|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Titanic struggle for the soul of the Catholic church
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Even if it 'needed' reforming, and one were inclined to reform it, I see no way it could be reformed. The relationship IngoB lays out is basic Catholic doctrine, and has been for virtually the church's entire history. I'd imagine the answer is that the church does not view itself as having the authority to reform that.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Jon in the Nati
From outside, that was my view too.
But there is this Jesuitical dimension - or so I also hear - which is capable of thinking the unthinkable.
The political analogy (re the US Constitution) is that there are strict constructionists (we can't change that) and other (maybe we can?). And I think you find such differing strains of thought within Catholicism, though the parameters of the really impossible boundaries are rather different.
I just didn't know whether there had been any sacramental speculation, that's all.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
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?
I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for there. Background: that Christ has instituted all seven sacraments is "de fide" (of faith) for Catholics, contrary opinion is anathematised by the Council of Trent (Decree on Sacraments, Canon 1); but that He has done so directly and personally is only "sententia theologice certa", according to Ott. The only serious contention in this regard among Catholic however concerns the sacraments of confirmation and anointing of the sick, which some theologians have considered as being instituted by the apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit (Petrus Lombardus, Bonaventura, ...). The strong majority of tradition is however with the direct institution of all sacraments. You can look at the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which has a detailed discussion for each of the seven sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, etc.). Scripture documents the direct institution of baptism, Eucharist, and confession by Christ. It shows the other four sacraments to be present in apostolic times, and it shows the apostles as stewards, not originators, of the sacraments (1 Cor 4:1). There is no suggestion anywhere among the Church Fathers that the apostles (or even later bishops) instituted the sacraments, whereas all of them get discussed and referenced from early on by them. It is as usual difficult to find a direct proof for that which was not under debate, but St Ambrose writes in De Sacramentis ("On the Sacraments") IV, 4, 13: "Therefore, who is the author of the sacraments but the Lord Jesus? Those sacraments came down from heaven, for all counsel is from heaven."
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
What about prayer? Our Lord commanded us to do that; is that not a means of receiving grace?
Here's a prayer, how many graces do your think it will bring? Tongue in cheek of course, but I hope my point is clear: what graces a prayer may bring we do not know, and it will certainly depend on what kind of prayer it is. Indeed, we can easily imagine prayer that will be frowned on by God. And we can also imagine a worthy prayer stripped of the graces it ought to bring because of the way it is being prayed, or the state of the person praying. Whereas the sacraments are sure means of grace, indeed, they operate independent of the minister of the sacrament. The only requirement for them to work is that they are "performed" correctly. (Of course, whether the graces so released will affect anything depends on the recipient.)
I really think that sacraments are like the staple of Christian life. But this is not to be confused with the highest expression thereof, or whatever. Just like cooking potatoes will fill your belly but is unlikely to earn you a Michelin star, so partaking in the sacraments is a basic expression of Christian life but not therefore a primary means of being better than some other Christian (whatever that many mean...).
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
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.
Well, half an hour of bible study will potentially gain you a plenary indulgence. So it's certainly highly appreciated by the Church. But indulgences are precisely a matter of the Church trying to encourage things (and by virtue of her standing with God being able to bring about certain things), it is not a matter of Divine grace as such. As far as that goes, I would comment similarly as concerning prayer - though obviously there is more scope for "wrong" prayer than for "wrong" bible reading. Still, we can think of say a militant atheist reading the bible with the intention to hunt for contradictions that he can post mockingly on his blog. It is unlikely that God will shower him with graces for doing 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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
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?
I have seen no sign so far that Pope Francis is messing directly with the general Catholic approach to the sacraments.
However, there is such a thing as death by a thousand cuts. Creeping normality can be used to effectively remove even the strongest rules, if one has the patience. Usury is a case where that has already happened in the RCC, and insofar as the current situation combines lip service to regulations once considered crucial with the de facto complete ignoring of them (indeed, barely being able to still understand them at all...), this is a blueprint for further "liberal" changes to what is deemed "irreformable" in the RCC.
To halt "creeping normality" one must draw lines into the sand, and be prepared to act swiftly and decisively if they are being crossed. Pope Francis does not seem to be willing to do that, to say the least. Consequently, creeping normality will not be halted, indeed, we may well see it turn into trotting normality. And if our current pope continues to be confused about the association of his office with judgement, then it might even break into a gallop.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Blimey ...
I've become quite open to Big T type Tradition/s in recent years but when I hear that sort of talk it makes me want to run in the opposite direction.
It sounds like a recipe for paranoia to me.
Someone like Pope Francis is going to be seen as a moderate breath of fresh air to some, a dangerous radical to others ... and far too conservative for other people.
It all depends on where you stand.
In your case somewhere in the middle of Trento (a lovely city) in the middle of the 16th century, I would guess ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, we can easily imagine prayer that will be frowned on by God. And we can also imagine a worthy prayer stripped of the graces it ought to bring because of the way it is being prayed, or the state of the person praying. Whereas the sacraments are sure means of grace, indeed, they operate independent of the minister of the sacrament. The only requirement for them to work is that they are "performed" correctly. (Of course, whether the graces so released will affect anything depends on the recipient.)
I really think that sacraments are like the staple of Christian life.
No, no and no.
Prayer, if I have understood aright, is the lifting of the heart and mind to God. At which it is hard to imagine Him frowning.
Prayer is a better candidate for the description "staple of the Christian life". Sacraments are more like birthday cake than potato - celebrating special moments.
Sacraments are symbolic actions. Bible reading is not a sacrament because it is undertaken for its own merit rather than as a symbol of something else.
The beneficial effect of the sacrament is something we trust to God for - faith, not certainty.
Your misplaced emphasis on performing the rite "by the book" as the guarantor of efficacy turns religion into magic
You know so much; how can you be so wrong on this ?
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
|
|
fullgospel
Shipmate
# 18233
|
Posted
I can't be alone in finding all this detailed discussion and seeking of (apparent) norms, tedious and unecassary but then I 'am' an INFP !
People's suffering does concern me -but not all I see, share concern for individuals over systems..
I am more concerned about 'Pastoral approaches' to these matters.
I am am hugely concerned that priests are (literal) dying off and parishes being closed down.
E.g in Liverpool Arch-diocese about half of all the priests are retired from active ministry / apostolate, with many in nursing homes.
Parishes there, are closing down at an alarming rate.
This related to the above thread in the most close and pressing -that is, urgent way.
Hoping for non-patronising response if any..
[ 04. January 2015, 22:25: Message edited by: fullgospel ]
--------------------
on the one hand - self doubt
on the other, the universe that looks through your eyes - your eyes
Posts: 364 | From: Rubovia | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The following may not be fully true for some countries that Shipmates live in, but it is true enough even in those cases to be necessary to say: Distorted Love
If you can't show how your "principles" show the active love expressed by Jesus, what is the value of those principles?
And why would rational people want to stay with your version of church, if that Love is not practised.
The Belgian bishop quoted above (and dismissed as not supporting the team) understands this, as does the Pope. Most of the Cardinals appear not to.
--------------------
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 Russ:
Prayer, if I have understood aright, is the lifting of the heart and mind to God. At which it is hard to imagine Him frowning.
Prayer is communication with God. The mere fact that you are "talking" does not however mean that you are communicating well. Of course, if you define prayer as communicating well with God, then unsurprisingly prayer will be ever pleasing to God. But it is simply not true that we always communicate well, not with other humans, and not with God either. Perhaps it is time to revisit the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying? (Lk 18:9-14) The Pharisee surely was praying, and I certainly can imagine God frowning at that prayer.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Sacraments are more like birthday cake than potato - celebrating special moments.
The sacraments match every aspect of human life: the liminal - birth (baptism), adulthood (confirmation), illness, ageing and death (anointing of the sick) - the everyday - eating and drinking (Eucharist), washing and recovering from sickness (confession), and that which is both - relationship and procreation (marriage and hold orders). They are designed as a universal and continuous support structure for a life of faith, from the cradle to the grave, every step of the way.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Sacraments are symbolic actions.
Sacraments realise what they symbolise. That's what sets them apart from mere symbols. Baptism is not just a symbolic washing, it actually cleanses you: of sin, not of dirt. Etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The beneficial effect of the sacrament is something we trust to God for - faith, not certainty.
It is precisely by faith that we are certain that the sacraments provide the graces they promise. Whether we receive these graces fruitfully is a different matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Your misplaced emphasis on performing the rite "by the book" as the guarantor of efficacy turns religion into magic.
Magic is either trickery, or a preternatural effect caused by the power of the agent invoking it. The sacraments are neither. They are supernatural and caused by the power of God in response to the human agent. That said, indeed "magic" as we know it from stories (rather than tricksters) is rather similar. In particular, neither the supposed occult not the actual Divine powers can be obtained in any manner the human agent wishes. It is by obeying their form that the human agent can bring them about.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You know so much; how can you be so wrong on this ?
Your faith was mutilated in the 16thC. I merely know as well that which you have lost.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, we can easily imagine prayer that will be frowned on by God. And we can also imagine a worthy prayer stripped of the graces it ought to bring because of the way it is being prayed, or the state of the person praying. Whereas the sacraments are sure means of grace, indeed, they operate independent of the minister of the sacrament. The only requirement for them to work is that they are "performed" correctly. (Of course, whether the graces so released will affect anything depends on the recipient.)
I really think that sacraments are like the staple of Christian life.
No, no and no.
Prayer, if I have understood aright, is the lifting of the heart and mind to God. At which it is hard to imagine Him frowning.
"God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess."
--------------------
"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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your faith was mutilated in the 16thC. I merely know as well that which you have lost.
Wow. Who knew Russ was so old. And surely a contradiction; to know 'merely' that which someone has - allegedly - lost in terms of their relationship with God? Wouldn't one require a somewhat omniscient knowledge to even approach that one?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
"God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess."
I'll be the first to admit I wish I had posted this clever quote before you did, Fr. Weber, but I don't really think Jesus would have said this was lifting one's heart and mind to God, which is the definition Russ is positing for prayer. Perhaps it is the definition that is at fault, but when one starts talking about "real" or "genuine" prayer as opposed to whatever the opposite would be, I start getting nervous--it's a judgment I prefer not to make.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Oh, I think the Pharisee was most certainly lifting his heart and mind to God--but not in the way he thought he was, and certainly not in the way that God demands.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
IngoB, I'm not sure about your claim that the sacraments are "sure means of grace". If we look at the Borgias (hoping this isn't the ecclesiastical equivalent of Godwin's Law) they must have taken Mass many times, not to mention the rest of the group, but they are hardly shining lights of virtue. You do qualify your claim by saying: quote:
It is precisely by faith that we are certain that the sacraments provide the graces they promise. Whether we receive these graces fruitfully is a different matter.
However, please forgive me if I say this sounds like special pleading. Penicillin is a sure remedy against infection, whether I receive it faithfully or not. If the sacraments can blocked by our attitudes, then they do not seem to be as powerful as you had suggested earlier.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your faith was mutilated in the 16thC. I merely know as well that which you have lost.
Wow. Who knew Russ was so old. And surely a contradiction; to know 'merely' that which someone has - allegedly - lost in terms of their relationship with God? Wouldn't one require a somewhat omniscient knowledge to even approach that one?
Russ isn't that old, but the various Protestant heresies are (and for present purposes Anglicans belong into this mix). Russ' faith is hence institutionally defective as far as the sacraments go. Furthermore, he appears to personally embrace and defend these defects as an advance (which is only logical, I would as well if I was a Protestant of some stripe). I do not need omniscience to know all that, I only need to know a bit of ecclesial history and listen to what he says. I'm a bit mystified why you think this presents any kind of difficulty, really?
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I'll be the first to admit I wish I had posted this clever quote before you did, Fr. Weber, but I don't really think Jesus would have said this was lifting one's heart and mind to God, which is the definition Russ is positing for prayer. Perhaps it is the definition that is at fault, but when one starts talking about "real" or "genuine" prayer as opposed to whatever the opposite would be, I start getting nervous--it's a judgment I prefer not to make.
And I will be the first to point out that I did beat Fr. Weber to the punch. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) We are not generally called to judge the prayer of others. That's a different issue, which in fact the very same parable warns again. But that does not mean that discernment is impossible or indeed unnecessary. You should not heap up empty phrases in your prayer (Mt 6:7-8), you should not pray to feed your passions (Jas 4:3), you should pray in communal anger and quarrel (1 Tim 2:8), you should pray to advertise you piety to others (Mt 6:5-6), you should not give up in your prayers (Lk 18:1-8, plus many others), you should not pray in doubt but in faith (Jas 1:5-7, I'm sure many here will love that one...), etc. Anyhow, my point was quite simply that not every prayer is good, which I consider to be an established fact of revelation. Hence we know that not all prayers will bring grace. Whereas every sacrament brings specific graces assigned to it, that's basically its definition by Divine guarantee. Hence the sacraments are the sure foundation upon which a holy life is to be built. It does not follow from this at all that prayer, good works, etc. are somehow unnecessary. That would be like having foundations, but not building a house on it. That's no way to live. You build foundations so that you can build a solid house, and you partake in the sacraments so that you can live a good Christian life. Still, this solid basis lends its strength to what you build on top of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
IngoB, I'm not sure about your claim that the sacraments are "sure means of grace". If we look at the Borgias (hoping this isn't the ecclesiastical equivalent of Godwin's Law) they must have taken Mass many times, not to mention the rest of the group, but they are hardly shining lights of virtue.
I'm sure Fred Phelps prayed a lot in his life. Nevertheless, I would not consider him to be an exemplary man. From Adam and Eve, whom tradition considers to have been "super-graced" at quite fantastical levels, humans have been rejecting God's supernatural gifts over and over and over again. There are two aspects to a gift: that it is given, and that it is received. If either is lacking, then it will not arrive. To say that God always gives a gift under specific circumstances is not to say that every human always receives a gift under the same circumstances.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
However, please forgive me if I say this sounds like special pleading. Penicillin is a sure remedy against infection, whether I receive it faithfully or not. If the sacraments can blocked by our attitudes, then they do not seem to be as powerful as you had suggested earlier.
If the doctor gives you penicillin tablets to take three times daily, and you throw them in the garbage bin, will your infection clear up? Whose fault is that? The doctor's? Is the penicillin wasting in the garbage bin while you continue to be sick demonstration that it lacks antibiotic powers?
The "special pleading" you accuse me of is not particularly special. It is the very same general pleading all Christians do when asked why among Christians the Kingdom has not come. I might as well ask you why with all that prayer and good works, still not every Christian can be considered a saint walking the earth. Are your prayers and good works not demonstrably inefficient? Where is the impact of all these graces that you claim God is showering on people? Perhaps Christians suck marginally less than other people (though even that could be contented), but isn't this a far cry from the promises of that gospel of yours?
At this point you will come up with some version of the same pleading, for if it is not God's fault that the Kingdom is slow in coming, then it must be ours. Well, so it is. I agree. But this you cannot turn against me, anymore than I can turn it against you. We suck, harmoniously, together at realising God's graces...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
We suck, harmoniously, together at realising God's graces...
Agreed.
Having been thinking through the issues you've raised here, IngoB, I realise that, for me, the key idea is obedience. Jesus commanded us to "do this in remembrance of him", just as he commanded us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry and so forth, without mentioning any benefits that would follow as a result (at least, not in the Bible - I can't speak about tradition with any certainty). And so we do all these things in obedience without looking for any reward "save that of knowing that we do thy will". As a simple Prot I can't personally see any reason to exalt the sacraments above any other form of obedience to our Lord's commands; certainly I can't see any reason to agree with your claim that, "Without pure sacraments the Church simply ceases to be".
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Indeed, without the sacraments there is no Church. Christ founded a visible Church with visible, sure signs of grace so that we might know where to go in order to be saved, otherwise we just fumble in the dark for there are no sacraments outside the Church (no "valid but illicit" nonsense).
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
certainly I can't see any reason to agree with your claim that, "Without pure sacraments the Church simply ceases to be".
Could you agree that sacraments are what we specifically need Church for?
We can be moral, pray, read our Bibles, even worship, without the Church (though a good church should be an aid and encouragement to all of that), but we can't get baptised except into the Church and can't receive communion without participating in the Church, because those things are inherently an expression of Christian community.
I don't think that goes quite as far as IngoB's position: it would imply that without sacraments, the Church would be in scandalous default of the role uniquely entrusted to it, but would not necessarily have entirely ceased to be, but it's close enough that we could at least meaningfully ask whether a church so failing in its task was properly a Church at all.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Urfshyne
Shipmate
# 17834
|
Posted
Ad Orientem quote:
Indeed, without the sacraments there is no Church.
Sorry, but are you totally discounting both the Quakers and the Salvation Army as being churches?
Posts: 98 | From: Maidenhead - lost | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
"Titanic" as in women and children first?
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Urfshyne:
Ad Orientem quote:
Indeed, without the sacraments there is no Church.
Sorry, but are you totally discounting both the Quakers and the Salvation Army as being churches?
Please don't make me answer that, though I'm sure you can discern enough from that to know what I believe.
Simply put, there are no sacraments outside the Church. That's not to say that I don't believe that the Holy Spirit doesn't act outside the Church, but whatever grace he gives to those outside, sacraments they are not. Don't ask me who or what the Church is either, though thise who know me here should already know what I believe.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Urfshyne - isn't it also the case that many Quakers would not wish to claim they are a church?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Many of us Quakers do consider ourselves in a church and Christian - but in the UK that is about half. Probably alot higher in Kenya and the US.
Historically UK Quakers have claimed we are not non-sacramental - we just don't use outward signs of sacrament and consider all aspects of life in some sense sacred. I fully accept that this is not a catholic understanding of sacraments or church.
I think Ad Orientam would consider me a Christian and a member of the universal church, but that is because I happen to have been baptised in the standard trinitarian fashion and can say the nicene creed without my fingers crossed, rather than because of the aspects of my faith that arise out of the Quaker tradition.
Most UK Quakers nowadays are members "by convincement" rather than born into the tradition - so I would guess a fair few have been baptised as children.
[ 06. January 2015, 20:51: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Ad Orientem, yes, I'm pretty sure I know what your answer would be. What interests me (and this applies to IngoB as well) is why you think your answer is the right one. The claim that "without the sacraments there is no Church" is not self-evidently true to me, so I would be grateful if you could explain your reasons for believing it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But the fact that they identify as Quakers indicates that they are part of an organised group that has faith in the teachings of Jesus. Does this make them a church?
Or is the offering of pressed-cardboard wafers and the cheapest red plonk one can find a necessary part of being "Church"?
In the latter case, you are leaving out the whole range of Baptists and others who favor Wonder Bread and the products of Mr. Welch.
How far down this road of declaring everyone to be non-Christian do we have to go? Personally, and referring to G&S, "I have a little list", but I doubt that it would meet much enthusiasm anywhere else!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Ad Orientem, yes, I'm pretty sure I know what your answer would be. What interests me (and this applies to IngoB as well) is why you think your answer is the right one. The claim that "without the sacraments there is no Church" is not self-evidently true to me, so I would be grateful if you could explain your reasons for believing it.
Because I believe that the Church is visible. What makes the Church visible? The sacraments. That's not to diminish the importance of good works, but even unbelievers feed the hungry etc. What distinguishes the Church from them is the visible means of grace Christ has given us. "One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism". "No man lighteth a candle, and putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel; but upon a candlestick, that they that come in, may see the light".
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But the fact that they identify as Quakers indicates that they are part of an organised group that has faith in the teachings of Jesus. Does this make them a church?
Or is the offering of pressed-cardboard wafers and the cheapest red plonk one can find a necessary part of being "Church"?
In the latter case, you are leaving out the whole range of Baptists and others who favor Wonder Bread and the products of Mr. Welch.
How far down this road of declaring everyone to be non-Christian do we have to go? Personally, and referring to G&S, "I have a little list", but I doubt that it would meet much enthusiasm anywhere else!
Organisation doesn't make the Church. The Holy Spirit defines the Church. What makes a sacrament a sacrament? The Holy Spirit does. Even though I might have a stricter definition of who and what the Church is, that does not mean that I believe all those outside to be non-Christian. But then again "Christian" is rather a loose term. I would argue that the only way of salvation we know for sure is through the Church, precisely because of the sacraments. Whether or not God saves anyone outside is his business and his alone.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No it isn't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Me mate.
On His behalf.
He's not that useless. Impotent. Helpless. Ineffectual. Irresponsible. Arbitrary. Callous. Hard. Malevolent.
At all.
Jesus saves.
[ 06. January 2015, 21:40: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Ah! God's mouthpiece who also claims to know nuffink.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But the fact that they identify as Quakers indicates that they are part of an organised group that has faith in the teachings of Jesus. Does this make them a church?
Or is the offering of pressed-cardboard wafers and the cheapest red plonk one can find a necessary part of being "Church"?
In the latter case, you are leaving out the whole range of Baptists and others who favor Wonder Bread and the products of Mr. Welch.
How far down this road of declaring everyone to be non-Christian do we have to go? Personally, and referring to G&S, "I have a little list", but I doubt that it would meet much enthusiasm anywhere else!
In the UK we don't corporately describe ourselves as a Christian church - you might find this interesting.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice bit of blithe projection there.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Russ' faith is hence institutionally defective as far as the sacraments go.
If you mean that my faith is less institutionalised than yours, then yes.
quote:
We suck, harmoniously, together at realising God's graces...
Yes. Individually and collectively. In present, past and future equally. It's when you try to exempt the Vatican, or Tradition, or the Fathers of the Church, or anyone else, from the universal human condition of suckiness, that you fall short.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Urfshyne:
Ad Orientem quote:
Indeed, without the sacraments there is no Church.
Sorry, but are you totally discounting both the Quakers and the Salvation Army as being churches?
Yes. (Well I am, anyway.)
The Church is, in Lutheran terms, the gathering of God's holy people as they gather for the right preaching the Gospel and the right administration of the sacraments.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Urfshyne:
Ad Orientem quote:
Indeed, without the sacraments there is no Church.
Sorry, but are you totally discounting both the Quakers and the Salvation Army as being churches?
Yes. (Well I am, anyway.)
Ditto. And the Quakers don't even claim to be Christian anymore, let alone part of the Church.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
From the OP Guardian link
quote:
If Francis wins, he and his reforming party will change the interpretation of the church’s hard line on divorce and remarriage. The words will remain, of course, more sacred than ever, but in practice divorced and remarried Catholics will be admitted to communion and their present marriages treated as valid and in need of nurturing. If he loses, the church will maintain its logically perfect but wholly unworkable and dishonest theory of sexuality.
The view from within Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) of various (from their POV) heterodox communities outside their respective folds isn't, so far as I can see, part of the "titanic struggle" referred to in this article.
Normally I let evolving tangents go, but this one seems likely to generate Hellish heat, rather than throw any light on the original thread topic. So please get back to the "titanic struggle".
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It's when you try to exempt the Vatican, or Tradition, or the Fathers of the Church, or anyone else, from the universal human condition of suckiness, that you fall short.
I do what now?!
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
IngoB and others, I've said this before on other threads, and in various different ways. I'm going to say it again.
I can't see how one can be a Catholic and argue that the Pope has got something wrong.
If the Pope says the Catholic Church has got to change its line on something, then a good Catholic, and particularly a traditionalist one, must accept that. The thought that either oneself, or a group of people one associates with, might know better than the Pope is being a Protestant in Catholic clothing.
So long as the Pope has not decided, Catholics can and should debate these things. You all, even the unmarried mother in a Brazilian barrio, have a part to play in helping him discern. It's particularly inspiring that he has asked you to do so. But if he does decide, that's like having a Bull delivered with your morning papers. If the Pope decides the teaching on remarriage (say) must stay the same, it stays the same. If he decides it will change, it changes. Those Catholics who are traditionalists and would rather he had decided differently, must obey and change with him.
I don't agree with that approach to theology. But I'm not a Catholic.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the Pope decides the teaching on remarriage (say) must stay the same, it stays the same. If he decides it will change, it changes. Those Catholics who are traditionalists and would rather he had decided differently, must obey and change with him.
Surely, if he decides it stays the same, it stays the same. If he decides it will change, it has always been changed and the Church is simply recognising that...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The Church is, in Lutheran terms, the gathering of God's holy people as they gather for the right preaching the Gospel and the right administration of the sacraments.
Must be a disappoinment for you when you get there and find it's all not-yet-holy people seeking but not necessarily succeeding in rightly expounding the Gospel...
I guess one of the consequences of the fact that we humans suck is the need to distinguish between trying and succeeding. We address God, either out loud or in our heads, either in words or without, as a way of trying to lift our hearts and minds to God. And use the word "prayer" for both the success and the attempt.
And similarly use a word like "Church" for both what the Church is and for what it should be or seeks to be.
So some of our disagreement here is superficial, about the use of words to reference the ideal as against the reality.
Not helped by the adherence of some to the sort of crappy outdated medieval philosophy which asserts that the sucky reality ontologically is the shining ideal...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't see how one can be a Catholic and argue that the Pope has got something wrong.
Why? It is decidedly not Catholic teaching that the pope gets everything right.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The thought that either oneself, or a group of people one associates with, might know better than the Pope is being a Protestant in Catholic clothing.
Point to a single official document of the RCC that supports your claim. You cannot. So why do you make this completely unsupported claim, even if actual Catholics tell you that it is wrong?
quote:
Melchior Cano, a Theologian at the Council of Trent (via Rorate Caeli):
Now it can be said briefly that those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any judgment whatsoever of the Supreme Pontiff concerning every matter weaken the authority of the Apostolic See; they do not support it; they subvert it; they do not fortify it… . Peter has no need of our lies; he has no need of our adulation.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the Pope decides the teaching on remarriage (say) must stay the same, it stays the same. If he decides it will change, it changes. Those Catholics who are traditionalists and would rather he had decided differently, must obey and change with him. I don't agree with that approach to theology. But I'm not a Catholic.
Your problem is quite simply a lack of distinction. It is one thing to say what has to happen among the faithful when the pope decides things. And all the teachings about "ex cathedra" and "obsequium fide" (obedience of faith) pertain to that. It is quite another thing to discuss what sort of things a pope can decide. And the simple answer, as far as doctrine is concerned, is "not very much". In particular, any actual dogma of the Church is entirely irreversible. At most a pope can decide to elevate a particular interpretation of existing dogma to the level of standard pastoral practice. But a pope cannot say: this dogma was wrong, here, use this one instead. For that matter, neither can a pope simply step outside of tradition and declare doctrine about whatever he pleases. The pope cannot for example tomorrow state that painting birch trees red is the central practice of Christianity. The only sort of decision a pope can actually make are those which expound, clarify and make explicit the once given deposit of faith. There is, of course, still plenty of room in that. But it is far cry from some arbitrary dogma making power.
Once more, one must make a distinction between what kind of decisions a pope can make as part of his office, and what follows when a pope has made such a licit decision. The power of the pope to make decisions is "arbitrary" only within the highly constraining framework of the deposit of faith and its historical development. If a pope unwisely attempts to bind and loosen the faithful on matters not of received Christian faith and morals, then it is perfectly licit to ignore or even oppose him. If a pope illicitly tries to reverse a dogma of Christian faith and morals that has been established previously, then it is a moral and religious duty of the Christian faithful to oppose him.
This is not "Protestant", this simply follows from what the pope is: the Vicar of Christ, not Christ Himself. Christ is the Lord of Catholics, not the pope.
Read some actual Catholic teaching on this matter:
quote:
1st Vatican Council
If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
Mortalium Animos
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.
Ineffabilis Deus
For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grown only within their own genus -- that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning.
Oath against Modernism
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis
But for Catholics the second Council of Nicea will always have the force of law, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind . . . or endeavour by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church; and Catholics will hold for law, also, the profession of the fourth Council of Constantinople: We therefore profess to conserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV. and Pius IX., ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
The problems encountered by Jesus through the Pharisees have not gone away.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
The problems encountered by Jesus through the Pharisees have not gone away.
In my experience, observations like this are usually used to excuse laxity in doctrine and morality, and to browbeat those who insist that there are certain truths of the Christian religion which are non-negotiable.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
In my experience, observations like this are usually used to excuse laxity in doctrine and morality, and to browbeat those who insist that there are certain truths of the Christian religion which are non-negotiable.
It seems to me many of the biblical Pharisees might just as well have been able to say to Jesus, "In my experience, observations like this are usually used to excuse laxity in doctrine and morality, and to browbeat those who insist that there are certain truths of the Jewish religion which are non-negotiable."
Of course, I've always had more than a little sneaking sympathy for the Pharisees, given that what we know from Jewish sources suggests that many or most of them were devout, well-intentioned believers who perhaps were a bit overly concerned with making certain they believed all the right things and followed all the correct rituals.
Taken as a whole, it seems to me a lot of Jesus' earthly ministry was trying to teach people that acting right, and acting for the right reasons, was more important than believing correctly. Perhaps he would tell us the sacraments were made for man, not man for the sacraments--which would be correct, of course, but we sometimes act as if we've forgotten it.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
I'm not aware of any apostolic decision on tithing produce, but if the apostles or their successors required it, it ought to be done.
And "pharasaical" is a two-edged sword; if it falls upon those who insist on sticking to rules, then it falls equally upon those who try to argue those rules into irrelevance.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
The problems encountered by Jesus through the Pharisees have not gone away.
Indeed
The Pharisees favored easy divorces and Jesus did not.
--------------------
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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Less-easy divorce was the result of Jesus thinking that women were also human, and deserved proper treatment.
In a culture where women were regarded as having to belong to a man (father, husband...), easy divorce was a disaster for someone who was/is after all, made in God's image just as much as a man is. Jesus was trying to teach that a human had to be considered so, even if that human was female.
The Pharisees (and certain others today) were more concerned about the rules than they are about the humanity of people. But rules can be adjusted to suit the needs of the situation.
This lack of concern for humanity is the point of the argument facing the present group of Pharisees in the RC hierarchy.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
