|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Titanic struggle for the soul of the Catholic church
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I for one have never heard anyone say that gays, or anyone else for that matter, are "irredeemable". As for your example of the organist, then surely their removal is for the benefit of the people, because turning a blind eye is a de facto approval and is likely to cause scandal among the people.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I can imagine that happening in American Protestant congregations, but not Roman ones. You'd have to go way out of your way to hear it from European Protestant pulpits. I hope.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Regarding the Roman Church and the Geocentric Universe, when astronomers first began postulating something different, Pope Paul IV published an encyclical entiled: Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books) calling such thoughts heretical. This was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent with their Tridentine Index.
While Thomas Acquinas first deduced slavery was a sin--and a few saints before him forbade it, it was not officially banned until 1537 under Pope Paul III.
Even though Acquinas was enlightened in regards to slavery, he taught that the charging of any interest on any monitary loan was usury. This was the position of the church until about the mid 1500s as I understand it.
Regarding marriage--I will have to fall back on my Lutheran understanding to explain it. Luther argues that God operates through two kingdoms: the kingdom of the left (law, power, government) and the kingdom of the right (gospel, grace, church)
Luther realized that no matter what culture one was born in there was some form of marriage institution. Even the most primitive culture had it. Moreover, Luther did not find any specific words of Jesus that instituted it. Jesus does bless marriage and definitely discouraged divorce. Jesus even sights the Genesis account, but in a de facto kind or way. Luther deduced since Jesus did not institute marriage as sacrament and that it is found throughout all culture, it must be under the realm of the kingdom of the left and as such can be defined by the culture it is in.
Thus, I do not think Luther would have much problem with the US Federal Courts saying marriage is the right of all citizens, including same sex couples. He may not like the idea of same sex couples getting married (however, I think Luther would have been progressive enough to be open to it if he lived in the 21st Century).
Protestantism will not be the death of the Roman Cathoic Church. Rigidity will be the death of the Church if it cannot rediscover what is the Gospel--this includes not only the Roman church but the fundamentalist/evangelical Protestant churches as well.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Titanic struggle for the soul of the Catholic church? What crisis?
No cultural artefact survives four orders of magnitude of years. But some have managed three.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I bet that instead of an even bigger showdown we will get a pre-negotiated "de facto annulment on demand" sold as pastoral streamlining of the current judicial process.
Having followed these developments over an 18 month period, it was when I realised that things were going in this direction, that I lost all respect for this process. This fig leaf will be used so that everyone can claim some victory. No Church doctrine will need to be reinterpreted, but the indissolubility of marriage will become a farce. IngoB is right IMO, that annulment should be used only in its proper context, to deal with things such as consanguinity, forced marriage, lack of consent due to mental impairment, or non consummation through inability or unwillingness. This would amount to a few hundred a year. But it's after this that Ingo and I would part company. Over what to do about the many people who would remain excluded if they couldn't "regularise" their situation to the satisfaction of the Church. I suspect he would say that it's really a case of tough shit, unless you are prepared to live a lonely, sexless life forever, with no hope. Almost like eternal hell!
I see a strong case for examining the proposals of Cardinal Walter Kasper to look at some form of penitential practice, not necessarily identical to the Orthodox Church, but that acknowledges that life isn't always as perfect as we would like. Jesus certainly forbade remarriage, but He was telling His followers to be perfect, as our Father is perfect. Yet He knew we can't be perfect, and the best we can do is to follow after perfection.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
or turning Christ's message of love into a rulebook the Pharisees would have been proud of.
Jesus fought all through His ministry against the legalism of the religious system of His day. Purity laws which excluded so many from any hope of God's mercy. A sacrificial system which the poorest couldn't afford, which alone could allow for God's forgiveness. He assured people they were forgiven. Many divorces are accompanied by great sin, but the parties aren't always equally guilty. Examining, with a qualified priest, what part they may have played in the failure, and repenting of that sin, could be followed by a readmission to the full life of the Church. This is no more than Kasper proposed, and I agree with it.
For the Catholic Church, the only answer to this and many other human problems is to renounce sex. This applies to couples who don't want huge families. It applies to gays. It applies to anyone whose marriage fails.. This is a Manicean hangover from the dark ages. It isn't realistic and won't happen in the vast majority of cases. So yes, it is a struggle for the soul of the Catholic Church. The fudge it's coming up with, of annulment on demand, may paper over the cracks, but it's totally devoid of integrity and cheapens marriage far more than an honest admission of failure ever could.
--------------------
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 Horseman Bree:
Well, for starters, stop proclaiming that people who are, after all, made "in the image of God" like everyone else, are unredeemable sinners, that they are a danger and a source of sickness to those who come in contact with them, and that they are responsible for the collapse of our society, which is what we hear coming from too many in the hierarchy.
If this is coming from many in the hierarchy, then I'm sure you could come up with some actual examples where bishops have said that sort of thing?!
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Gays are simply people, not symbols of discord and disfunction. Most parish priests are aware of this, but the published statements of too many bishops would appear to describe gays as "not-quite-human".
Oh, I like the sound of "published statements". Go ahead then, show us some of these many documents that declare homosexuals "not-quite-human".
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
For instance: Stop throwing gay organists out of the church when they dare to admit in public that they are partnered. If they were good enough to touch the musical instruments of the church one day, and nothing has changed, why are they not good enough the next day?
Your question is very naive. Obviously, what has changed is not the person, but the knowledge about that person. Irrespective of what action might be justified, or not, the Church can act only on what she knows. Or do you expect her to divine that this person is actively gay and fire the organist as soon as such a prophecy is obtained? That will go down well with the work tribunals...
On the question whether it is justified to fire that organist, that's really a prudential judgement. Under the assumption that this person is not just living with another man as "brother and brother", but is sexually active, then they are regularly committing a mortal sin in they eyes of the Church. Employing such a person can be judged to give scandal to the faithful and hence be against the interests of the employer. Or not. Best I can see, the bishops in the USA are much keener on beating such boundaries. Anyway, in this particular case the bishops are still fighting a (losing) battle against the acceptance of "gay marriage" on equal terms with regular marriage, and indeed more generally a (losing) battle against the acceptance of gay sex as "perfectly normal". Actually employing somebody who lives out what the Church condemns might appear as an admission that the Church is not really serious. So, basically, the prudential judgement in this case will have strong political aspects.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Stop accusing teens of being irredeemably sinful, and offer them pastoral advice and care, just as you would for the rest of us. Making them scapegoats for your (generic) insecurity is not the way of the Kingdom.
Again, where is your proof that the Church has done this? I'm not aware that the Church has ever, in two millennia of global existence, declared any human being as "irredeemably sinful".
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Yes, there may be impediments to Communion, just as there are for many straights who are allowed to receive (but no-one says anything about THEIR sins). Be consistent.
The Church is, more or less, consistent. The problem is that many sins of the straights are not undeniably apparent. One can of course guess that many (most) straights are fornicators, contraceptors, masturbators etc. For that matter, many will be tax evaders, liars, gluttons, etc. And if most straights never - or at most once in a moonshine - make use of confession, it is fair guess that this is not the case because they are so saintly as not being in danger of sinning mortally. But none of this is written in the face of the individual. The Church is in fact not in the business of spying after the sins of people, the idea is that you self-report to get healed because you want to (just as with a doctor). I would be highly unsurprised if 75% of all people going up for communion in a regular Catholic parish should remain seated. And I wouldn't be particularly shocked if that number was 90%. But in general the Church runs a "you tell, we won't ask" policy. However, that does not mean that the Church closes her eyes to publicly available information. For example, someone seeking to remarry after a divorce from a sacramental marriage is engaging in a public act, one the Church knows about. The Church cannot simply pretend to not know about this. With gays "coming out", it depends on just how public that is. But of course, where that is turned into a public affair, like in a "gay marriage", again the Church cannot pretend to not know what is common knowledge.
I will admit that there is probably a bias to overlooking certain things more strenuously than others. Interestingly though it is your "enemies", like Cardinal Burke, who try to even this out: for example, by insisting that politicians publicly supporting policies against key Catholic teaching should not be allowed communion. But this of course is the opposite of what you want, you want the same laxity for 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
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Again, where is your proof that the Church has done this? I'm not aware that the Church has ever, in two millennia of global existence, declared any human being as "irredeemably sinful".
How about a canonization into Hell?
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Here, play with this one. . Not quite "irredeemable", just "non-existent"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
And, wandering along, looking for one kind of thing, I found this somewhat different one : "Can the poor receive Communion?"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Regarding the Roman Church and the Geocentric Universe, when astronomers first began postulating something different, Pope Paul IV published an encyclical entiled: Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books) calling such thoughts heretical. This was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent with their Tridentine Index.
This is just all sorts of wrong. The first Index was not created for Galileo or against heliocentrism, but in reaction to the rise of Protestantism (which used the medium of printed leaflets and books to spread its heresies). The Congregation of the Index did put heliocentric works on the index during the Galileo affair (and pretty much because of Galileo having defied the request of the Holy See to publicly discuss his geocentric views as hypotheses rather than established truths, which undoubtedly they were at the time). But that Congregation was not a dogmatic institution of the Church, but more something like the agency that today produces movie ratings. I agree that classing heliocentric writings as the intellectual equivalent of porn that should be kept out of general circulation was a terribly bad move of the Church. But it did not in fact establish an official doctrine on the topic.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
While Thomas Acquinas first deduced slavery was a sin--and a few saints before him forbade it, it was not officially banned until 1537 under Pope Paul III.
That is just a completely insufficient summary of the actual history. I have already linked to a source where you could get a rather more complete view of what actually happened, if you are interested. FWIW, I consider it one of the - largely unsung - glories of the British, not the RCC, that they practically ended the Western slave trade. So I'm not at all denying that the RCC did not play the role she probably should have played. But it is simply not true that the Church was largely inactive in this matter till the 16thC. (Incidentally, the Eastern slave trade of the Muslims was 1. much larger in numbers, 2. lasted much longer, and 3. was just leaps and bounds worse in the treatment of the slave population. If you look where the West traded slaves, you see many descendants of former black African slaves. If you go to the Middle East, you see next to none. Nobody seems to ask the Muslims questions about centuries of mass genital mutilation and basically mass murder.)
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Even though Acquinas was enlightened in regards to slavery, he taught that the charging of any interest on any monitary loan was usury. This was the position of the church until about the mid 1500s as I understand it.
No, that is wrong. Please do read the information at the link I provided above. Usury is charging interest on a specific kind of loan, namely one where the borrower can be held personally responsible for the loan, as opposed to a loan which is borrowed against some thing. From the link given above: <<Today this kind of loan is called a “full recourse loan”, as contrasted to a “non recourse loan”. So usury is charging interest on a full recourse loan.>> And as it happens, the rejection of full recourse loans is to a big part that they amount to a kind of slavery, because you acquire rights over a person rather than a thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Protestantism will not be the death of the Roman Cathoic Church.
Indeed. Rather, Protestantism is the death throes of the Latin rite RCC.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Here, play with this one. . Not quite "irredeemable", just "non-existent"
You accused many RC bishops of terrible and unChristian behaviour that is spelled out in publications. And the best you have is some random dude's blog post being upset about the Synod of the Family not discussing gays?! How about you back up your claims with some actual evidence?
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And, wandering along, looking for one kind of thing, I found this somewhat different one : "Can the poor receive Communion?"
This is unrelated to the claims I asked you to back up. Anyway, it is not the Church which stands in the way of these people marrying. The Church does not charge the poor for access to her sacraments. It is - or at least this is the claim - the social expectation that you have to throw a fiesta when you marry. That is what the poor cannot afford. Perhaps the Church could push harder to change these social constraints (and it is a RC priest raising this issue), but that is quite a different thing to saying that the Church herself disadvantages the poor.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Again, where is your proof that the Church has done this? I'm not aware that the Church has ever, in two millennia of global existence, declared any human being as "irredeemably sinful".
How about a canonization into Hell?
Despite being very tired, I've plowed through some of the links from that Wikipedia page. For the "canonization into Hell" it cites a story from the Spectator about the late Robert Hughes which cites an anecdote from his book The Culture of Complaint. I don't know if Hughes cites a source for his story in his book but I haven't found this "canonization into Hell" story elsewhere. It's not in the Italian Wikipedia page for Malatesta. It's not in the Italian Wikipedia page for Pope Pius II. It's not in the English Wikipedia page for Pope Pius II. It's not in Catholic Encyclopedia article cited by English Wikipedia. It's not in the Italian online biography also cited by the Wikipedia article. The excommunication is mentioned in the different links. His burning in effigy is mentioned in a couple of places. The story of of his being "canonized into hell" isn't mentioned in any of those places.
This is odd because it's such a dramatic, lurid story that it sounds like something out of a Hammer horror film. Maybe Hughes has a source for the story, I don't know, I don't own his book so I can't tell but if it were me I would take it with a (big) grain of salt.
--------------------
“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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Odd (but probably inevitable) that in a thread on the struggle for the soul of the Catholic church, the blame is squarely placed at the feet of those rascally Protestants.
I never knew we had such power to bring such an august and perpetual institution to its knees...
"On this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Protestants, on the other hand, are going to be more tricky."
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
IngoB: quote:
Without pure sacraments the Church simply ceases to be.
Could you expand on this please? After all, while Christ did command his followers to baptise and celebrate the Eucharist, he didn't command them to take weddings, anoint the dead and so forth. He also commanded his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, proclaim the arrival of the Kingdom, and many other things. Why do you feel the sacramental part of the Church is more important then any of the other things the Church does in obedience to Christ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Again, where is your proof that the Church has done this? I'm not aware that the Church has ever, in two millennia of global existence, declared any human being as "irredeemably sinful".
How about a canonization into Hell?
This is odd because it's such a dramatic, lurid story that it sounds like something out of a Hammer horror film. Maybe Hughes has a source for the story, I don't know, I don't own his book so I can't tell but if it were me I would take it with a (big) grain of salt.
Sadly, the descendent of Sigismondo I first heard the story from (well, him and Dante) isn't available for citation. I'll grant that it may be something that got passed down as part of family tradition from time immemorial, or at least the 14th century.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Robert Armin
I believe sacraments are seen as the means of grace, mediated through the Church.
And as C S Lewis observes, it is grace which above all distinguishes Christianity from other faiths.
So I guess the issue behind the issue is not the centrality of sacraments but different understandings of how we may experience the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ; how grace may be mediated, experienced, received.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
IngoB: quote:
Without pure sacraments the Church simply ceases to be.
…. Why do you feel the sacramental part of the Church is more important then any of the other things the Church does in obedience to Christ?
I don't often feel much affinity with IngoB, and quite possibly his response will be different. But it seems to me that 'all the other things' (feeding the hungry, caring for the sick etc etc), while vitally important, are not exclusively Christian virtues. I imagine that at the last judgement we will be held to account for our lack of human compassion, much more than our lack of religious observance. Nevertheless, the Church is a specific body of people called together to hear and respond to the Word of God and celebrate Christ's presence in the Eucharist. If we don't do that, there is nothing about us that distinguishes us from our non-Christian neighbours.
It goes without saying that our religion is meant to perfect and transform our humanity, and that therefore a religion practised without evidence of human values and human compassion is probably a fraud. Being human, and being as perfectly human as we can, with God's help, is the important thing. And that means, not claiming that Christians have the monopoly in doing good works.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
IngoB: quote:
Without pure sacraments the Church simply ceases to be.
Could you expand on this please? After all, while Christ did command his followers to baptise and celebrate the Eucharist, he didn't command them to take weddings, anoint the dead and so forth. He also commanded his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, proclaim the arrival of the Kingdom, and many other things. Why do you feel the sacramental part of the Church is more important then any of the other things the Church does in obedience to Christ?
Because if you don't have sacraments, exclusive to the Church, then you don't need ordained priests, and you don't have a reason to demand that people attend church regularly, albeit that it is relatively recently that the Church has had to rely on intellectual persuasion alone to try to get people to attend (and is failing). The very real threat of physical violence or imprisonment, or at the least, social ostracism, is a far more effective means of evangelization than arguing theological niceties, I think.
Of course, going back to the OP, the irony of the whole situation is the presumption that people who are excluded from communion are somehow missing out, when it more than likely that the whole business of sacraments is for the benefit of the Church as an institution, rather than for the benefit of those taking part.
It is an interesting exercise to draw up a table comparing the benefits to each - one will find that the real, tangible benefits (money, loyalty, obedience, etc.) accrue to the Church, and the more shall we say intangible benefits (divine grace, salvation, forgiveness, etc.) accrue to the congregation.
[ 31. December 2014, 12:52: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
IngoB: quote:
Without pure sacraments the Church simply ceases to be.
Could you expand on this please? After all, while Christ did command his followers to baptise and celebrate the Eucharist, he didn't command them to take weddings, anoint the dead and so forth. He also commanded his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, proclaim the arrival of the Kingdom, and many other things. Why do you feel the sacramental part of the Church is more important then any of the other things the Church does in obedience to Christ?
Because if you don't have sacraments, exclusive to the Church, then you don't need ordained priests, and you don't have a reason to demand that people attend church regularly, albeit that it is relatively recently that the Church has had to rely on intellectual persuasion alone to try to get people to attend (and is failing). The very real threat of physical violence or imprisonment, or at the least, social ostracism, is a far more effective means of evangelization than arguing theological niceties, I think.
Of course, going back to the OP, the irony of the whole situation is the presumption that people who are excluded from communion are somehow missing out, when it more than likely that the whole business of sacraments is for the benefit of the Church as an institution, rather than for the benefit of those taking part.
It is an interesting exercise to draw up a table comparing the benefits to each - one will find that the real, tangible benefits (money, loyalty, obedience, etc.) accrue to the Church, and the more shall we say intangible benefits (divine grace, salvation, forgiveness, etc.) accrue to the congregation.
That's the cynical view. The sacraments are medicine and if administered incorrectly are quite often dangerous.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ineffective, yes. Dangerous? Hmmm.
If one is regularly practising sacrificial giving, then the danger is minimal. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ineffective, yes. Dangerous? Hmmm.
Yes, dangerous.
"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself"
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Being kind is dangerous?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I think my point is that judgement isn't instantaneous. At least, I've never seen anyone die during the distribution.
(During the Introit, yes.)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think my point is that judgement isn't instantaneous. At least, I've never seen anyone die during the distribution.
(During the Introit, yes.)
Hmph! Can't you see the comparison I'm making (or at least I thought it was obvious) between physical dangers of incorrectly taking physical medicine and the spiritual dangers of incorrectly taking spiritual medicine?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Being kind is dangerous?
It is kind about taking medicine incorrectly?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think my point is that judgement isn't instantaneous. At least, I've never seen anyone die during the distribution.
(During the Introit, yes.)
Hmph! Can't you see the comparison I'm making (or at least I thought it was obvious) between physical dangers of incorrectly taking physical medicine and the spiritual dangers of incorrectly taking spiritual medicine?
Well yes. But taking meds the wrong way is likely to end up with the patient ill or dead in short order. Paul loved his hyperbolic rhetoric.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
How would you judge whether someone was 'eating and drinking unworthily,' Ad Orientem?
I can understand the idea behind 'closed communion' in the RC and Orthodox sense - but what I don't 'get' is how someone who might be RC or Orthodox (and who may or may not be receiving unworthily) is, ipso facto in a less 'dangerous' position when receiving the eucharist in their particular settings than someone who is neither RC or Orthodox.
I wouldn't attempt to receive the eucharist in either an RC or Orthodox setting - out of respect for their traditions and way of doing things.
I might not like it - but I can live with it. At least with the Orthodox you get the 'antidoron' - which I've been told is 'better than nothing' ... and I've always appreciated being offered that whenever I've attended an Orthodox Liturgy.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
zippycatholic
Apprentice
# 18312
|
Posted
quote:
But taking meds the wrong way is likely to end up with the patient ill or dead in short order.
Not so. I've personally helped people recover from taking meds long term which were supposed to help them, but in the end very nearly destroyed them. I've also watched others die, who were not helped in time or who could not be helped.
People can carry on for a remarkably long period of time under the delusion - reinforced by 'experts' and people they mistakenly trust - that something is helping, when in fact it is actually slowly poisoning them to death.
Or worse, tearing apart their very being. There are fates worse than death.
[ 31. December 2014, 16:05: Message edited by: zippycatholic ]
Posts: 27 | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How would you judge whether someone was 'eating and drinking unworthily,' Ad Orientem?
Each person has to examine their own conscience. That is what we have confession for. The priest is not a mind reader. The responsibility therefore is primarily with the person receiving, unless the impediment to receiving the sacrament is itself public, in which case the priest also has a responsibility not to administer the sacrament, if only for the good of the would be recipient. I know I like to bring it up a lot, but think of Ambrose and Theodosius as a good example.
[ 31. December 2014, 16:15: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well - I can see that in terms of Theodosius being called to repentance - but I don't quite so how it equates to, say, a Protestant or RC trying to receive at an Orthodox Liturgy ...
I would be a lot happier if you simply said, 'Look, as you are not officially Orthodox and haven't been formally received into the Orthodox Church we aren't in a position to administer the sacraments to you ... because we can't really do that until you have formally accepted our beliefs and joined yourself to an Orthodox jurisdiction ...'
Rather than trotting out some shtick about it being for our spiritual benefit if we don't receive ...
That simply sounds like trying to sugar the pill to me.
Ok, I can see why you say it and how it represents a very 'high' view of the sacrament - and it's a lot better than saying, 'Look, you're not Orthodox so just sod right off ...'
But it just sounds like one of these pious platitudes to me. All traditions have them. I'm sure there are RC and Protestant equivalents.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well - I can see that in terms of Theodosius being called to repentance - but I don't quite so how it equates to, say, a Protestant or RC trying to receive at an Orthodox Liturgy ...
I would be a lot happier if you simply said, 'Look, as you are not officially Orthodox and haven't been formally received into the Orthodox Church we aren't in a position to administer the sacraments to you ... because we can't really do that until you have formally accepted our beliefs and joined yourself to an Orthodox jurisdiction ...'
Rather than trotting out some shtick about it being for our spiritual benefit if we don't receive ...
That simply sounds like trying to sugar the pill to me.
Ok, I can see why you say it and how it represents a very 'high' view of the sacrament - and it's a lot better than saying, 'Look, you're not Orthodox so just sod right off ...'
But it just sounds like one of these pious platitudes to me. All traditions have them. I'm sure there are RC and Protestant equivalents.
Now we seem to be talking at cross purposes. I wasn't talking about Protestants receiving in an Orthodox Church or RC Church, or RC's receiving in an Orthodox Church. I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well - I can see that in terms of Theodosius being called to repentance - but I don't quite so how it equates to, say, a Protestant or RC trying to receive at an Orthodox Liturgy ...
I would be a lot happier if you simply said, 'Look, as you are not officially Orthodox and haven't been formally received into the Orthodox Church we aren't in a position to administer the sacraments to you ... because we can't really do that until you have formally accepted our beliefs and joined yourself to an Orthodox jurisdiction ...'
Rather than trotting out some shtick about it being for our spiritual benefit if we don't receive ...
That simply sounds like trying to sugar the pill to me.
Ok, I can see why you say it and how it represents a very 'high' view of the sacrament - and it's a lot better than saying, 'Look, you're not Orthodox so just sod right off ...'
But it just sounds like one of these pious platitudes to me. All traditions have them. I'm sure there are RC and Protestant equivalents.
Now we seem to be talking at cross purposes. I wasn't talking about Protestants receiving in an Orthodox Church or RC Church, or RC's receiving in an Orthodox Church. I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion.
Yeah, we're talking about whether it is harmful to communicate while in a state of 'sin', and whether there is some objective truth in the injunction not to receive unworthily, or whether it is one more bit of ecclesiastical spin to make us do what the Church says. Nothing to do with 'closed communion', mate.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, dangerous.
"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself"
If you look hard at that quote you will notice that "unworthily" is an adverb. It describes a way of performing an action. It is not an adjective describing the person.
The woman who washed the feet of Jesus with her tears may not have been a worthy person, but she acted worthily.
Seems to me that the sort of person who worries about other people not being worthy of the sacraments has missed the point...
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well - I can see that in terms of Theodosius being called to repentance - but I don't quite so how it equates to, say, a Protestant or RC trying to receive at an Orthodox Liturgy ...
I would be a lot happier if you simply said, 'Look, as you are not officially Orthodox and haven't been formally received into the Orthodox Church we aren't in a position to administer the sacraments to you ... because we can't really do that until you have formally accepted our beliefs and joined yourself to an Orthodox jurisdiction ...'
Rather than trotting out some shtick about it being for our spiritual benefit if we don't receive ...
That simply sounds like trying to sugar the pill to me.
Ok, I can see why you say it and how it represents a very 'high' view of the sacrament - and it's a lot better than saying, 'Look, you're not Orthodox so just sod right off ...'
But it just sounds like one of these pious platitudes to me. All traditions have them. I'm sure there are RC and Protestant equivalents.
Now we seem to be talking at cross purposes. I wasn't talking about Protestants receiving in an Orthodox Church or RC Church, or RC's receiving in an Orthodox Church. I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion.
Yeah, we're talking about whether it is harmful to communicate while in a state of 'sin', and whether there is some objective truth in the injunction not to receive unworthily, or whether it is one more bit of ecclesiastical spin to make us do what the Church says. Nothing to do with 'closed communion', mate.
And it is harmful. But then I guess it's all the same if you don't believe in sin or the efficacy of the sacraments...mate.
[ 31. December 2014, 17:17: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
If one is regularly practising sacrificial giving, then the danger is minimal.
I don't think one can 'buy' grace any more by doing lots of sacrificial giving, than by ceremonially killing animals or doing anything else performed as a religious exercise. The amount of any cost to oneself does not make something any more objectively virtuous or add to its moral virtue.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, so I got the wrong end of the stick and misunderstood the thrust of the debate in these latter stages.
I was acting 'unworthily' and posting in an unworthy manner ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Again, where is your proof that the Church has done this? I'm not aware that the Church has ever, in two millennia of global existence, declared any human being as "irredeemably sinful".
How about a canonization into Hell?
This is odd because it's such a dramatic, lurid story that it sounds like something out of a Hammer horror film. Maybe Hughes has a source for the story, I don't know, I don't own his book so I can't tell but if it were me I would take it with a (big) grain of salt.
Sadly, the descendent of Sigismondo I first heard the story from (well, him and Dante) isn't available for citation. I'll grant that it may be something that got passed down as part of family tradition from time immemorial, or at least the 14th century.
You quoted everything from before except for the part where I point out that I couldn't find that story in the notes, links and related English and Italian wiki articles, including a relatively detailed online biography in Italian, except for that one note that cites an unlinked Spectator article that shares a story from a Robert Hughes book.
It wouldn't surprise me if layfolk have a misunderstanding of what excommunication entails especially when it comes to that of a famous ancestor. I can see it as one of those ever-growing family stories that begins as "Grandaddy got excommunicated by the Pope" and ends up centuries later as "Ancestor made the Pope so angry the Pope canonized him into hell".
quote:
...the descendent of Sigismondo I first heard the story from (well, him and Dante)...
Sigismondo Malatesta lived in the 15th century. Dante Alighieri lived in the 13th and 14th centuries. Are you sure you are thinking of the right person?
As I'm sure you know, Dante has never had authority to canonize or excommunicate persons in the Catholic Church nor is the Inferno official Church teaching on who is or isn't in Hell. Dante placing a historical figure in Hell is not "canonization into Hell".
--------------------
“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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He means a descendant of both. I have friends who are descendants of Dante only. Well they must be of Malatesta too. 600 years gives you 16 million ancestors. So we're all our own cousins. But Dante is their family name. Like the egregious Wassamaddayou Joe.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
After all, while Christ did command his followers to baptise and celebrate the Eucharist, he didn't command them to take weddings, anoint the dead and so forth.
I believe that Christ instituted all seven sacraments as essential to the life of His Church, and that He did so personally, at least in an inchoate form. And no, I don't particularly care to what extent this has been documented in the bible. I do not think that scripture was intended to detail the Christian religion like a rule book, and I leave such straining for scriptural gnats to those Christians who had to reject Christian tradition as equal means to God's truth in order to escape the authority of the Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
He also commanded his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, proclaim the arrival of the Kingdom, and many other things. Why do you feel the sacramental part of the Church is more important then any of the other things the Church does in obedience to Christ?
The sacraments are the only instituted means of receiving grace from God. Of course, God can give you grace apart from the sacraments as He sees fit, but no other human action is as such Divinely favoured with guaranteed graces. Doing good works is an expression of the graces you have received from God - and this response can gain you merit in the eyes of God. In particular, it can merit you more graces, hopefully leading to a cycle of grace and charity culminating in your salvation. But any such virtuous cycle needs a starting point, and the sacraments are preeminent in this regard. Furthermore, only the sacraments are certain to provide sanctifying grace. Whether your good works will gain you heaven is anybody's guess and God's knowledge alone, but a freshly baptised person, or a baptised person just after a proper confession and absolution, who then dies, will go to heaven. No ifs, buts, and whys.
The sacraments provide a solid foundation of grace. For sure, one only lays foundations in order to build upon them. Yet a small cabin erected on rock solid foundations is better than a palace built on sand, when the storms come. And they will, for most of us.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He means a descendant of both. I have friends who are descendants of Dante only. Well they must be of Malatesta too. 600 years gives you 16 million ancestors. So we're all our own cousins. But Dante is their family name. Like the egregious Wassamaddayou Joe.
Dolce, shurely?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
To be fair, I have to report on this bishop's statement, or, at least, to relay the report:
"Heads explode" makes an interesting headline
quote:
There should be recognition of a diversity of forms. We have to look inside the church for a formal recognition of the kind of interpersonal relationship that is also present in many gay couples. Just as there are a variety of legal frameworks for partners in civil society, one must arrive at a diversity of forms in the church. … The intrinsic values are more important to me than the institutional question. The Christian ethic is based on lasting relationships where exclusivity, loyalty, and care are central to each other.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
For the other side of bishop's public performance, try "The Father Coughlin Awards" for some examples.
The 2014 summary is particularly wide-ranging.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Speaking as a Lutheran I find the Roman Church is at a crossroads. It can continue to be so rigid that it becomes obsolete; or it can become so loose it can run into secular oblivion as pointed out above.
How are ELCA's numbers over the past decade, then?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's a keeper, like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism. Protestantism isn't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
To be fair, I have to report on this bishop's statement, or, at least, to relay the report:
"Heads explode" makes an interesting headline
quote:
There should be recognition of a diversity of forms. We have to look inside the church for a formal recognition of the kind of interpersonal relationship that is also present in many gay couples. Just as there are a variety of legal frameworks for partners in civil society, one must arrive at a diversity of forms in the church. … The intrinsic values are more important to me than the institutional question. The Christian ethic is based on lasting relationships where exclusivity, loyalty, and care are central to each other.
Shouldn't he be sacked?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Difficult though it will be, please avoid extended discussions re the Dead Horse, or take them to the DH Board.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The sacraments are the only instituted means of receiving grace from God. Of course, God can give you grace apart from the sacraments as He sees fit, but no other human action is as such Divinely favoured with guaranteed graces. Doing good works is an expression of the graces you have received from God - and this response can gain you merit in the eyes of God. In particular, it can merit you more graces, hopefully leading to a cycle of grace and charity culminating in your salvation. But any such virtuous cycle needs a starting point, and the sacraments are preeminent in this regard. Furthermore, only the sacraments are certain to provide sanctifying grace. Whether your good works will gain you heaven is anybody's guess and God's knowledge alone, but a freshly baptised person, or a baptised person just after a proper confession and absolution, who then dies, will go to heaven. No ifs, buts, and whys.
The sacraments provide a solid foundation of grace. For sure, one only lays foundations in order to build upon them. Yet a small cabin erected on rock solid foundations is better than a palace built on sand, when the storms come. And they will, for most of us.
Posting as a Shipmate.
In respect of that very clear summary (which certainly chimed with my understanding of Catholic belief), my understanding is that Pope Francis' understanding is the same.
Whatever his reforming intentions may be, I haven't personally seen any signs that he wishes to reform this central understanding of the relationship between the sacraments and Divine grace. So I don't think that issue is a part of any perceived "titanic struggle".
Or am I missing something?
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
IngoB, thank you for your answer to my query. There is a lot there for me to ponder on, and I may need to get back to you in the future. In the meantime, may I ask you to expand a couple of points? quote:
I believe that Christ instituted all seven sacraments as essential to the life of His Church, and that He did so personally, at least in an inchoate form.
While I accept that the Bible is not a complete record of the life and ministry of Jesus, I would like to know why you believe this. There must be many traditions of which I am unaware; could you point me in the right direction in order to find out more? quote:
The sacraments are the only instituted means of receiving grace from God.
What about prayer? Our Lord commanded us to do that; is that not a means of receiving grace? Many Protestants would want to add reading the Bible as the preeminent way of receiving grace, but I'm not sure how that fits into the RC view.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
