIC document fails to provide a caveat about that, then it is misleading, however nicely "unitive" it might sound? Or that you are implicitly claiming that the RCC is not true in her practice to her own principles? And if you wish to make such a harsh claim, then would it not be better to do so openly and clearly?

There is something really shady about this kind of "niceness". It is not as "neutral" as it pretends to be. A lot is going on here under the cover of "unity" and "agreement". Some sweetness is rotten and should be thrown away. Some bitter is health giving medicine.

--------------------
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
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

...
I sometimes wonder if my allergic reaction to words like those of Forthview here is not some kind of strange malfunction of my mind. It is occasions like this one that convince me that it is more like being able to taste the drop of arsenic that has been mixed into some delicious almond dessert.

Arsenic is tasteless so good luck with that. You may be thinking of cyanide which tastes like bitter almonds and so would blend into an almond dessert.


quote:

There is something really shady about this kind of "niceness". It is not as "neutral" as it pretends to be. A lot is going on here under the cover of "unity" and "agreement". Some sweetness is rotten and should be thrown away. Some bitter is health giving medicine.

And some bitter is deadly poison. That's one of the reasons children rarely like bitter tastes.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Arsenic is tasteless so good luck with that. You may be thinking of cyanide which tastes like bitter almonds and so would blend into an almond dessert.

Yep, thanks.

--------------------
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
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
From The Windsor Statement it was established that there's no substantial difference between Catholic and Anglican understanding of the Eucharist.

Whatever else is or is not the case, that claim is simply false. Apart from anything else, with what particular "Anglican understanding" of the Eucharist - of which there are many - is the WS compatible? You speak as if there was some official consensus about the Eucharist within Anglicanism with which that statement concurs. I think you'll find there isn't.

Further, and of more importance to me, even that statement conveniently muffles the very bits of Catholic eucharistic theology which the vast majority of Anglicans do not accept. How many Anglicans could sign up to this, for example:
quote:
The Mass is a true and proper sacrifice which is offered to God. The Holy Mass is one and the same Sacrifice with that of the Cross, inasmuch as Christ, who offered himself, a bleeding victim, on the Cross to his heavenly Father, continues to offer himself in an unbloody manner on the altar, through the ministry of his priests.

The Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or simply a memorial of the sacrifice on the Cross. It is a propitiatory sacrifice which is offered for the living and dead, for the remission of sins and punishment due to sin, as satisfaction for sin and for other necessities.

Because that is what the Catholic Church believes.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Whatever else is or is not the case, that claim is simply false. Apart from anything else, with what particular "Anglican understanding" of the Eucharist - of which there are many - is the WS compatible? You speak as if there was some official consensus about the Eucharist within Anglicanism with which that statement concurs. I think you'll find there isn't.

Further, and of more importance to me, even that statement conveniently muffles the very bits of Catholic eucharistic theology which the vast majority of Anglicans do not accept. How many Anglicans could sign up to this, for example:
quote:
The Mass is a true and proper sacrifice which is offered to God. The Holy Mass is one and the same Sacrifice with that of the Cross, inasmuch as Christ, who offered himself, a bleeding victim, on the Cross to his heavenly Father, continues to offer himself in an unbloody manner on the altar, through the ministry of his priests.

The Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or simply a memorial of the sacrifice on the Cross. It is a propitiatory sacrifice which is offered for the living and dead, for the remission of sins and punishment due to sin, as satisfaction for sin and for other necessities.

Because that is what the Catholic Church believes.
Chesterbelloc, two questions.

First, from which of the many documents on this important subjects does that come?

Second, is it saying that each mass is a new propitiatory sacrifice or that it is propitiatory because it identifies itself with and makes present, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, which is the real propitiation i.e. re-presents as distinct from represents?

As you may well know, we describe this in the Book of Common Prayer as
quote:
"(by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world".
If that document is saying the latter, a great many Anglicans would not actually have a problem. It is at the point where it might be interpreted as saying the former that I suspect even many high church Anglicans would start to get worried. You might accuse me of confusing symbol and actuality, but it sounds tantamount to saying that at each mass Christ is re-crucified.

[ 07. November 2014, 09:42: Message edited by: Enoch ]

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is it not clear that either RC and Anglican doctrine on the Eucharist differ as demonstrated by their practice, and that if the ARCIC document fails to reflect that then it does not reflect the fullness of these respective understandings. And that if the ARCIC document fails to provide a caveat about that, then it is misleading, however nicely "unitive" it might sound? Or that you are implicitly claiming that the RCC is not true in her practice to her own principles? And if you wish to make such a harsh claim, then would it not be better to do so openly and clearly?

Well Ingo, you've certainy greeted my "niceness" with a note of harshness. I'm not claiming implicitly or otherwise that the RCC isn't true to its practice. I can see Chesterbelloc's point that there isn't a single understanding of the Eucharist within Anglicanism, which demands the question for whom do these statements speak? But theologians and churchmen of much greater intellect than mine have participated for more than 40 years in the ARCIC process, and from time to time they've issued agreed statements on a concilatory note, which I welcome. Neither Forthview nor myself were making statements of appeasement, Neville Chamberlain style. John Hume, former leader of Northern Ireland's SDLP, once said of peace talks, "Agreement threatens no one." Of course there are issues which divide the churches, or we'd all be one, as Christ commanded, but let's celebrate the many areas where there is agreement, rather than looking for war and schism!

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second, is it saying that each mass is a new propitiatory sacrifice or that it is propitiatory because it identifies itself with and makes present, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, which is the real propitiation i.e. re-presents as distinct from represents?

I think there's a danger of overdefinition. I have no difficulty in believing that the Mass represents the sacrifice on the cross. I have no difficulty in saying that Christ is truly present in the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. But, like the atonement, it's best left a mystery beyond our understanding. The more tightly it gets defined the more exclusive and schismatic it becomes.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry to double post, but in this document under the heading "Substantial Agreement" we read:

2.The Commission was not asked to produce a comprehensive treatise on the eucharist, but only to examine differences which in the controversies of the past divided our two communions. The aim of the Commission has been to see whether we can today discover substantial agreement in faith on the eucharist. Questions have been asked about the meaning of substantial agreement. It means that the document represents not only the judgement of all its members � i.e. it is an agreement � but their unanimous agreement �on essential matters where it considers that doctrine admits no divergence' (Ministry, para. 17) � i.e. it is a substantial agreement. Members of the Commission are united in their conviction �that if there are any remaining points of disagreement they can be resolved on the principles here established' (Eucharist, para. 12).

It can't be much clearer that the Catholic members of the ommission put their names to that document. It doesn't say that there aren't possible remaining points of disagreement, but does emphasise that it's a substantial agreement. It's enough for a liberal like me, but perhaps not for IngoB and Chesterbelloc!

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry typo! I meant Commission not ommission. Trying to type too fast while working!

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Converts should all be like IngoB. They joined up to a package and they should accept it.

Well... Converts should all accept their faith in their mind and their heart, and turn it into practice. I'm pretty darn good at one out of three. And if we average over all three, then I agree that converts shouldn't really do much worse than me. That does not however mean that I think all converts have to be like me in how they accept their new faith...

(For the mathematically inclined: consider mind, heart and practice as three axes of a 3D coordinate system. Then there is a minimal radius away from the origin of "zero faith" one should get across to be a decent convert. I've done that to a considerable extent by moving along one axis. That does not mean that there isn't an entire sphere of other directions of travel by which one can get across this limit...)


This gives me hope. It often seems to me that the more strongly I assent to faith in my heart, the more impossible it seems that I will ever live up to it.

As I've said before on threads on similar subjects, I wish I knew if Lord Marchmain gets to heaven. And Henry Scobie.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools