|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Excommunication
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's all based on one premise - that Holy Communion is only valid if performed by the RCC.
Well yes, that's the premise on which I started the conversation. In fact there's more to it than that. As I get further through my RCIA course I'm becoming more convinced that I'm right - and finding more and more reasons to doubt myself. This could be a tangent, or could make a new thread.
The more I see the fracture in the church across Catholic/Protestant lines, the more uncomfortable it makes me feel. There is only one church, yet we split into three camps and sling mud at one another. The RCC was here first and the protestant church split off. Centuries of wanting to get back together, but only if they blink first has not worked. If we want to see one church ever, then we cannot leave it to the leaders. Lay people must reject the divide and join one another's churches as full and committed members.
This is the sense behind my desire to join the RCC. That may mean I'm excluded from communion for the rest of my (or my wife or ex-wife)'s life, and that's really hard to face. Other issues - such as contraception - are equally difficult to accept. But it still feels the right thing to do. Not easy.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
However, I think many Christians are more concerned about their own spiritual and psychological well-being, or about the spreading of the gospel, than they are about the official unity of large religious institutions.
Or, to put another way, institutional unity is seen to be subservient to other interests, a lot of the time, even among people who agree that in theory it would be a good thing.
Of course, for some people it's a high priority, but I can't see how that'll ever be the case for all of the world's Christians, particularly for those outside of the West.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
All these things depend on how one views the 'Church'. There is only one Church to which all the baptised belong. Human imperfections have led from the very earliest times to splits within the Church, splits which have hardened into not just three but into thousands of 'denominations'.
To go back to the idea that one cannot sin without being aware of committing sin, the Catholic church does not blame those who have been cut off from Full Communion over centuries, not does it deny the grace of God to those communities either in rites or in the proclamation Of the Word to those communities.
However the Catholic Church teaches quite openly that the graces of the Sacraments are be found FOR CATHOLICS in the Sacraments celebrated by a properly authorised Catholic minister.
I was interested to learn in previous discussions that many non-Catholics have a slightly different conception of sin from Catholics who rightly or wrongly tend to put them into catalogues and categories.
I know that I personally tend to take ,what I think ,is a charitable view of the imperfections of others. I know also what it was like 60 years ago when everything was very black and white. Nowadays I see innumerable shades of grey.
60 years ago it was very definitely a mortal sin for a Catholic (unless dispensed) to eat meat on a Friday. Nowadays it is not. These were sins simply for not obeying Church laws. They had to be led from the' mandatum novum' to love one another,ergo to love the Church, ergo to obey the laws of the Church.
Nowadays we see things differently. In the matter of contraception, many Catholics will reason partly as Paul has done.
If in their heart of hearts their conscience, even although informed by the Church, tells them that even ARTIFICIAL contraception is not always wrong, then they may obey the voice of conscience.
Obviously the Church is not against contraception per se, but rather ,for various reasons ,against artificial contraception.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
... The more I see the fracture in the church acrossCatholic/Protestant lines, the more uncomfortable it makes me feel. There is only one church, yet we split into three camps and sling mud at one another. The RCC was here first and the protestant church split off. ...
I know that is how the RCC sees it, but that depends on how one defines the true church, whether one accepts that the RCC alone has the ability to make that definition or not.
The unity of the church in Western Europe fell apart in the C16. The RCC was as guilty of causing that as anyone else. One reason was the Papacy's determination to wind back conciliarism. Post-Tridentine RCC has no greater claim to be the lineal successor of the pre-Reformation church in Western Europe than the various other ecclesial households that emerged from that disruption.
Even for those who do accept that the RCC has a stronger claim than the others in Western Europe, for the life of me, I can't see any reason why anyone should argue that the RCC has a stronger claim for that status than Orthodoxy. quote:
... If we want to see one church ever, then we cannot leave it to the leaders. Lay people must reject the divide and join one another's churches as full and committed members.
This is the sense behind my desire to join the RCC. ...
The logic of what you've just said, is that lay people must join each others churches while simultaneously remaining members of the churches they already belong to.
The RCC won't let you do that. However, if that is what drives you to want to join it, then it seems to me that you're obliged not to take that step until the RCC changes its mind and lets a person be simultaneously be a member of its communion and another one.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
In thinking about what Enoch just wrote I remember just a few years ago an Anglican friend who wanted to join the Catholic Church.
There were a good number of difficulties as his life contained not just one but several 'irregular' situations.
Although he wanted to join the Catholic church he also wished to continue attending and receiving Communion in his Anglican church.
Needless to say he is still a member of an Anglican church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Does any shipmate know whether it is actually possible to become a Catholic if you are living in an ongoing state of mortal sin and do not put away what causes that? To put it a different way, will the Catholic Church receive someone who is not eligible to receive its sacraments?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
It certainly should be impossible for a person such as Enoch describes in the post above to be received into the Church when one considers that before reception one must make a full and sincere sacramental confession - which is only valid with a genuine and firm resolve to amendment of life (i.e., putting all sins behind one). These days, one is received into the Church by Confirmation - another sacrament - followed by reception of the Eucharist.
No priest who knows that the person does not so resolve should be receving them into the Church, and if he were to there is a very serious doubt about whether the sacramental Confirmation is valid, and little question that the reception of the Euicharist would be sacrilegious.
So, either impossible or sacrilegious. Either way, an enormously serious issue.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Perhaps I could add that my Anglican friend also had an unshakeable belief that pope Pius IX (who died in 1878 )had given special permission to Anglicans to receive Communion in Italian Catholic churches.
Although he was unable to tell me the name of the document which the pope had issued, he refused to believe that it was extremely unlikely that Pius IX had ever done any such thing.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even for those who do accept that the RCC has a stronger claim than the others in Western Europe, for the life of me, I can't see any reason why anyone should argue that the RCC has a stronger claim for that status than Orthodoxy.
[Aside] Well, there's Petrine primacy. But we probably don't want to go there... [/Aside]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
To go back to the idea that one cannot sin without being aware of committing sin
If you must, can you please at least acknowledge my response to that claim further up the thread? I really don't want to make an issue of this, but I did provide an argument that this is not what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
the Catholic church does not blame those who have been cut off from Full Communion over centuries.
Where, precisely, does she unequivocally give the moral all-clear for this? Certainly, some people who are not in communion with the Holy See will be blameless in that regard, but all of them, regardless?
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
However the Catholic Church teaches quite openly that the graces of the Sacraments are be found FOR CATHOLICS in the Sacraments celebrated by a properly authorised Catholic minister.
It claims a bit more than that, actually. It claims those graces are objectively, ex opera operato available in the sacraments celebrated by the Catholic Church - FOR EVERYONE.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
60 years ago it was very definitely a mortal sin for a Catholic (unless dispensed) to eat meat on a Friday. Nowadays it is not.
And what, precisely, is your point here? The Church has the power to require certain things/practices for the good of souls, such that wilfully not to fulfil those requirements becomes a serious issue. It can also dispense with these requirements for reasons of prudence. It's the same with which days are deemed days of obligation: in some jurisdictions attendance at Mass on certain feats is obligatory, and not so in others. I don't see a problem here, and I don't see how that's any different from where and when abstinence from meat was required in the past. We're not seeing things so very differently now at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
In the matter of contraception, many Catholics will reason partly as Paul has done.
Yes, I know - but the Church continues to teach that they are wrong to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
If in their heart of hearts their conscience, even although informed by the Church, tells them that even ARTIFICIAL contraception is not always wrong, then they may obey the voice of conscience.
Not only may - must. But if their consciences so "tell" them then, as Catholics, they are still responsible for not conforming their conscience with the Church's teaching. Conscience is not a magic, special, "heart of hearts" feeling: it is a matter of practical judgement, which for Catholics must involve consulting the teaching of the Church. If you know the Church has the power to teach some things bindingly and you know it has so taught in this matter, to go ahead anyway does not put you in the moral clear. Conscience is not a "get of out Hell free" card which you can play when it suits you.
Being a Catholic is hard. Believing and living the faith is hard. Pretending it's not is not helping things.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If, as it seems, you are worried about the sacraments in the post-reformation Churches, is it worth considering the Plot(tm)? The Orthodox have, I understand, a more charitable approach to a marriage that turns out to be a mistake than the RCs, and AFAIK, nobody denies that they have real priests and real Jesus.
This.
Humble Servant, is there a reason that you aren't considering the Orthodox church? One of my friends converted to Orthodoxy and is divorced. Divorce is not a bar to conversion and receiving communion. No annulment is required, but according to my friend, the priest will want to know what caused the marriage to founder. Also, it is possible to find Orthodox churches that are not bound by language and/or ethnicity, in case you were thinking that Orthodox services might not be in English. My friend joined such an Orthodox church--the services are in English and a goodly number of people there are converts.
This might be an answer for you, given the divorce that you mentioned. AFAIK if you were previously married, got divorced, and have remarried (and your former spouse is still alive), you will not be able to receive communion in the RCC unless the former marriage is annulled. If this is not possible for whatever reason, it seems better to find a church that does not have this requirement.
--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."
Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even for those who do accept that the RCC has a stronger claim than the others in Western Europe, for the life of me, I can't see any reason why anyone should argue that the RCC has a stronger claim for that status than Orthodoxy.
[Aside] Well, there's Petrine primacy. But we probably don't want to go there... [/Aside]
Chesterbelloc, the big problem with that statement, is that you have to be already RC to find it even remotely persuasive. Benighted, you may regard the rest of us, but we just don't find it so. As apologetic, it doesn't work. As a piece of rhetoric, it only works to keep those who are already on side remaining there.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even for those who do accept that the RCC has a stronger claim than the others in Western Europe, for the life of me, I can't see any reason why anyone should argue that the RCC has a stronger claim for that status than Orthodoxy.
[Aside] Well, there's Petrine primacy. But we probably don't want to go there... [/Aside]
Chesterbelloc, the big problem with that statement, is that you have to be already RC to find it even remotely persuasive. Benighted, you may regard the rest of us, but we just don't find it so. As apologetic, it doesn't work. As a piece of rhetoric, it only works to keep those who are already on side remaining there.
Like I said, we probably don't want to go there, but that's a somewhat bizarre dismissal of the concept. If you have never heard of anyone for whom Petrine primacy played a significant part in their conversion to the Catholic Church I could introduce you to a bunch of them. I'm one of them.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I am more than happy to acknowledge Chesterbelloc's posts.I admire his constancy and always find the posts of interest.
However I do not feel obliged to say or think, each time I read one of his posts :'Roma (aka Chesterbelloc) locuta est, causa finita'.
The Catholic catechism in paras 817 and 818 says the following : 'in this one and only church there arose certain rifts... in subsequent centuries...large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church , for which often enough men of both sides were to blame......However one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these (separated) communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.'
The quote from the Catechism goes back to the Second Vatican Council and Unitatis redintegratio of 1964
Chesterbelloc says that perhaps not all are blameless for this situation. I entirely agree with him. None of us are blameless for the separation of Christians and that includes , as the Catechism and the Council so rightly say , also the children of the Catholic Church.
My point about Sacraments FOR CATHOLICS is nor restrictive. Of course I agree with Chesterbelloc that they are available FOR EVERYONE. Chesterbelloc has however explained that one has to ask first of all for baptism and be ready to follow as far as possible the teachings of the Church.
I have no power, nor any wish to limit the graces which God bestows upon Christians not in communion with the Holy See, nor do I seek to make any statement about the validity or otherwise of the Sacraments as celebrated by other Christian communities.
What I do say, is that those who profess the Catholic faith should seek for the Sacraments administered by a properly authorised minister .
My point about Friday abstinence was that not all 'sins' are 'sins' all the time. The 'sin' of eating meat on a Friday was not so much the eating of meat, but rather wilfully disobeying (should that be the case) the discipline laws of the Church. Some laws can be changed by the Church, but NOT THE LAW OF LOVE.
I am glad also that Chesterbelloc agrees with me about obeying one's conscience and of course I agree with him that it is the Church's task to try to inform the consciences of the faithful.
In forming or teaching and we are all teachers of the faith, one has to remember :
Not all that is said (by the teacher)is heard
Not all that is heard is actually listened to
Not all that is listened to is understood
Not all that is understood is agreed with
Not all that is agreed with is acted upon.
Chesterbelloc does not need to tell me that believing and living the Catholic Faith can be hard. Once again I agree with him wholeheartedly.
As teachers of the Faith we have to make every effort to teach clearly the law of love and try to raise people up to the JOY of the Gospel
The minutiae of the rubrics of the Roman Rite, Ordinary or Extraordinary Form,
the intricacies of laws of the Church, the varied degrees of venial and mortal sins only have a sense if they help us to discover and to respond positively to the 'mandatum novum' of love of God and neighbour. That is what is hard about the Catholic Faith.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm sure neither Forthview nor Chesterbelloc are among their number, but I do sometimes though get a bit irritated by the impression some Catholics give that it's living the Catholic faith that is so hard, rather than living the Christian faith, that somehow the rest of us have it easy, that we're a bit like the spiritual equivalent of unstretched rubber bands, followers of the Noahide covenant rather than the true keepers of the 613 mitzvot.
Eschewing abortion may be difficult for some people, but we don't agree with it either. Eschewing contraception leaves one either like the old woman who lived in the shoe, or with a knot in the end of your YKW, but we know that quite a lot of Catholics are 'flexible' on that one.
Veganism likewise is very hard work. Following a macrobiotic diet is even harder. But these are rules. Provided you've not eaten the forbidden food, however badly you treat your wife, you can feel you are a vegan or a microbiologist in good standing.
The really difficult one, though, IMHO is loving one's neighbour as oneself.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Forthview, I'm still a bit dizzy from reading your last post. I really think we're talking past one another completely.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm sure neither Forthview nor Chesterbelloc are among their number, but I do sometimes though get a bit irritated by the impression some Catholics give that it's living the Catholic faith that is so hard, rather than living the Christian faith.
[...]
The really difficult one, though, IMHO is loving one's neighbour as oneself.
Well, I do happen to think that living a life in complete fidelity to Catholic teaching is rather more difficult than to many other philosophies, some of them avowedly Christian. But it's not a pissing competition and we've all got our crosses to bear. Both loving God above all else and loving one's neighbour as oneself are difficult.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Christianity is not a philosophy. I don't think any ecclesial household would regard it as one. I am sure neither Pope Francis nor Pope Benedict do.
Changing the subject, I see the curse of the spontaneous spellchecker has struck again. I did not mean to suggest that microbiologists followed a macrobiotic diet. I had intended to concoct (if the curse does not strike again) a word macrobioticist.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Christianity is not a philosophy. I don't think any ecclesial household would regard it as one. I am sure neither Pope Francis nor Pope Benedict do.
I'm rather baffled by that assertion. It is certainly true that for Christians it is much more than a philosophy - it is a relationship with the Triune God, the divine person of Jesus Christ, etc.
But not only does Christianity fundamentally involve philosophy in its more formal sense of embracing a theory about "the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence", but also in the looser "worldview" sense - "a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour". Certainly, the Catholic Church has always seen it as such. It's not something I can see any modern pope denying.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
In thinking about what Enoch just wrote I remember just a few years ago an Anglican friend who wanted to join the Catholic Church.
There were a good number of difficulties as his life contained not just one but several 'irregular' situations.
Although he wanted to join the Catholic church he also wished to continue attending and receiving Communion in his Anglican church.
Needless to say he is still a member of an Anglican church.
The RC church and dioceses here have no difficulty being much more pastoral. My daughter is an Anglican and also goes to an RC church. She gets comminion at both. No one restrains her. The local bishop of the RC church has regular lunch dates. with the Lutheran and Anglucan bishops. They all talk I suppose about the shared hospital chaplaincy, retreat centre, ecumenical centre. The RC cathedral in the neighboyring diocese was used for the ordination of the previous Anglican bishop as the Anglican cathedral was under repair. All three and several more denominations of course attended.
I am thus having great difficulty understanding how things can be so divisive for some of you.
[ 29. April 2016, 12:26: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The RC church and dioceses here have no difficulty being much more pastoral. My daughter is an Anglican and also goes to an RC church. She gets comminion at both. No one restrains her. The local bishop of the RC church has regular lunch dates. with the Lutheran and Anglucan bishops. They all talk I suppose about the shared hospital chaplaincy, retreat centre, ecumenical centre. The RC cathedral in the neighboyring diocese was used for the ordination of the previous Anglican bishop as the Anglican cathedral was under repair. All three and several more denominations of course attended.
I am thus having great difficulty understanding how things can be so divisive for some of you.
If the priest at the RC church that your Anglican daughter attends knows that she is Anglican yet allows her to receive communion, AFAIK that is irregular. Whether I think it is commendable or not isn't the point. If I walked into a RC church the priest wouldn't know whether I was RC, so I could go to the altar rail to receive communion ... but I know that the RC church practices closed communion, so I don't. I've been to several RC churches where the bulletin politely states the closed communion policy in no uncertain terms.
Perhaps that is divisive, but when I am a guest in an RC church I play by the rules.
Again, back to what the OP wrote: it sounds like he had a former marriage that ended in divorce and he has since remarried. If he converts to Roman Catholicism and wants to receive communion, that former marriage would need to be annulled in order for that to happen as long as his former spouse is still alive. AFAIK official RC policy on this matter has not changed. Maybe Pope Francis addressed this in Amoris laetitia, but I don't know whether an apostolic exhortation overrides canon law. Chesterbelloc or Triple Tiara would know about that.
--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."
Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
What St Hilda just said so well.
quote:
AFAIK official RC policy on this matter has not changed. Maybe Pope Francis addressed this in Amoris laetitia, but I don't know whether an apostolic exhortation overrides canon law.
I am no expert, but the expert commentators and canonists I have read are unanimous that (whatever His Holiness or his ghost writers may have intended) AM has de facto overturned nothing, either canonically or doctrinally, and could hardly be expected to have done so, especially whilst being so long, diverse and semmingly deliberately ambiguous.
Therefore, the discipline remains as it was, as unambiguously set out in the Catechism and previous papal documents, such as Familiaris consortio (which AL explicitly cites).
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It claims those graces are objectively, ex opera operato available in the sacraments celebrated by the Catholic Church - FOR EVERYONE.
For everyone ? Or only for those disposed to accept the culture and authority of the Catholic Church ?
If the graces of the sacraments operate objectively, like physics (a comparison that IngoB has been known to make) then it seems to me the height of wickedness to deny that Grace to anyone as a means of pressuring them into accepting one's own culture and authority, maintaining one's own power.
If sacraments operate subjectively, like psychology, so that graces are received to the extent that one believes in them, then how can one disparage the sacraments offered by rival ecclesiastical institutions ?
All communities have a shared culture, and at some level make "doing it our way" a condition of acceptance into the community. Shared rules, shared values, ways of distinguishing the insiders from the outsiders. That's just human nature.
What I don't see is how the Catholic Church can both be universal and insistent on its own culture (rules/values/authority).
quote:
Conscience is not a magic, special, "heart of hearts" feeling: it is a matter of practical judgement, which for Catholics must involve consulting the teaching of the Church.
Consulting is not the same as being bound by. Primacy of conscience means that the individual consults - does their reasonable best to find someone to explain both what the tradition of the church advises and why, in clear modern English - and then does their best to reconcile that with their own moral intuition, and then decides. It doesn't mean subordinating moral intuition to legitimate external authority.
quote:
Being a Catholic is hard.
Trying to force oneself to believe incompatible or nonsensical things is hard. Trying to live in one culture while maintaining the values of another is hard.
Isn't the true yoke supposed to be easy and the burden light?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It claims those graces are objectively, ex opera operato available in the sacraments celebrated by the Catholic Church - FOR EVERYONE.
For everyone ? Or only for those disposed to accept the culture and authority of the Catholic Church ?
For everyone, because membership of the Catholic Church is open to all.
But there's something a bit absurd about the question. Why would you want to recevicve Catholic sacraments if you did not accept the Catholic faith? If you did not accept the tenets of Judaism, would you demand circumcision from a Jewish mohel?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If the graces of the sacraments operate objectively, like physics (a comparison that IngoB has been known to make) then it seems to me the height of wickedness to deny that Grace to anyone as a means of pressuring them into accepting one's own culture and authority, maintaining one's own power.
This is definitely absurd. It implies that irrespective of a person's belief or lack of it concerning the sacraments it would be wrong for someone to deny them to you on that basis.
It also ignores the possibility that reception of the Eucharist could in some circumstances be bad for you. The grace of the sacraments is objectively available - it's really there and guaranteed - but we can louse up the channel from our side. One has to be properly disposed to benefit from the grace, just as one has to have one's mouth open and not throw up to receive the benefit of nutrition from food.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What I don't see is how the Catholic Church can both be universal and insistent on its own culture (rules/values/authority).
Because God is for everybody - everyone was made by and for Him. Christ founded the Church for all men and women. The Church necessarily has "rules/values/authority" - that's what makes it a distinct body in the first place. Are you suggesting that Christ founded a body with nothing to teach and with no-one to teach it? What would the Church be without the values that Christ taught or the means of teaching and upholding those values? Because this is definitely not the kind of Church we see in the New Testament.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Conscience is not a magic, special, "heart of hearts" feeling: it is a matter of practical judgement, which for Catholics must involve consulting the teaching of the Church.
Consulting is not the same as being bound by. Primacy of conscience means that the individual consults - does their reasonable best to find someone to explain both what the tradition of the church advises and why, in clear modern English - and then does their best to reconcile that with their own moral intuition, and then decides. It doesn't mean subordinating moral intuition to legitimate external authority.
Right. But a failure properly to form the conscience in the first place or to maintain it by consultation with the authoratitive teaching of the Church is going to leave you with a conscience which you still must obey, but which will likely lead you seriously astray in doing so. Our moral intuitions are, after all, fallible.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Being a Catholic is hard.
Trying to force oneself to believe incompatible or nonsensical things is hard.
Agreed. So it's just as well that is not required for embracing the Catholic faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Trying to live in one culture while maintaining the values of another is hard.
Indeed. And in this post-lapsarian world, trying live by the values of the Kingdom will always be hard. It's when it stops being hard that you have to worry.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't the true yoke supposed to be easy and the burden light?
Yes - just as easy as taking up one's cross and following Him.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why would you want to receive Catholic sacraments if you did not accept the Catholic faith?
The Catholic faith is not a seamless garment. It is entirely possible to want to join a local Catholic community whilst at the same time believing that the governing body of the Catholic church is wrong about some particular issue (and therefore is capable of being wrong about other issues). People are drawn to those in whom they see a reflection of Jesus. They're not drawn by dogmas.
If the government of the Soviet Union maintained that citizens of the Soviet Union should believe that the government is always right, then that might not be enough to deter someone from emigrating to the Soviet Union. They might be in love with a Russian. They might be attracted to the people or the landscape or the culture. They might believe that a state that is trying to implement communism is worth supporting, however badly that might be working out in practice.
The OP seemed to suggest someone who thought they should join the Catholic church because it is the organisation that Jesus founded, whilst believing that those who govern the church are wrong not to recognise the reality of second marriages. Seems a perfectly plausible view, whether or not you happen to agree with either part.
quote:
The grace of the sacraments is objectively available - it's really there and guaranteed - but we can louse up the channel from our side. One has to be properly disposed to benefit from the grace.
Yes, but being "properly disposed" is about an attitude towards God, not an attitude towards the pronouncements of the government of the Church.
If I had medicine that would save your life, but said that I'd only give it to you if you agree that I'm the greatest and you accept my every utterance as gospel, what sort of jerk would I be ?
quote:
The Church necessarily has "rules/values/authority" - that's what makes it a distinct body in the first place. Are you suggesting that Christ founded a body with nothing to teach and with no-one to teach it?
No, I'm suggesting that every organisation has a culture which will attract some people and repel others according to their disposition and background. No organisation can embody or teach "mere Christianity"; every church and missionary society necessarily presents Christianity within a particular cultural context. The Catholic church presents Christ as interpreted through Roman culture (just as Anglicanism is culturally English and Orthodoxy culturally eastern-European, etc)
And the idea of the pronouncements of the hierarchy never being wrong is a Roman overlay on the teaching of Christ and not part of it.
Being open to everyone who can swallow Roman culture without gagging isn't enough to count as universal.
True universality may be impossible to attain; I'm not even sure how it can be approached. What does wearing one's cultural matrix lightly look like ? A federation of national churches ?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't the true yoke supposed to be easy and the burden light?
Yes - just as easy as taking up one's cross and following Him.
The cross is normally represented as a heavy burden - Jesus needed help to carry it and he stumbled several times...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't the true yoke supposed to be easy and the burden light?
Yes - just as easy as taking up one's cross and following Him.
The cross is normally represented as a heavy burden - Jesus needed help to carry it and he stumbled several times...
... which was my point precisely.
I'll get back to some of your other points later.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Russ
The OP seemed to suggest someone who thought they should join the Catholic church because it is the organisation that Jesus founded, whilst believing that those who govern the church are wrong not to recognise the reality of second marriages. Seems a perfectly plausible view, whether or not you happen to agree with either part.
I'd be interested to hear your take on this part, Chesterbelloc.
I agree with Russ that it's a plausible point of view to see the Catholic church as more than just one among many churches but not to believe that it is preserved by the Holy Spirit from mistakes in teaching. I would have thought that probably quite a few people hold that position, including some Catholics ( even though they are not supposed to ).
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:
originally posted by Russ
The OP seemed to suggest someone who thought they should join the Catholic church because it is the organisation that Jesus founded, whilst believing that those who govern the church are wrong not to recognise the reality of second marriages. Seems a perfectly plausible view, whether or not you happen to agree with either part.
I'd be interested to hear your take on this part, Chesterbelloc.
I agree with Russ that it's a plausible point of view to see the Catholic church as more than just one among many churches but not to believe that it is preserved by the Holy Spirit from mistakes in teaching. I would have thought that probably quite a few people hold that position, including some Catholics ( even though they are not supposed to ).
My short answer would be: why would one believe the massive claim that the Catholic Church is the very Church founded by Christ himself, but cavil at the relatively minor claim by that same Church to teach authoritatively that second marriages whilst both spouses were still living were prohibited?
Isn't that rather like swallowing a camel but straining at a gnat?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc, that seems to me, as I commented about Petrine primacy, another example of reasoning that is only persuasive if one is already an RC. Moonlitdoor only referred to
quote:
the Catholic church as more than just one among many churches
It is you who has extrapolated from those words the assumption that this must mean recognising the RCC as the only one true church, the complete and only Body of Christ.
If it did follow that there could only be one true organic and real institutional church in this world, that that church's institutional pronouncements and authority were automatically right, and that anyone who questioned this was automatically sinful, heretical, wilfully disobedient, schismatic and/or blind (choose preferred adjective(s) to suit situation), then that would be a very disturbing state of affairs.
Contrary to the impression I may have created, I've a great admiration for the RCC. It has many strengths It is undoubtedly a school in which saints are forged. But that admiration is not unqualified. As it happens, its teaching on marriage is one of the areas where I think it has knotted itself up unnecessarily with consequences that are damaging to the spiritual health of some of its weaker faithful. Idealism has trumped incarnation.
But if the 100% or nothing approach is obligatory, then I am sinning by even saying this.
Ideally, I agree, there should be only one church. St Paul asks 'is Christ divided?'. Sadly, and sinfully, looking around the world, the answer to that question in 2016 has to be 'yes'.
I haven't forgotten the point about philosophy, but there isn't time or space to come back on it at the moment.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The Catholic faith is not a seamless garment.
Says you.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It is entirely possible to want to join a local Catholic community whilst at the same time believing that the governing body of the Catholic church is wrong about some particular issue (and therefore is capable of being wrong about other issues).
Then join them: befriend, worship, chat, volunteer with them. All this is possible without receiving the sacraments in their building. If you think that only Catholic sacraments are valid, maybe you should have a think about whether the other things the Church teaches about herself and the ways she exercises her ministry might not also be right. If you don't believe that only Catholic sacraments are valid, get the sacraments elsewhere. What is supposed to be the problem here? That you can only get the sacraments of the Catholic Church under the terms of the Catholic Church? What do you expect?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
People are drawn to those in whom they see a reflection of Jesus. They're not drawn by dogmas.
Do not underestimete people's hunger for the truth; in my experience and that of countless others, people are drawn by both.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
The grace of the sacraments is objectively available - it's really there and guaranteed - but we can louse up the channel from our side. One has to be properly disposed to benefit from the grace.
Yes, but being "properly disposed" is about an attitude towards God, not an attitude towards the pronouncements of the government of the Church.
That's a big fat false dichotomy for Catholics. The fact that you don't get this is part of the problem you seem to have accepting that Catholics, except in very rare cases, are only to administer the sacraments to Catholics.
How do we have friendship with God? By trying to love Him above all, and loving your neighbour as yourself. How do we love God? By keeping His commandments. How do we know what God commands? By the gift of the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures and the Tradition as interpreted by those whom God has appointed to that task. For Catholics, that's Peter and those teachers under the authority of Peter and in communion with him. Do you see how all this is linked for Catholics?
If you are in violation of a defined teaching of the Church - say, you are divorced from your living spouse and living as man and wife with another person, without having sought or received a decree of nullity for that first union - and you know yourself to be so, that could definitely make you objectively ill-disposed to be receiving the Eucharist.
And if you don't beleive all that, no-one is forcing you to. The Catholic Church is a voluntary organisation and no-one is forced to subscribe to her doctrines. Heck, in X number of parishes out of 100 probably no-one's going to deny you Holy Communion, even if they know of your lack of assent. But, er, please don't do that. Please respect our right to teach as we believe right and to call only Catholics in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist. Thanks awfully.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If I had medicine that would save your life, but said that I'd only give it to you if you agree that I'm the greatest and you accept my every utterance as gospel, what sort of jerk would I be?
A delusive, egomaniacal one?
If I had a potentially live-saving medicine which if taken incorrectly could do great harm, say by someone who had a condition which made such a medicine potentially deadly poisonous to them, and I doled it out without discrimination or warning to all who said they wanted it, what kind of jerk would that make me?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The Catholic church presents Christ as interpreted through Roman culture (just as Anglicanism is culturally English and Orthodoxy culturally eastern-European, etc)
I totally don't buy your premiss, dude. The Catholic Church is called "catholic" for a reason. It is the most successfully culturally adaptive organisation on the planet. It is anything but monocultural. But truth crosses cultural boundaries. Some things are true for all cultures and all peoples, precisely because they are all people of God, created by and for Him.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And the idea of the pronouncements of the hierarchy never being wrong is a Roman overlay on the teaching of Christ and not part of it.
The idea that every utterance of every hierarch in the Church is infallible is something a sophomore would be embarrassed to entertain.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Being open to everyone who can swallow Roman culture without gagging isn't enough to count as universal.
Then nothing is. No moral or ethical or political system of thought is capable of commanding the consent of every single person who encounters it. Something can be true, of course, without everyone consenting to it. Only by making Catholicism platitudinously vacuous could it meet your standard of universality.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Chesterbelloc, that seems to me, as I commented about Petrine primacy, another example of reasoning that is only persuasive if one is already an RC.
But, again, the idea that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ is clearly not one that is persuasive only to insiders - beacause people convert to this belief all the time.
And it's worth mentioning that amongst those who are separated from her the Catholic Church recognises non-Catholic Christians as true Christians and even some of their communities as actual, genuine churches (e.g., the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches). And that there is such a thing as "invincible ignorance" - a state in which for a variety of reasons people simply cannot (or non-culpably will not/end up not) bring themselves to recognise the claims of the Catholic Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
if it did follow that there could only be one true organic and real institutional church in this world, that that church's institutional pronouncements and authority were automatically right, and that anyone who questioned this was automatically sinful, heretical, wilfully disobedient, schismatic and/or blind (choose preferred adjective(s) to suit situation), then that would be a very disturbing state of affairs.
It would. But only because you overplay your hand.
Yes, the Catholic Church believes that there is only one Church, with which people can be in lesser or greater communion, and that she is it. But very far from everything that every hierarch pronounces is "automatically right", and people do sometimes have an absolute positive duty to question some hierarchical pronouncements - even some papal ones. After all: quote:
The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter so that by His revelation they might publish new teaching, but so that, by His assistance, they might devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the Apostles, or the Deposit of Faith.
The infallibility bestowed upon the Church is real, but extremely limited.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What St Hilda just said so well.
quote:
AFAIK official RC policy on this matter has not changed. Maybe Pope Francis addressed this in Amoris laetitia, but I don't know whether an apostolic exhortation overrides canon law.
I am no expert, but the expert commentators and canonists I have read are unanimous that (whatever His Holiness or his ghost writers may have intended) AM has de facto overturned nothing, either canonically or doctrinally, and could hardly be expected to have done so, especially whilst being so long, diverse and semmingly deliberately ambiguous.
Therefore, the discipline remains as it was, as unambiguously set out in the Catechism and previous papal documents, such as Familiaris consortio (which AL explicitly cites).
Except no one gives a flying good fling at a rolling donut about such nonsense here. There is a liberal interpretation of RC canon 800something. Which apparently in parts of the world which lack old world rigidity is enough for Christians to play together. The local RC, Lutheran and Anglican bishops also hold hands together and wash with sweet grass smoke together (a First Nations Cree ritual).
The point is that such rigid nonsense is of no value except to the same sort who deliberately exclude other children on playgrounds. We are having none of it.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The Catholic Church encourages Christians ( and others) not only to play together but indeed also to pray together.
It is far from unknown here in the more rigid parts of the old world for Catholics to use non-Catholic churches in which to celebrate their rites and equally for non-Catholics to use Catholic churches for their celebrations.
It is customary for representatives of one religious community to attend in an official capacity important celebrations of another community.
It is good for bishops of different communities to meet together for both social and spiritual reasons.
In the case of bishops one might ask why are there separate bishops ? To avoid divisiveness ,
why don't all Christians just become Catholics ?
Surely that would avoid divisiveness ? Or would it ? Or is it really likely that Canadians of Anglican or Lutheran heritage are likely to become Catholic en masse ? and where would that leave the famous UCCAN ?
For me, in spite of our divisions, created by our own imperfections, we have to work with each other, sharing where possible our particular charisms and respecting the beliefs and practices of others.
One extremely important idea in the Catholic Church is that the individual member, whilst an individual child of God, is not alone, but an integral part of the Catholic community. Those who are not part of the Catholic community are simply not part of the Catholic community. They do not accept the teaching authority of the Church, they do not necessarily accept the beliefs of the Catholic Church.
Chesterbelloc has indicated that in certain circumstances non-Catholics can be admitted to Catholic sacraments, principally Holy Communion.
There are three main conditions to be met :
If the person has a great desire to receive Communion and expresses spontaneously that desire
If there is no possibility of their receiving Communion from a minister of their own community
If they share the Eucharistic theology of the Catholic Church
These are exceptional circumstances. In the case of no prophet's relative, it does not seem that she is unable to go to an Anglican church.
Of course she may be part of a household which contains both Catholic and non-Catholic members.
In this case some priests will interpret the guidelines in a very liberal way.
No prophet rightly talks about the good relations between the Catholic Church and other Christians communities, relations which exist in many parts of the Old World, but while we have many Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, we cannot ignore the divisions, nor our responsibility for them.
It is just possible, but perhaps not, that no prophet is confusing attendance at a Catholic Mass with reception of Communion. A good number of non-Catholics will see no difference. No prophet, however, does use the expression 'get Communion'. Certainly in the Old World this is not an expression which would be used in the Catholic Church, though I entirely accept that it may be in common use where he comes from.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
.
Chesterbelloc has indicated that in certain circumstances non-Catholics can be admitted to Catholic sacraments, principally Holy Communion.
There are three main conditions to be met :
If the person has a great desire to receive Communion and expresses spontaneously that desire
If there is no possibility of their receiving Communion from a minister of their own community
If they share the Eucharistic theology of the Catholic Church
Madame and I have on many occasions taken communion at Mass in Catholic churches throughout Europe. The spontaneity issue is usually absent as we make a practice of going to speak with the priest the afternoon before. The lack of Anglican churches out in the Vaucluse, the Alto Adige etc covers the second. As to the third we say that while we don't like Aquinas's statement of transubstantiation as being overly scholastic and not stressing the love and grace of God in the sacrament, we believe that the elements become truly the Body and Blood. Even in suburban Sydney, we have been admitted - the basis being that there's no Anglican service being conducted within cooee at the particular time, usually a requiem or nuptial. Never have we been refused admission.
As far as we are concerned, it is imperative that we speak beforehand to the priest and don't just assume that all will be well. Of course in suburban Sydney there's nothing to distinguish us from others there, but it's the courtesy of speaking first that is important.
[ 02. May 2016, 11:16: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
By 'spontaneously' I mean 'of their own volition' , not because of the wishes of another person.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Except no one gives a flying good fling at a rolling donut about such nonsense here. [...] The point is that such rigid nonsense is of no value except to the same sort who deliberately exclude other children on playgrounds. We are having none of it.
Thanks for your considered and constructive contribution to this discussion.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
By 'spontaneously' I mean 'of their own volition' , not because of the wishes of another person.
Thanks - I missed that completely.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you don't believe that only Catholic sacraments are valid, get the sacraments elsewhere. What is supposed to be the problem here? That you can only get the sacraments of the Catholic Church under the terms of the Catholic Church? What do you expect?
Perfectly reasonable to say that the Catholic Church and its sacraments are for those who believe X,Y & Z and that those who don't should go elsewhere. If you believe that there's a viable elsewhere to go to.
My problem is when you say this out of one corner of your mouth and out of the other say that the Catholic church is for everyone and that outside it there is no salvation.
[Quote][QB]Do not underestimete people's hunger for the truth; in my experience and that of countless others, people are drawn by both.
I'd agree that people are drawn to truth, to ideas that fit their experience and help them make sense of their lives.
But some people are also drawn to others who will confirm their prejudices, their conservatism.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
To be fair, most denominations would claim to be 'for everyone', not just the RCC. But the reality is, even the most tolerant and inclusive of them will present socio-cultural and theological barriers for someone. (Indeed, tolerance itself is a cultural value that works better in some cultural settings than in others; in churches it appears to have most traction among a social and theological elite.)
I haven't noticed RCs urging that salvation can only be found in their own denomination. You could say that in much of modern Western (Protestant) secular culture especially, RCs know it would be counterproductive for them to take such a stance. It would lead to antagonism but very few conversions. No doubt they believe they have a better way, but again, who doesn't?
Tolerant Christians wish that more conservative Christians were as tolerant as themselves, even if they appreciate colourful theological diversity, or believe that many paths lead to God.
[ 03. May 2016, 22:06: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you don't believe that only Catholic sacraments are valid, get the sacraments elsewhere. What is supposed to be the problem here? That you can only get the sacraments of the Catholic Church under the terms of the Catholic Church? What do you expect?
Perfectly reasonable to say that the Catholic Church and its sacraments are for those who believe X,Y & Z and that those who don't should go elsewhere. If you believe that there's a viable elsewhere to go to.
Ok, so why would a person who is not a Catholic (and not considering becoming one) think that there's not a viable elsewhere?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
My problem is when you say this out of one corner of your mouth and out of the other say that the Catholic church is for everyone and that outside it there is no salvation.
Supposing we take the "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" at it strictest orthodox interpretation (various interpretations seem to hold some currency at this juncture) - what of it? Anyone may still join or at the very least explore with the Church the process of becoming a member - the Church excludes no-one who can actually commit to the Church's most basic credal requirements and will discuss membership with anyone who approaches her. How more accommodating could the Church actually be, without denying her mission (as she understands it to be) and the truth (as she believes it to be)?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'd agree that people are drawn to truth, to ideas that fit their experience and help them make sense of their lives.
That doesn't seem to me to be an adequate approach to truth-finding. Sometimes - very frequently, alas - the truth does not always fit people's existing experiences, values and understanding of themselves at all or does so in not immediately obvious ways. People must allow themselves to be open to being transformed by the truth, rather than reject it because it does not on a first glance fit one's preconceptions.
An encounter with the truth at it's most transcendent is also one with the truth at its most personal: it is an encounter with the Person who is the Way and the Light as well as the Truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But some people are also drawn to others who will confirm their prejudices, their conservatism.
I don't know what you mean by "conservatism", but you make it sound as if only "conservative" people are drawn to those who will confirm their prejudices. I'm sure you can't mean that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd
Shipmate
# 8436
|
Posted
As an Anglican priest I have received communion in the Catholic church on three occasions, and it has always been a blessing to me.
On the first I was simply an anonymous face in a large congregation when I received. I apologise if that offends any Catholics here, but I felt a real call to do so.
On the second I was acting in my role as an Anglican priest at a joint Catholic / Anglican funeral. I was vested and the Catholic priest insisted I receive communion knowing full-well who I was, and no one in the congregation batted an eyelid.
On the most recent occasion I attended an Ordinariate church in London and went up to the altar rail clutching an order of service and expected to receive a blessing. The priest ignored that and gave me communion anyway.
The latter two occasions tend to suggest that pastoral practice on the ground does not always follow the strict letter of canon law.
My deepest prayer is that the schism between our churches will be healed and full communion restored but, if that does not happen in the next 20 years, then I may well spend my retirement as Catholic.
--------------------
Cedd
Churchmanship: This week I am mostly an evangelical, catholic, orthodox with both liberal and illiberal tendancies. Terms and conditions apply.
Posts: 377 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd:
pastoral practice on the ground does not always follow the strict letter of canon law.
Over on the "pledge of allegiance" thread the distinction is made between the nation and the state. And between the state and particular policies of the state.
It seems to me entirely coherent to see another nation as a good people badly governed, or a nation with a generally just and effective form of government despite the negative impacts of their current foreign policy.
To use such terminology of the Catholic church marks one out as a non-Catholic. To clearly distinguish the church, its government and that government's current policy positions is something that Catholics seldom do.
But I'd agree with you that many Catholics are better than their government...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Contrary to the impression I may have created, I've a great admiration for the RCC. It has many strengths It is undoubtedly a school in which saints are forged. But that admiration is not unqualified. As it happens, its teaching on marriage is one of the areas where I think it has knotted itself up unnecessarily with consequences that are damaging to the spiritual health of some of its weaker faithful. Idealism has trumped incarnation.
This is what makes me so sad about the Catholic Church. I am very much in tune with the Catholic theology of the Mass. The Sacrifice, the Real Presence and asking the BVM, the saints and my brothers and sisters to pray for me. These things, which are all completely absent from Protestant theology are really where I'm at. But as Enoch says, the Church has completely knotted itself it with its contempt for human sexuality. Much of what's wrong with it can be found in Humanae Vitae. To say that all sexual acts must be open to the creation of life is Manichean. There are many very wholesome sexual acts and relationships in which it is quite sensible not to bring new life into the situation. Couples who struggle to maintain the children they already have, or young people who aren't ready for the commitment, or people who will never be ready for it. To bring children into such a situation is irresponsible.
This is also why the Catholic Church can't give due respect to gay couples, taking the attitude that if it can't produce children they shouldn't be doing it. Very few people in the contemporary world can relate to that, as the Irish referendum on gay marriage proved, against the advice of the Catholic Church. No one can deny that Jesus took a very strong position on the subject of divorce and remarriage, but the Catholic Church refuses to countenance that there may be some context to his comments within the society in which He lived, or that, like many of His teachings, He's giving an ideal, or even that it's equivocal that He may have allowed divorce for unchastity. It just imposes a rule which places intolerable burdens on people.
I don't accept that God requires a person to live a life of celibacy and lonliness because of one mistake. It doesn't apply in other areas of human sinfulness. It's as the former Irish President Mary Macaleese said, why should rules on human sexuality be pronounced on by celibate old men? Of course I realise that this is what people call cafeteria Catholicism, accepting the parts I want and not the whole package. This is why, with great sadness, I can't belong to the Catholic Church, though I still attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form at least once a month. I don't, of course, present myself for communion.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is what makes me so sad about the Catholic Church. I am very much in tune with the Catholic theology of the Mass. The Sacrifice, the Real Presence and asking the BVM, the saints and my brothers and sisters to pray for me.
Forgive me but, if I remember correctly, you had bigger issues with the Church's teaching - issues which made me surprised at the time that you were to be received into the Church. Didn't/don't you reject the idea of the Incarnation, in that you don't believe Christ is/was fully divine as well as fully human? If you think this question, which I think relevant, in any way impertinent you of course needn't respond.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
To say that all sexual acts must be open to the creation of life is Manichean.
How so, precisely?
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There are many very wholesome sexual acts and relationships in which it is quite sensible not to bring new life into the situation. Couples who struggle to maintain the children they already have[.]
...have recourse to natural methods of regulating the births of their children. You may not like (or think adequate) these provisions, but many people do use them successfully and it would only be fair to mention them.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
or young people who aren't ready for the commitment, or people who will never be ready for it.
Do you mean married couples? Because if you do, the question arises whether they are really ready for the commitment of marriage in that case. If you mean unmarried ones, the Church has no advice for them except not to have sexual relations until they are ready for the commitment of marriage. There is no teaching of the Church about the use of artificial contraception outside marriage. None. To those who decide to ignore the teaching about extra-marital sex the normal requirements of prudence and ethics still apply, of course.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is also why the Catholic Church can't give due respect to gay couples, taking the attitude that if it can't produce children they shouldn't be doing it.
This is categorically not what the Church teaches about same-sex relations.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It's as the former Irish President Mary Macaleese said, why should rules on human sexuality be pronounced on by celibate old men?
This hoary old argument is not as strong as you seem to think it is.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't, of course, present myself for communion.
Thank you for that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE]Perfectly reasonable to say that the Catholic Church and its sacraments are for those who believe X,Y & Z and that those who don't should go elsewhere. If you believe that there's a viable elsewhere to go to.
Ok, so why would a person who is not a Catholic (and not considering becoming one) think that there's not a viable elsewhere?
The point is not whether they think there's a viable elsewhere - it's whether you think so.
If you don't, then it seems at best incoherent and at worst downright dishonest for you to take the line that "if you don't like the way we do things here then go somewhere else". However reasonable such a position might be for others.
If you see the Catholic church as a private club for those who like their religion traditional and hierarchical (to take a couple of cultural attributes which are not in themselves either good or bad), what's wrong with that ?
It's only if the Catholic church has a mission to be universal, to be the church for everyone, that such attributes might get in the way of the mission to those who are feminist or democratic in outlook.
Whether expressed in terms of universality or of a monopoly on salvation, it's the same underlying distinction.
quote:
you make it sound as if only "conservative" people are drawn to those who will confirm their prejudices. I'm sure you can't mean that.
Not saying only conservatives at all. They're just a group that are currently attracted to Catholicism for the wrong reason. If all those who are wedded to traditional gender roles see the Catholic church as their refuge, what does that say ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Not quite Chesterbelloc.
I agree that to become a Catholic from being a something else, you have to accept the entire package. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are a cradle Catholic, I can't really imagine that you have to sign up afresh to the full Catechism, hook line and sinker, every time you receive the sacrament. Yes, under the traditional discipline, you would have had to go to confession, but my impression is that that was mainly interested in actual sins mortal or venial. I don't believe that there are no cradle Catholics in good standing in the pews who wouldn't turn out if you examined them to be a touch Arian, Docetist, Pelagian or whatever. Some of them might not even think with the church on issues like contraception and remarriage.
Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, even with adult converts, I suspect clergy may be less rigorous in their demands of those who convert from believing nothing as against those who convert from other ecclesial households. With those who convert from nothing, are they not inclined to welcome and to seek to encourage those who aspire to a full and complete faith, without necessarily having achieved it?
You may not agree with this. But I get the impression that's the actual position.
[ 05. May 2016, 15:48: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Forgive me but, if I remember correctly, you had bigger issues with the Church's teaching - issues which made me surprised at the time that you were to be received into the Church. Didn't/don't you reject the idea of the Incarnation, in that you don't believe Christ is/was fully divine as well as fully human? If you think this question, which I think relevant, in any way impertinent you of course needn't respond
It isn't impertinent to discuss things in a civilised way. I see much in the Bible as being mystical and metaphorical rather than historical. I don't reject any of the teachings, but they don't necessarily mean the same to me as they do to you.
quote:
Manichean
By this I mean dualist, despising the things of the fallen physical world. I think Christianity, not only Catholicism, has had an unhealthy relationship with human sexuality. St Paul praised celibacy and virginity high above marriage. He only permitted marriage to avoid falling into sin. But he expected the end of the world at any moment. Origen castrated himself to make himself "a eunuch for the kingdom." St Augustine was disgusted by his own hyper-sexuality. Catholic priests are meant to be celibate. By contrast, Jewish rabbis usually have lots of kids, because their religion is much more of this world in the present moment. This all adds up to a fear/contempt for sexuality.
quote:
same-sex relations
It's very difficult to discuss same sex relations without diving into DH territory, but I don't accepts that it's sinful to be gay, because it isn't a lifestyle choice. So it can't be sinful to be in a gay relationship, except that they may be as as sinful as anyone's relationship if they involve exploitation, deceit etc. To use terms like "intrinsically disordered" is an insult nobody deserves to bear. The Catholic Church remains stuck in an age which most of the western world has mercifully learnt from and moved on.
quote:
.have recourse to natural methods of regulating the births of their children. You may not like (or think adequate) these provisions, but many people do use them successfully and it would only be fair to mention them.
This is one I've never understood. I'm not referring to methods of contraception which induce abortion. Any Christian should oppose them. But what's the difference between keeping a sperm and egg apart using a condom, or by avoiding sex during the fertile period. It seems to me that it's just that old Catholic chestnut that the answer to all problems, be they gay relationships, over population or std's is to avoid sex. Which comes back to the belief that sex is for procreation and not much else. I see this as very wrong and medieval.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree that to become a Catholic from being a something else, you have to accept the entire package. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are a cradle Catholic, I can't really imagine that you have to sign up afresh to the full Catechism, hook line and sinker, every time you receive the sacrament.
This is certainly true. I have Catholic friends from Ireland, Italy and Poland as well as from England. Many cradle Catholics who don't in any way question their Catholic identity, disagree with the Church on all the same points as I do. Most use contraceptives. A survey of the faithful at the end of 2013 found that, in western countries, the majority of Catholics were in favour of admitting remarried divorcees and people in gay relationships to communion if they were in other ways faithful Catholics. But to be a convert, you must accept the package or you are a cafeteria Catholic. You can't just cherry pick. This is why it's much harder for converts and why I can't do it.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It claims those graces are objectively, ex opera operato available in the sacraments celebrated by the Catholic Church - FOR EVERYONE.
For everyone ? Or only for those disposed to accept the culture and authority of the Catholic Church ?
For everyone, because membership of the Catholic Church is open to all.
But there's something a bit absurd about the question. Why would you want to recevicve Catholic sacraments if you did not accept the Catholic faith? If you did not accept the tenets of Judaism, would you demand circumcision from a Jewish mohel?
This is a false dichotomy. I do not agree with every part of the Catholic church, or every part of what it says about the Eucharist. But I do believe that it is the Eucharist, and a real sacrament - the same sacrament given by the Orthodox church, or by my Anglican church.
Why do I want to receive the Eucharist? Because I think the Eucharist is something I should receive.
I don't go to my Anglican church and think "Oh, well, I could have communion, but I had it a few weeks ago, so I don't need to have it now." I have it again - because I think it's well worth having, and I want to have it in all circumstances that it's offered to me.
Likewise, in a Catholic church, I don't think "Oh, well, I had communion last time I was at my Anglican church, so there's no point me having it now." No - it's the Eucharist, and Christ is offering me a physical form of his grace! I want that!
I have actually had communion in a Catholic church once. I was a bridesmaid at a wedding, and I asked the priest beforehand if it was okay, and he said it was, so I did. I don't have a problem with the Catholic church offering me communion. I would have a problem receiving communion deceptively, from someone who wouldn't give it to me if he knew my theology - which is why I specifically asked.
(To tie in with what Enoch and PaulTH have been saying: I am, to my certain knowledge, the member of the bridal party who is closest in theology to the Catholic church's official positions. And yet, I was the only one unsure whether I'd be able to take communion, because I was the only non-cradle Catholic of the bunch.)
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The point is not whether they think there's a viable elsewhere - it's whether you think so.
Once again, Russ, your whole argument here boils down to the assertion that the Catholic Church cannot justify its claim to universality unless it caves on issues that YOU think it should cave on. But any organisation will have at least minimal meaningful principles which comprise its identity. You can call them minimum membership requirements if you like. The point is that no matter what the Catholic non-negotiables are the Church will never meet your criteria for universality.
The way the Church sees it is that her non-negotiables are not of her own making - they are the things which she holds she derives from the teaching of the apostles, the fathers and ultimately from Christ Himself. You don't have to believe that. But she does. If she thinks that Christ calls everyone to be members of His Church then her duty is to preach the Gospel, teach the truths that she thinks are of God and implore people to come in. That is her claim to universality. And no matter what bare minimum requirements she reads into "repent and believe the Gospel" someone's going to feel excluded by them.
That's inevitable, and all the Church can do about that is to carry on trying to preach the truth persuasively. According to your criterion, if she preaches anything that could exclude Jewish or Muslim believers - say, that Christ is the Messiah, both true God and true man - that would rob her of her claim of universality, that it makes her exclusionary. And that's just absurd.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If all those who are wedded to traditional gender roles see the Catholic church as their refuge, what does that say ?
It could mean any number of things, if it were true. Including that a traditional view of gender roles was true and those who differ are wrong; such data would certainly be compatible with that thesis.
But your hypothetical is manifestly counter-factual. If you consider all those in the world, across all national and religious boundaries, who see traditional gender roles as reflecting the truth about human beings, the claim that "all those who are wedded to traditional gender roles see the Catholic church as their refuge" can easily be seen as wildly off-beam. So your implication that it is true and that it means that only people who count as bigots in your book are attracted to the Catholic Church is wholly unjustified.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I'll get back to you other cats laters...
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
