|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod Oct 2014
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
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.
Me, for one.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Good for Leo if he accepts this,but I ,for one,doubt ,if the average Anglican in the pew thinks much about this. Neither,if I may be allowed to say so, do a good number of Catholics. Not in the sense that they would necessarily doubt it,but that they would simply rarely think about it.
The Mass,is the Mass,is the Mass, is the weekly assembly of the Christian people.Those who attend are strengthened in their faith and ready to face what the week may bring.
IngoB may be allergic to my 'faux' niceness( or real nastiness),but there is room in the Catholic Church for all. That is for me the wonderful thing about the Church.
I admire IngoB's knowledge,understanding and technical ability to explain the doctrines of the
Church.We need people like him.In the past the Church, as indeed also various ecclesial bodies,saw things in terms of black and white.
Anyone who was not in complete agreement was considered as destined for Hell.
The purpose of the Church is to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ,to remind our fellow human beings that God loves us and that we ,in turn, should do our best to love Him and to love our neighbour. That is not fluffiness.It is hard work.
Yes,as we investigate how we proclaim the Good News,we come across the good side and the not so good side of humanity.
Those who cannot,for one reason or another, accept the teachings of the Church,may be declared to be 'heretics' to use a technically correct word,but is it the best word to use in today's world ? Can we not be more positive ?
We are all affected in some way or another by our
early experiences.Had I not been exposed to Catholicism in my early days, I might have seen things differently. Had I not had both Anglican and Presbyterian relatives, I might not have had the same understanding of Protestants. Had my understanding of Catholicism only come from the Catholic ghettoes in the sectarian Glasgow of the
1950s,instead of also from my Austrian Catholic (and Protestant) relatives,things might have been different.
PaulTH has no doubt had a different background,as
also IngoB and ChesterBelloc,but there is room for us all in God's House - I do hope !
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... The Mass, is the Mass, is the Mass, is the weekly assembly of the Christian people. Those who attend are strengthened in their faith and ready to face what the week may bring. ...
Except that they'd be more likely to call it Holy Communion, a lot of CofE people would say the same. In both cases, I suspect they are a lot nearer the truth than the dogmatists are.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC does not deny anybody the Eucharist over their sexual orientation, but some over their sexual practice.
The only offer you can make to those people whose sexual orientation you disapprove of is lifelong celibacy. I think celibacy is a very high calling, but one given to the few. Attempts to impose it from an outside hierarchy will always be a recipe for disaster as the many scandals in the Church demonstrate. For the vast majority of such people, your requirements for them are an unrealistic non-starter. That spells exclusion in any language.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
How many Anglicans could sign up to this, for example:
Like leo, I probably could sign up to it, but it would be irrelevant if I could or not from your pov, because under the terms of Apostolicae Curae Anglican orders are "absolutely null and utterly void." So you wouldn't accept that any Anglican is ever at a Mass which is a sacrifice in which the Body and Blood of Christ is given and received. Needless to say I disagree, and I suspect leo does as well, though he's capable of answering for himself.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The only offer you can make to those people whose sexual orientation you disapprove of is lifelong celibacy. I think celibacy is a very high calling, but one given to the few. Attempts to impose it from an outside hierarchy will always be a recipe for disaster as the many scandals in the Church demonstrate. For the vast majority of such people, your requirements for them are an unrealistic non-starter. That spells exclusion in any language.
You probably mean continence, not celibacy.
See, Erroneous Monk has actual faith. That's what it sound like when you are not making up shit about yourself or God. For you it's just not possible that people could be damaged goods and that obedience to God will cost them dearly, indeed taxes them to the limits of their strength and beyond. But that's just a basic experience of faith.
You are basically running around shouting "don't worry, God is all merciful, He is fresh out of crosses." The hell He is, you are just out of faith. It is kind of ironic that we are discussing the gays again, as if RC sexual morals for heterosexuals was something you find perfectly achievable. Brief reminder: no sex at all, including no masturbation, but possibly with one exclusive partner till death, and no contraception there (thus either lots of continence within marriage or lots of kids, for most of us who are fertile). And if that one relationship fails, it's just too fucking bad for you - which happens to be a big part of what this thread is supposed to be about. Did this suddenly become acceptable to you? Or is it not rather the case that you find that almost as unachievable? The apostles did. So really everybody is excluded, not just the gays...
And you are right, of course. By human means, this cannot be achieved (or perhaps only with tremendous luck). As far as sexual morals go, near every faithful will get their own human insufficiency and their need for grace rubbed into their face over and over again. Practically, not just theoretically. And yes, perhaps a gay RC has been given a bigger cross than I have. Since when do crosses come in one regulation size?! But tell me, since you are sizing up crosses, the heterosexual who would love to find someone to marry and have sex and children with, but never manages to - does he or she bear a greater cross than the homosexual, or not? As an expert in anti-crossology I'm sure you have some ideas how to help these poor souls out? I hear temple prostitution was highly popular in India, maybe we should consider that as a basic charitable service the church should offer?
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But tell me, since you are sizing up crosses, the heterosexual who would love to find someone to marry and have sex and children with, but never manages to - does he or she bear a greater cross than the homosexual, or not? As an expert in anti-crossology I'm sure you have some ideas how to help these poor souls out? I hear temple prostitution was highly popular in India, maybe we should consider that as a basic charitable service the church should offer?
Who knows IngoB?
But, just be very clear, that all these crosses are placed on people by the RC Church. Not by God.
I would say 90% of the burdens placed on RC people are completely unnecessary and ignored. None of the RC people I know adhere to them all, or want to do so. I have many RC friends who use contraception - if asked why they say the Church is wrong. Well done them I say!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But, just be very clear, that all these crosses are placed on people by the RC Church. Not by God. I would say 90% of the burdens placed on RC people are completely unnecessary and ignored. None of the RC people I know adhere to them all, or want to do so. I have many RC friends who use contraception - if asked why they say the Church is wrong. Well done them I say!
I do not expect you to believe that the RCC speaks for God in these matters (or others). I do not particularly expect either for RCs to succeed in following RC strictures on intimate relationships. Sex has always been the most common "everyday" point of failure. I even respect RCs who fight for the RCC to change on these matters, as enemies. But where I encounter this shoulder shrugging, comfortable ignoring of Church doctrine and discipline, I just don't get it. Why the heck are these people not just leaving the RCC? It's not like there aren't tons of churches out there who teach exactly what they think is right...
--------------------
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Brief reminder: no sex at all, including no masturbation, but possibly with one exclusive partner till death, and no contraception there (thus either lots of continence within marriage or lots of kids, for most of us who are fertile). And if that one relationship fails, it's just too fucking bad for you - which happens to be a big part of what this thread is supposed to be about.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But, just be very clear, that all these crosses are placed on people by the RC Church. Not by God .
I agree with Boogie's one line answer to IngoB's point here. Of course there are people who never connect in life, and it can be a great burden. But that isn't a cross imposed from without, it's just a rather sad life situation. In such a case, how could masturbation be a sin?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In such a case, how could masturbation be a sin?
I thought we'd established that the answer here is that the RCC says it is, therefore it must be so? And anyone who disagrees with that doesn't have any faith.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In such a case, how could masturbation be a sin?
As far as sex goes, the RCC says exactly one thing is allowed, and all else is forbidden. Far be it from me trying to convince you of this. My point here is much simpler. The Church isn't targeting gays. Or the remarried. Or the lonely. Or adolescents. The Church is not in the business of making their lives hard. The Church is in the business of defending a truth she believes to have learned from God, and as it happens that truth makes everybody's life hard, and yes, for some a lot harder than for others. But it simply is not some mean-spirited crusade by the Church against this group or that. And if God's providence does not include a chance for intimate love for you, then that is a big cross God has given you to carry, in the eyes of a Church that believes in this truth. It does not matter whether this is because you are attracted to the same sex, or because you never find a person of the opposite sex. Or because your marriage has failed, for that matter.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But where I encounter this shoulder shrugging, comfortable ignoring of Church doctrine and discipline, I just don't get it. Why the heck are these people not just leaving the RCC? It's not like there aren't tons of churches out there who teach exactly what they think is right...
Because they love the Church family but dislike many of its doctrines.
For much the same reasons that this liberal universalist attends a con-evo Church every Sunday. They are my family, I love them and I love spending time with them. They do an amazing amount of good in the world. I just don't happen to believe the same things as they do any more. So what? There are much, much more important things in life than agreeing on Church doctrine!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Pope Francis removed Cardinal Raymond Burke from the Congregation of Bishops
To replace Cardinal Burke, Francis chose Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, an ideological moderate with a deep knowledge of the Vatican but also with pastoral experience. Father Reese noted that Cardinal Burke had been a leader of American bishops arguing that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be barred from receiving communion, while Cardinal Wuerl had taken an opposite tack.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
The flip side is that Cardinal Burke will now have more freedom to speak and travel. Anyone who thinks this is the last we'll hear from Cardinal Burke will be sorely, sorely disappointed.
I'm one of those who happens to think there is a method to the Pope's madness. A lot of sunlight will be cast upon the hierarchy and things will be revealed. In the long term it will be good for the Catholic Church (and not in the way a lot of shipmates might think).
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not expect you to believe that the RCC speaks for God in these matters (or others). I do not particularly expect either for RCs to succeed in following RC strictures on intimate relationships. Sex has always been the most common "everyday" point of failure. I even respect RCs who fight for the RCC to change on these matters, as enemies. But where I encounter this shoulder shrugging, comfortable ignoring of Church doctrine and discipline, I just don't get it. Why the heck are these people not just leaving the RCC? It's not like there aren't tons of churches out there who teach exactly what they think is right...
They probably think that schism is bad and it's simpler to ignore rules they find impractical as much as possible. It's not like they haven't had a lot of examples over the years from the hierarchy; e.g. the treatment of the issues this symposium is trying to address. And oddly enough, the Church doesn't seem all that interested in issuing ultimatums that all the Catholic couples that use contraception must change their practice or leave the Church.
[ 09. November 2014, 00:02: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
For much the same reasons that this liberal universalist attends a con-evo Church every Sunday. They are my family, I love them and I love spending time with them.
I'd love to say "fair enough" to this. Really, I do. Unfortunately, I don't think that it is...
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
And oddly enough, the Church doesn't seem all that interested in issuing ultimatums that all the Catholic couples that use contraception must change their practice or leave the Church.
There is basically no offence over which the Church would ask somebody to leave her, neither genocide nor child rape nor anything else a human can do takes them out of the remit of the Church. Contraception is not even an offence threatened with automatic excommunication (which is not "leaving the Church"), like say abortion. It is classed a simple "mortal sin", and as such is dealt with through self-reporting in confession. I see no good reason why the Church should change that.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But where I encounter this shoulder shrugging, comfortable ignoring of Church doctrine and discipline, I just don't get it. Why the heck are these people not just leaving the RCC? It's not like there aren't tons of churches out there who teach exactly what they think is right...
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is basically no offence over which the Church would ask somebody to leave her, neither genocide nor child rape nor anything else a human can do takes them out of the remit of the Church. Contraception is not even an offence threatened with automatic excommunication (which is not "leaving the Church"), like say abortion. It is classed a simple "mortal sin", and as such is dealt with through self-reporting in confession. I see no good reason why the Church should change that.
Indeed. And when these people shrug off self-reporting such sins as using contraception, why exactly would they leave? They're not being asked to leave, and they perhaps they have tolerance and affection for what they view as an imperfect Church with imperfect doctrine and discipline. They might not have any higher expectation for other churches or like the drama of laps in the Tiber.
[ 09. November 2014, 01:25: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But where I encounter this shoulder shrugging, comfortable ignoring of Church doctrine and discipline, I just don't get it. Why the heck are these people not just leaving the RCC? It's not like there aren't tons of churches out there who teach exactly what they think is right...
Because that's Protestant ecclesiology - lots of valid churches and you choose the one you agree with most.
Catholic ecclesiology is one universal church that God wants everyone to belong to (even when the hierarchy get things wrong).[/QB][/QUOTE]
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
And when these people shrug off self-reporting such sins as using contraception, why exactly would they leave? They're not being asked to leave, and they perhaps they have tolerance and affection for what they view as an imperfect Church with imperfect doctrine and discipline. They might not have any higher expectation for other churches or like the drama of laps in the Tiber.
They are not being asked to leave. They are being asked to stop sinning and go to confession. And a "mortal sin" is one that considered by and in itself condemns you to eternal hell. It blows my mind that anyone would shrug off that kind of disagreement. Or rather, of course it doesn't. Because this invariably means that the whole thing is not being taken seriously. What blows my mind is that people will maintain a kind of cultural association, or a community hang out, over and above the express purpose of Church (well, certainly of the RCC, I can't speak for all churches there). Church there really becomes just a stage, a backdrop, for something else. I do not hate that something else. I just wish they would take it elsewhere.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Catholic ecclesiology is one universal church that God wants everyone to belong to (even when the hierarchy get things wrong).
That's a convenient half-truth. Catholic ecclesiology says that the hierarchy does not get things wrong, at least not at the key doctrinal level concerning faith and morals. If you are happily ignoring the hierarchy on such matters, by the lights of your own private judgement, then you are already operating in a Protestant mode and might as well do some Protestant church shopping.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Catholic ecclesiology says that the hierarchy does not get things wrong, at least not at the key doctrinal level concerning faith and morals.
If you'd said that Catholic doctrine is that the hierarchy are right even when they're wrong, I'd believe you.
There doesn't seem to be a third way between one church and many.
It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways - the RCC as a body of Christians who are in complete agreement in believing X, Y and Z, with all the dissenters in other churches each likewise internally in agreement. And the RCC as the universal church, the body of all believers, all the saved.
But maybe that's a tangent...
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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
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.
Me, for one.
This seems a tangent to the central topic of this thread, but I must say I find Chesterbelloc's formulation incompatible here, at least as given, with even high Anglican eucharistic theology. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the making present sacramentally in the here-and-now of the one eternal sacrifice of Christ - Priest and Victim - once made upon the cross of Calvary. The Mass is a type of time travel, if you will, in which the people of God are drawn into the great Sacrifice of Christ, which is an eternal sacrifice operating within the economy of the Triune God, a sacrifice that to us - bound to linear time - appears to have been a sacrifice that occurred at a particular moment in time, but which is an ongoing reality within the eternity that is beyond our limited perceptions of linear time. The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice inasmuch as it makes present this one eternal sacrifice, but it must be emphasised that each Mass offered is not a new sacrifice or in any way separate from the one, true, perfect, and all sufficient atoning Sacrifice made upon the altar of the Cross. Moreover, the real, ultimate Priest in the Sacrifice of the Mass is Christ himself. The ordained Christian priesthood, assisted by all the gathered faithful, follow the command of Christ, who himself , by the operation of the Holy Spirit, makes the Sacrifice present.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Catholic ecclesiology is one universal church that God wants everyone to belong to (even when the hierarchy get things wrong).
That's a convenient half-truth. Catholic ecclesiology says that the hierarchy does not get things wrong, at least not at the key doctrinal level concerning faith and morals. If you are happily ignoring the hierarchy on such matters, by the lights of your own private judgement, then you are already operating in a Protestant mode and might as well do some Protestant church shopping.
But IngoB you've already said that if the RCC changed its position on what you'd regard as certain key domas/doctrines, you'd feel so let down, you couldn't be a Catholic in any more.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
This seems a tangent to the central topic of this thread, but I must say I find Chesterbelloc's formulation incompatible here, at least as given, with even high Anglican eucharistic theology. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the making present sacramentally in the here-and-now of the one eternal sacrifice of Christ - Priest and Victim - once made upon the cross of Calvary. The Mass is a type of time travel, if you will, in which the people of God are drawn into the great Sacrifice of Christ, which is an eternal sacrifice operating within the economy of the Triune God, a sacrifice that to us - bound to linear time - appears to have been a sacrifice that occurred at a particular moment in time, but which is an ongoing reality within the eternity that is beyond our limited perceptions of linear time. The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice inasmuch as it makes present this one eternal sacrifice, but it must be emphasised that each Mass offered is not a new sacrifice or in any way separate from the one, true, perfect, and all sufficient atoning Sacrifice made upon the altar of the Cross. Moreover, the real, ultimate Priest in the Sacrifice of the Mass is Christ himself. The ordained Christian priesthood, assisted by all the gathered faithful, follow the command of Christ, who himself , by the operation of the Holy Spirit, makes the Sacrifice present.
I wouldn't say I was very high in my Eucharistic theology but I see nothing there that, as an Anglican, I would disagree with. Indeed Christ's status as both priest and offering in the Eucharist features in the very mainstream hymn "Alleluia, sing to Jesus" (which even the Church of Scotland find satisfactory). The eternal and singular nature of the sacrifice is perhaps more controversial, but still mainstream enough for the quotation from Corinthians "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast" to be used liturgically with reference to the Eucharist. And again looking at hymnology, the concept is sufficiently mainstream to appear in Hymns Ancient & Modern (and many other Anglican hymnals) in the beautiful hymn "And now O Father mindful of the love" with the word "that only offering perfect in thy sight, the one true pure immortal sacrifice".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways - the RCC as a body of Christians who are in complete agreement in believing X, Y and Z, with all the dissenters in other churches each likewise internally in agreement. And the RCC as the universal church, the body of all believers, all the saved.
This is too simplistic to capture my actual thinking. But it is close enough for me to point out that there is no contradiction between these two statements, and that hence one can indeed have them both at once.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But IngoB you've already said that if the RCC changed its position on what you'd regard as certain key domas/doctrines, you'd feel so let down, you couldn't be a Catholic in any more.
Indeed. This is of course completely consistent. The RCC cannot change her key teachings of faith and morals. Because if there is a substantial change in those, then either what she taught before was true, or what she teaches now, but not both. Such change would hence demonstrate unequivocally that her claim to have Divine assistance that protect her from grave error is false. At which point the RCC becomes no more and no less than any Protestant or Anglican church. And I sincerely have no interest in such churches, at all.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But where I encounter this shoulder shrugging, comfortable ignoring of Church doctrine and discipline, I just don't get it. Why the heck are these people not just leaving the RCC? It's not like there aren't tons of churches out there who teach exactly what they think is right...
Because that's Protestant ecclesiology - lots of valid churches and you choose the one you agree with most.
Catholic ecclesiology is one universal church that God wants everyone to belong to (even when the hierarchy get things wrong).
[/QB][/QUOTE]
If one rejects all of the distinctively Roman Catholic doctrines, then how is it that the RCC is the church one agrees with most?
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by IngoB:
At which point the RCC becomes no more and no less than any Protestant or Anglican church. And I sincerely have no interest in such churches, at all.
I suspect liberal Catholics don't want the RCC to be anything more than another Protestant or Anglican church. The exclusivist claims the RCC makes about itself embarrasses them. So, traditionalist and liberals both realize the consequences of the RCC changing it's teaching will be. You disagree on whether or not that is a bad thing or a good thing.
My sympathies are with the traditionalists. Roman Catholic traditionalists have no place else to go. Liberal Catholics have all the other Protestant and Anglican churches.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But IngoB you've already said that if the RCC changed its position on what you'd regard as certain key domas/doctrines, you'd feel so let down, you couldn't be a Catholic in any more.
Indeed. This is of course completely consistent. The RCC cannot change her key teachings of faith and morals. Because if there is a substantial change in those, then either what she taught before was true, or what she teaches now, but not both. Such change would hence demonstrate unequivocally that her claim to have Divine assistance that protect her from grave error is false. At which point the RCC becomes no more and no less than any Protestant or Anglican church. And I sincerely have no interest in such churches, at all.
Then three queries:-
1. If that did happen, what would be the reason for saying that the RCC was absolutely 100% right on the 9th November 2014, rather than, say, the 28th June 1868 or the 10th October 1962, but it isn't any more?
2. What is the basis for believing that there is one ecclesial community that has got everything right, and all the others are slightly or very off-beam? It's quite disturbing that you seem to be saying that if you came to the conclusion the RCC had got something wrong, was not quite perfect, you would not have any interest in it any more. Isn't there a risk that this is putting one's trust in an earthly institution, and then feeling let down if it doesn't live up to one's aspirations for it, rather than in God? If this happened, where would you go? Would it put at risk your walk of faith?
3. This is a sort of an aside in a way, but I've aired it before. Why personify the RCC as 'she' or at all?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why personify the RCC as 'she' or at all?
I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some months ago.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
The RCC cannot change her key teachings of faith and morals. Because if there is a substantial change in those, then either what she taught before was true, or what she teaches now, but not both. Such change would hence demonstrate unequivocally that her claim to have Divine assistance that protect her from grave error is false.
Why does the RCC make this claim? It doesn't seem to be covered in Petrine supremacy (even if that is the correct way to interpret Matt 16. 17-19). Was the claim first made during the Reformation, or does it go back to the split with the Orthodox? Or something else?
[ 09. November 2014, 18:36: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Why does the RCC make this claim? It doesn't seem to be covered in Petrine supremacy (even if that is the correct way to interpret Matt 16. 17-19). Was the claim first made during the Reformation, or does it go back to the split with the Orthodox? Or something else?
Is it not thought to be implicit in "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
This seems a tangent to the central topic of this thread, but I must say I find Chesterbelloc's formulation incompatible here, at least as given, with even high Anglican eucharistic theology. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the making present sacramentally in the here-and-now of the one eternal sacrifice of Christ - Priest and Victim - once made upon the cross of Calvary. The Mass is a type of time travel, if you will, in which the people of God are drawn into the great Sacrifice of Christ, which is an eternal sacrifice operating within the economy of the Triune God, a sacrifice that to us - bound to linear time - appears to have been a sacrifice that occurred at a particular moment in time, but which is an ongoing reality within the eternity that is beyond our limited perceptions of linear time. The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice inasmuch as it makes present this one eternal sacrifice, but it must be emphasised that each Mass offered is not a new sacrifice or in any way separate from the one, true, perfect, and all sufficient atoning Sacrifice made upon the altar of the Cross. Moreover, the real, ultimate Priest in the Sacrifice of the Mass is Christ himself. The ordained Christian priesthood, assisted by all the gathered faithful, follow the command of Christ, who himself , by the operation of the Holy Spirit, makes the Sacrifice present.
I wouldn't say I was very high in my Eucharistic theology but I see nothing there that, as an Anglican, I would disagree with. Indeed Christ's status as both priest and offering in the Eucharist features in the very mainstream hymn "Alleluia, sing to Jesus" (which even the Church of Scotland find satisfactory). The eternal and singular nature of the sacrifice is perhaps more controversial, but still mainstream enough for the quotation from Corinthians "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast" to be used liturgically with reference to the Eucharist. And again looking at hymnology, the concept is sufficiently mainstream to appear in Hymns Ancient & Modern (and many other Anglican hymnals) in the beautiful hymn "And now O Father mindful of the love" with the word "that only offering perfect in thy sight, the one true pure immortal sacrifice".
I'm not sure whether you took my point or not, which is chiefly that - contra Leo - amongst Anglicans even a high eucharistic theology would tend to see the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice only insofar as the Mass is a true anamnoesis of the one, unique Sacrifice on Calvary. The Mass re-presents and pleads this one full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction once made, but does not add anything to that one atoning sacrifice of Christ. The Mass is sacramentally one with the Sacrifice of the Cross, and only therein does the Mass derive any capacity as a propitiatory sacrifice. We are not bringing anything new to God the Father, but rather in the Mass being joined to the one perfect Sacrifice made by the Incarnate Word.
Hence, I am qualifying and refining Leo's acceptance of Chestbelloc's formulation. I'm not even sure Chesterbelloc would disagree with what I'm saying, but I think it's important to be clear what we mean when we speak of the Eucharist as in any way a propitiatory sacrifice.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
It is interesting to see several Shipmates who object strenously to PSA nevertheless apparently happy for the Eucharist - and hence of course the Crucifixion - to be a "propitiatory" sacrifice. "Propitiatory" in what sense?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It is interesting to see several Shipmates who object strenously to PSA nevertheless apparently happy for the Eucharist - and hence of course the Crucifixion - to be a "propitiatory" sacrifice. "Propitiatory" in what sense?
Actually, I don't like the language of propitiation exactly because I reject PSA. I'm using the term chiefly because Chesterbelloc threw it out. I'd rather talk in terms of the entire life of the incarnate God-man being one of atonement (at-one-ment) between God and humans, within which the self-sacrificial love of God reaches a kind of apex in Christ's acceptance of surrendering himself to a fate of torture and crucifixion. Of course, this isn't the final word on the atonement, because Resurrection and the Ascension give the whole atoning mission its salvific meaning. As you might guess, my theology is much more geared to Christus Victor.
Having said that, I will accept the idea of propitiation if it is understood as a loving sacrifice to accomplish an at-one-ment of God with man, rather than as a way of satisfying an angry Father-God. The Mass presents anew to us in time this act of atonement, offering us the grace of atonement in a sacramental, tangible form.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
1. If that did happen, what would be the reason for saying that the RCC was absolutely 100% right on the 9th November 2014, rather than, say, the 28th June 1868 or the 10th October 1962, but it isn't any more?
There would then be no particular reason to assume that the RCC was ever 100% right about anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. What is the basis for believing that there is one ecclesial community that has got everything right, and all the others are slightly or very off-beam? It's quite disturbing that you seem to be saying that if you came to the conclusion the RCC had got something wrong, was not quite perfect, you would not have any interest in it any more. Isn't there a risk that this is putting one's trust in an earthly institution, and then feeling let down if it doesn't live up to one's aspirations for it, rather than in God? If this happened, where would you go? Would it put at risk your walk of faith?
First, I have not claimed that the RCC has everything right, merely that she must have her key teachings of faith and morals right. Second, the basis for claiming this is the guarantee of Divine assistance through the Holy Spirit. Third, I do not believe that Christianity works without revelation (i.e., I do not care for Christianity as a practical philosophy), and I do not believe that Christian revelation can be maintained and enacted without continuous Divine assistance. Fourth, If I became convinced that the RCC was no more than an earthly institution, I would investigate whether perhaps some other Christian institution could claim more (like the Orthodox). If I find that not, then I would stop being a Christian and resume my search for true religion elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
3. This is a sort of an aside in a way, but I've aired it before. Why personify the RCC as 'she' or at all?
I also call ships "she". It appears to be the done thing in English.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Why does the RCC make this claim? It doesn't seem to be covered in Petrine supremacy (even if that is the correct way to interpret Matt 16. 17-19). Was the claim first made during the Reformation, or does it go back to the split with the Orthodox? Or something else?
There never was a formal definition of this, though Vatican I explains the infallibility of the pope in terms of that of the Church (which is assumed as a given). Key texts are more John 14:16-26, Matthew 28:20, John 16:13-14, Acts 1:8 promising the assistance of the Holy Spirit, as well as the requirement to be obedient in faith to the apostolic Church under the threat of damnation (Romans 1:5, Mark 16:16, Luke 10:16, John 13:20), which implies a necessity that the faith is kept essentially free from error (or God would have bound salvation to falsehood). The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
This understanding of the role of the Church is really old, for example Irenaeus: "For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth." and "Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father." Or Cyprian "...showing that those who departed from Christ perished by their own fault, yet that the Church which believes on Christ, and holds that which it has once learned, never departs from Him at all, and that those are the Church who remain in the house of God."
RCs and Eastern Orthodox believe this just the same, the only disagreement is where this Church whose core doctrines cannot fail may be found.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I find that not, then I would stop being a Christian and resume my search for true religion elsewhere.
You would be wasting your time. There is no 'true religion'. Just people doing their best with what they have at the time.
Love and worship what you know of God and love your neighbour as yourself. You won't go far wrong that way.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You would be wasting your time. There is no 'true religion'. Just people doing their best with what they have at the time.
"Best" according to what measure? If you answer with anything that is not purely natural and/or social, then there is a "true religion" to be found and I shall seek it (whether it already exists or not). If your answer is purely of this world, then atheism combined with some practical philosophy is best. That's a different game though, and Christianity certainly would not be winning it.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Love and worship what you know of God and love your neighbour as yourself. You won't go far wrong that way.
How would I know what I know of God? I will not worship any old shit I made up in my head. And why should I love my neighbour as myself unless Christianity is true? That is a rather unreasonable suggestion. Indeed, but for the endless repetition by Christians that has burned this into your brain as some kind of obvious truth, this would readily appear to you as ridiculous nonsense. For that's what it is, other than by a rather massive helping of God's grace.
--------------------
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
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
How would I know what I know of God? I will not worship any old shit I made up in my head. And why should I love my neighbour as myself unless Christianity is true? That is a rather unreasonable suggestion. Indeed, but for the endless repetition by Christians that has burned this into your brain as some kind of obvious truth, this would readily appear to you as ridiculous nonsense. For that's what it is, other than by a rather massive helping of God's grace.
This should be preserved as an ultra-shortform version of the renewal of baptismal promises.
--------------------
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
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
"And why should I love my neighbour as myself unless Christianity is true?"
Really?
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Having said that, I will accept the idea of propitiation if it is understood as a loving sacrifice to accomplish an at-one-ment of God with man, rather than as a way of satisfying an angry Father-God. The Mass presents anew to us in time this act of atonement, offering us the grace of atonement in a sacramental, tangible form.
Mmm. I can see how "atonement" could have this meaning, but I'm not sure I see how "propitiation" could have this meaning.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Having said that, I will accept the idea of propitiation if it is understood as a loving sacrifice to accomplish an at-one-ment of God with man, rather than as a way of satisfying an angry Father-God. The Mass presents anew to us in time this act of atonement, offering us the grace of atonement in a sacramental, tangible form.
Mmm. I can see how "atonement" could have this meaning, but I'm not sure I see how "propitiation" could have this meaning.
Well, I would only see propitiation in terms of reconciliation and not in terms of appeasement of a putative divine wrath. I realise that could be taken as leaving out an essential element of what has traditionally been meant by propitiation. Thus, it would be better from my standpoint to use language other than that of propitiation. I'd rather talk about the Mass having a sacrificial aspect, and in my view this goes beyond a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving", though our thankful response to God's gracious and salvific self-revelation in the Incarnation certainly is an essential dimension of Eucharist, being the foundation of that term. The idea of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is true, but over-simplified, because the Mass is itself a sacrament of reconciliation by which we are enabled to appropriate unto ourselves the grace offered by God. The Mass makes present in our midst Christ, the Incarnate Word, to whose offering of a perfected humanity and a true reflection of divinity we seek to unite ourselves in Eucharist, in the anamnoesis of Christ and in the grateful reception of his presence into ourselves under the outward forms of bread and wine.
The message of the parable of the prodigal son is that it is we who are separated from God, not God who is separated from us. The Mass is propitiatory in the sense of God-in-Christ giving us a tangible means to realise the reconciling grace that God offers, and to ourselves grow into and become the Body of Christ (in this sense, the Eucharist is the constitutive act of the Church as the Body of Christ).
The foregoing means, of course, redefining the mediaeval Roman understanding of the Mass, in favour of seeing it through a more Lutheran lens: the Mass is not primarily something that we bring to God, but rather God's gracious gift to us.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
1. If that did happen, what would be the reason for saying that the RCC was absolutely 100% right on the 9th November 2014, rather than, say, the 28th June 1868 or the 10th October 1962, but it isn't any more?
There would then be no particular reason to assume that the RCC was ever 100% right about anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. What is the basis for believing that there is one ecclesial community that has got everything right, and all the others are slightly or very off-beam? It's quite disturbing that you seem to be saying that if you came to the conclusion the RCC had got something wrong, was not quite perfect, you would not have any interest in it any more. Isn't there a risk that this is putting one's trust in an earthly institution, and then feeling let down if it doesn't live up to one's aspirations for it, rather than in God? If this happened, where would you go? Would it put at risk your walk of faith?
First, I have not claimed that the RCC has everything right, merely that she must have her key teachings of faith and morals right. Second, the basis for claiming this is the guarantee of Divine assistance through the Holy Spirit. Third, I do not believe that Christianity works without revelation (i.e., I do not care for Christianity as a practical philosophy), and I do not believe that Christian revelation can be maintained and enacted without continuous Divine assistance. Fourth, If I became convinced that the RCC was no more than an earthly institution, I would investigate whether perhaps some other Christian institution could claim more (like the Orthodox). If I find that not, then I would stop being a Christian and resume my search for true religion elsewhere. ...
IngoB, I'm genuinely quite worried about this. It seems to me that you are saying that you believe in the RCC because if you can't have faith in it, what else can you have confidence in. I just don't think God gives us that sort of guarantee. It almost seems like a theological get-out clause.
It also looks like placing one's trust in the RCC because of its own confidence in its claims and the reassurance that gives you, rather than believing in God in Christ and then seeing the RCC as the best or most convincing way of living out that faith.
I don't think God gives us that reassurance that we can trust in a human institution in that way. Even if one were to equate the RCC directly with the term 'the body of Christ' as used in scripture, I can't see any basis for assuming that is a guarantee of the church's perfection or infallibility. It's got too many human beings in it to achieve that. It seems to me to be treating the RCC rather like an embodiment of a Christian equivalent of the sharia. It may be OK for a certain period of one's Christian walk, but as a long term, life foundation, it's hazardously setting oneself up to be disappointed.
There's also no need to do so, because ISTM that isn't actually what the faith is about. It is confusing the scaffolding with the actual building.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It seems to me that you are saying that you believe in the RCC because if you can't have faith in it, what else can you have confidence in.
Correct. In fact, I am way more optimistic about natural moral law and the power of metaphysics than most moderns. But that only gets you so far. After that you require Divine revelation, and that in the case of Christianity is provided to me by and through the Church. (The Protestant attitude of putting all trust into private interpretations of one particular document that this Church has generated is to me unreasonable, and does not change the ultimate source anyhow.)
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I just don't think God gives us that sort of guarantee.
And why would I care what you think? No, I'm not being dismissive or flippant. It's a serious question. Why precisely would I care what you think about God?
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It almost seems like a theological get-out clause.
If you have faith, and did not receive this faith wholesale by direct, unmediated Divine inspiration, then you necessarily assign the authority of Divine revelation to something human. I'm simply stating clearly what human mediation I think God has chosen to spread the faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It also looks like placing one's trust in the RCC because of its own confidence in its claims and the reassurance that gives you, rather than believing in God in Christ and then seeing the RCC as the best or most convincing way of living out that faith.
I consider this comment to be basically gibberish. How the heck would you even know to believe in "God in Christ" without the Church? The only difference here is that you somehow have focused your trust in the Church onto a document that the Church produced early on - and maintained for you basically unadulterated until the 16th century, where your own competing tradition of interpreting this document and doing Church begins.
You didn't wake up one morning and found the faith in Christ firmly implanted in your brain. You've had your faith handed down to you, in the form of some writings and various behaviours and practices maintained by a community that you call "Church". There are various differences between what you signed up for and what I signed up for, sure. But please cut out the bullshit on "faith in Christ instead of the Church". There's no such thing. There never has been, there never will be. That's just not how that works for anybody, ever since Christ ascended to heaven. It will always be "faith in Christ through the Church", and the only differences are just what exactly this "through" entails. (And frankly, the differences are often more in the evaluations than in the practicalities.)
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't think God gives us that reassurance that we can trust in a human institution in that way.
Other than by inspiring that institution to compile a book, and maintain it through the centuries, and then inspire more members of that institution to translate it into more languages, and lose a few chapters in the process. That of course is completely obvious God's plan for human institutions, and the reason why you can pretend that some writings are really trustworthy...
Or perhaps you belong to those modern liberal Protestants that do not trust the bible any longer, but rather ... well, there it gets kind of interesting, doesn't it? Because by dismissing even those writings they either become just a bunch of humanists pretending to do religion for unknown reasons (perhaps as a kind of fashion statement), or they rely more than ever on a pure tradition. Just of course not the apostolic tradition of those evil, evil traditional Churches. But still traditions that vaguely involve assigning some special significance to one Jesus Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even if one were to equate the RCC directly with the term 'the body of Christ' as used in scripture, I can't see any basis for assuming that is a guarantee of the church's perfection or infallibility.
Other than the scripture and Church Fathers I just quoted at you, presumably.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It seems to me to be treating the RCC rather like an embodiment of a Christian equivalent of the sharia.
I don't think that there's too much meaning in this sentence, beyond the desperate rhetorical attempt to associate the negative connotations you expect people here will have about "sharia" with the RCC. That's a pretty sad move all around, really.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's also no need to do so, because ISTM that isn't actually what the faith is about. It is confusing the scaffolding with the actual building.
It is one of the deep secrets of the Reformation that unspoken law can bind people much more tightly into obedience than spoken, or even worse, written law. The RCC really gets herself into all sorts of trouble by making her teachings explicit, instead of relying on social control. For one thing, the plausible deniability of all you stand for really gives Protestantism the edge in accommodating the Zeitgeist. But once more, your ideas of faith didn't spontaneously pop into your mind. Somebody taught you what to think about all that. And no, that somebody wasn't Jesus Christ. Or the Holy Spirit. Or you yourself. At least not directly. At least one other human being shaped your mind concerning this, at a minimum by suggesting that you take serious a particular set of writings. But likely a whole bunch of people told you all sorts of stuff until reading certain things made a specific sense to you. That's how this works.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The simple mortal sin of contraception assigns one to eternal hell.
Says it all really.
Ah, but Jesus saves.
Even from such insane, Satanic memes. If any are actually fecklessly infected with them. REALLY believe such bizarre nonsense.
And we are infected with them. We create them as an emergent synergy of crawling in the mud together. We create such evil by collective breathing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Jesus would have hated artificial contraception.
--------------------
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But where I encounter this shoulder shrugging, comfortable ignoring of Church doctrine and discipline, I just don't get it. Why the heck are these people not just leaving the RCC?
Are you suggesting that all people who wilfully ignore Church doctrine on sexual ethics should leave? And let's remind ourselves what they are:
quote:
Brief reminder: no sex at all, including no masturbation, but possibly with one exclusive partner till death, and no contraception there (thus either lots of continence within marriage or lots of kids, for most of us who are fertile). And if that one relationship fails, it's just too fucking bad for you
This seems to be contradicted by:
quote:
There is basically no offence over which the Church would ask somebody to leave her, neither genocide nor child rape nor anything else a human can do takes them out of the remit of the Church. Contraception is not even an offence threatened with automatic excommunication (which is not "leaving the Church"), like say abortion. It is classed a simple "mortal sin", and as such is dealt with through self-reporting in confession. I see no good reason why the Church should change that.
It seems to me that a couple who choose not to have many children they can't afford, and use contraception are in the same position as remarried divorcees or practicing gays, in that they can't repent of an ongoing sin which they have no intention of ammending. Therefore they can't receive communion. Are these the people you woud want to leave the RCC? A student who finds himself in bed with someone after a party is in a different situation because he could presumably confess and receive absolution. But long term users of contraception are the shoulder shrugging ignorers of Church doctrine who you want to be rid of? I can't see that the Holy Father would agree with you on that. There are many reasons why such people might not want to leave. They may genuinely love the Church and believe it's Christ's plan of salvation for mankind. But they might still see its sexual ethics as a Manichean hangover from the Dark Ages.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Beeswax Altar quote:
Jesus would have hated artificial contraception.
And you base this on?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Jesus would have hated artificial contraception.
Well He certainly hated poverty. Overpopulation is the cause of much poverty, and in future it will cause much more, and likely result in mass famine and war as human populations tear each other apart competing for what resources there are. I don't personally believe that Jesus would have hated artificial contraception as much as He would hate that scenario. Besides there are many forms of artificial contraception. I would oppose IUD's and morning after pills which cause the abortion of an embyo. But I see no difference between contraception by having sex during the infertile part of the moth, and using a barrier method. Their intention is the same, ie keeping sperm and egg apart. This is how most of the Catholics who ignore Humanae Vitae see it.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Beeswax Altar quote:
Jesus would have hated artificial contraception.
And you base this on?
It's obvious Jesus would have opposed contraception. Unfortunately, a Satanic meme has infested much of Christianity and caused many to exchange that clear truth for unadulterated nonsense. Only the Roman Catholic Church remain unaffected by said Satanic meme. Clearly, the gates of hell cannot prevail against her.
We all get to make up our own Jesus, don't you know?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Are you suggesting that all people who wilfully ignore Church doctrine on sexual ethics should leave?
Not really. First, I said that I don't get why people are staying, which is not exactly the same as saying that they should be leaving. Second, it's more than just about wilfully ignoring Church doctrine. I do that on occasion, too. I sin, and sometimes wilfully so, and sometimes it takes quite a while for me to sort that out. It's rather the "not having a problem with that" that I have a problem with. At the point where one simply shrugs a "whatever" at Church teaching, I don't really know why one would still want to be part of that Church.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It seems to me that a couple who choose not to have many children they can't afford, and use contraception are in the same position as remarried divorcees or practicing gays, in that they can't repent of an ongoing sin which they have no intention of ammending. Therefore they can't receive communion.
Correct, though there are differences in how "public" these sins are and hence how the Church, rather than the sinners themselves, can react. (As an aside, it is telling that you felt the need for the embellishment "they can't afford".)
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But long term users of contraception are the shoulder shrugging ignorers of Church doctrine who you want to be rid of?
Well, I really don't know why they are staying, at least so if they are shrugging their shoulders. If they at least felt guilty about this, then that would be more Catholic. (Yes, I am aware of the usual prejudice about Catholic guilt. Still, prejudices often point to some truth.)
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I can't see that the Holy Father would agree with you on that.
Excessive pastoral concern is I guess a natural failure mode of the episcopal job...
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
They may genuinely love the Church and believe it's Christ's plan of salvation for mankind. But they might still see its sexual ethics as a Manichean hangover from the Dark Ages.
Yeah, but that doesn't work without in fact adopting a crypto-Protestant attitude. At which point I would suggest that becoming Protestant would be the honest thing to do.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
