|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Excommunication
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Catholics can't blend contradictory beliefs with Protestants. Vice versa.
The law of non-contradiction's a real bitch sometimes, but it might just keep you sane.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Dogmas and definitions divide humanity.
Dogmas are like arseholes, Paul - everybody's got 'em.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Bloody Bess.
I digression. About 8 years ago I had a discussion with a Catholic priest in which he told me that, growing up as a Catholic in England gives a different perspective on English history to the mainstream national psyche. I had most of my schooling in the 1960's, at a time when English history was still taught in a way which was generally positive to our nation, a view I retain to this day. We all knew of Bloody Mary, who burned and tortured those good Protestant founders. And of Popish plots like the Armada, designed to yoke us back into Rome against our will. We all knew how Guy Fawkes was a Catholic terrorist who tried to blow up James I in 1605.
Bloody Bess is part of the story of the Catholic recusants, because having created the Religious Settlement, she ruthlessly persecuted those who refused to be part of it. Yet the war between the Holy See and the English crown can't lay all the blame on the English. King Philip of Spain did try to depose Elizabeth with the financial backing of the Vatican. Guy Fawkes was a Catholic terrorist. Any state will seek to protect itself from invasion and plotters within. The next crisis point came when William of Orange deposed Catholic James II. It was followed by the Act of Succession which banned Catholics from sitting on the throne. James the Old Pretender lived in comfort all his life at the expense of the Holy See. Both his and his son Bonnie Prince Charlie's attempts to overthrow the Hanoverian monarchy were fully supported by Rome. So the enmity between the English later British state and Rome was fuelled more from Rome than from England.
It was after the death of the Old Pretender in 1766, and the subsequent recognition by the Holy See of the legitimacy of the Hanoverian dynasty that led, progressively to Catholic relief and finally emancipation in England. I apologise for such a long tangent, but your mention of Bloody Bess leads me to think you've converted in much more than just your religious belief.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
your mention of Bloody Bess leads me to think you've converted in much more than just your religious belief.
Tempted though I am to wade in here, this really is a digression too far.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Dear Paul,
you mention the history which you were taught in school. No doubt all the things you learned are true, but it is equally true about the 500 + Catholic martyrs of England and Wales, several of whom have been beatified or canonised.
You omit to mention why William of Orange deposed the 'rightful' king and intruded himself onto the English throne and you simply don't mention the hideous treatment of the Irish Catholics, their country simply treated over centuries as a fiefdom of the English crown.
Don't think I 'm leaving the good Catholics blameless for their similar persecution of Protestants in other parts of Europe.
I'm lucky sitting here in Scotland where there was relatively little killing in the battles between Catholics and Protestants and many, many more deaths in the battles between different groups of Protestants, namely the supporters of the Presbyterian government of the Church and those who supported Episcopalian government of the Church.
We know that all these battles took place, just as now we realise the killings and enmity which take place amongst different groups all claiming to belong to the Islamic faith.
As Christians today we have to put all this behind us and concentrate on our relationship with Jesus Christ and with our brothers and sisters who ,like ourselves ,are part of the one Body of Christ.
Our differences are not simply due to theological differences but to historico-cultural events which we rightly value , but which we must try to put into a positive context.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Dogmas are like arseholes, Paul - everybody's got 'em.
But we try not to let them define us ?
--------------------
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
Nice one, Russ.
But there is a sense in which its the dogmas we hold that do define us in our faith/worldview/conduct, etc. Our non-negotiables both emerge from our identity and help us contruct our own identity, for good or ill. Whether for good or ill will depend in large part of on the truth or falsehood of the dogma in question and how we conduct ourselves in the possesion and expression of them. Better to start with true ones, I think.
--------------------
"[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:
The problem I have is that I completely reject your division between culture and (my words) "core message". I think, if that line can be drawn coherently at all (and I think it can), you draw it in completely the wrong place. The RCC's teaching about human sexuality, Petrine/Roman primacy, etc are not part of the "culture" of the RCC (like, for example, the iconography of likenesses of the saints or the particular music used in worship) - they are, she believes, part of the "core message", the deposit of faith.
Does that mean that as long as we're talking about issues which you see as genuinely cultural, you agree with the principle I'm suggesting:
- that all ecclesial bodies have a shared culture, some styles of music that they use and some that they don't use ?
- that they should try not to make that musical taste part of the message they preach. That to do so is an adding to the gospel, a failing, a falling-short of universality, a step towards being a club for those who like {bagpipes, plainchant, whatever} and a step away from being the church for everyone ?
- that even if the church is scrupulous about not preaching its culture, to the extent that people make their culture part of their identity, that the drummers and the jazz-lovers feel less part of the church than those who are into bagpipes or plainchant, so - through nobody's fault but just through the brokenness and Babel of humanity = some small element of universality is lost, the ideal not achieved ?
But you think that when we move beyond music to some of the more political things that I count as part of culture - the democratic vs hierarchical dimension, the traditional gender roles vs gender equality dimension, the {not sure what the shorthand for this is, but the mindset which makes the church organisation want to decide who is married to whom in God's eyes, rather than merely exhort people to aim for lifelong fidelity to their current life-partner and repent their failure to do so in the past} - are in fact aspects of the gospel ?
So how does that work ?
Is it that you think that Jesus explicitly taught the "Catholic positions" on such cultural questions as being the will of God ? (The Church of Christ, male chauvinist ?)
Or do you think that said positions follow from what Jesus did teach in such a logically watertight way that an honest person from any culture who studied the matter long and deeply enough would have to reach the same conclusions as the Vatican-approved Catholic theologians have reached ? That to be a feminist Christian or a democratic Christian is literally a logical contradiction ?
Or is that the Catholic Church has historically arrived at these positions, and even if it is the case that a church with a cultural predisposition to gender equality or democracy would have reached different conclusions, the fact that history fell out the way it did means that this is what God has willed ?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
you did imply that: quote:
all those who are wedded to traditional gender roles see the Catholic church as their refuge
And that clearly is not the case.
You're right. I should not have said "all". Apologies.
--------------------
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 Forthview:
you mention the history which you were taught in school. No doubt all the things you learned are true, but it is equally true about the 500 + Catholic martyrs of England and Wales, several of whom have been beatified or canonised.
I apologise to you and to Chesterbelloc for that post. I'd had two glasses of wine when I wrote it and it went on a bit. I agree with everything you say. I just noticed that Chesterbelloc, as a Catholic convert, now speaks of "Bloody Bess." The standard English view is of "Bloody Mary." It just speaks of one's loyalties.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Russ
Or do you think that said positions follow from what Jesus did teach in such a logically watertight way that an honest person from any culture who studied the matter long and deeply enough would have to reach the same conclusions as the Vatican-approved Catholic theologians have reached ?
What things about Christianity are there which any honest person from any culture would have to agree with ? Very few I would have thought.
That line of argument doesn't seem to me to get you very far in deciding what is part of a religion and what is just cultural.
PaulTH and Chesterbelloc were discussing a difference about the nature of Christ, whether he was eternally part of the Trinity or adopted into it. Whether or not one considers that difference to be an essential aspect of Christianity, I don't think it stems from a cultural difference between the two people.
--------------------
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
I'm tempted just to say "what moonlit door said" but I think I owe you a bit more than that, Russ.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The problem I have is that I completely reject your division between culture and (my words) "core message". I think, if that line can be drawn coherently at all (and I think it can), you draw it in completely the wrong place. The RCC's teaching about human sexuality, Petrine/Roman primacy, etc are not part of the "culture" of the RCC (like, for example, the iconography of likenesses of the saints or the particular music used in worship) - they are, she believes, part of the "core message", the deposit of faith.
Does that mean that as long as we're talking about issues which you see as genuinely cultural, you agree with the principle I'm suggesting:
In priciple and in general, yes - although I'm guessing you won't like some of the ways I might cut the culture/core line. Let's see.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
- that all ecclesial bodies have a shared culture, some styles of music that they use and some that they don't use ?
Yes. But some musical styles/traditions may be inherently more suited to Catholic worship across or within many cultures than others.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
- that they should try not to make that musical taste part of the message they preach. That to do so is an adding to the gospel, a failing, a falling-short of universality, a step towards being a club for those who like {bagpipes, plainchant, whatever} and a step away from being the church for everyone ?
You got a bit carried away there, I think. It is certainly not any part of what the Catholic Church teaches that only one style of music is appropriate for worship, and I've never heard anyone try to make it so, but some (e.g., plainchant) might be in general preferable to others (e.g., hip-hop). It just so happens that certain styles of music have more appeal across and within cultures than others - more conducive to worship and devotion, that is.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
- that even if the church is scrupulous about not preaching its culture, to the extent that people make their culture part of their identity, that the drummers and the jazz-lovers feel less part of the church than those who are into bagpipes or plainchant, so - through nobody's fault but just through the brokenness and Babel of humanity = some small element of universality is lost, the ideal not achieved ?
I think this too is being a bit silly. Most people can embrace a culture new to them and approprite it as their own, independently of their pre-existing preferences. Sometimes the encounter with that culture can be an epiphany. I had that experience with the Church's musical tradition when I encountered it as a very young man. Never looked back. So no - hip-hop is not equal to plainchant when it comes to Catholic worship.
But most of that is me speaking, not the contemporary Church. The rules as such are loose and I do not think any body has attempted more thoroughly to enculturate the faith and adapt it to other societies/cultures than the Catholic Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But you think that when we move beyond music to some of the more political things that I count as part of culture - the democratic vs hierarchical dimension, the traditional gender roles vs gender equality dimension, the {not sure what the shorthand for this is, but the mindset which makes the church organisation want to decide who is married to whom in God's eyes, rather than merely exhort people to aim for lifelong fidelity to their current life-partner and repent their failure to do so in the past} - are in fact aspects of the gospel ?
Yes. And I don't think they're at all "political".
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So how does that work ?
Is it that you think that Jesus explicitly taught the "Catholic positions" on such cultural questions as being the will of God ?
Yes, sometimes directly. In the case of remarrige after divorse, for example.
Or do you think that said positions follow from what Jesus did teach in such a logically watertight way that an honest person from any culture who studied the matter long and deeply enough would have to reach the same conclusions as the Vatican-approved Catholic theologians have reached ?
There's rather a bitter, cynical note in your description of such a process of what the Church believes is the working out God's revelation, don't you think? If the Church has authority (as she has always believed she does) to discern and teach the Christian truth "with and under Peter" then who else should generally exercise that office than "Vatican-approved Catholic theologians" and bishops (whose true role is teaching and guarding the deposit of the faith, with adssistance from the theologians).
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That to be a feminist Christian or a democratic Christian is literally a logical contradiction ?
Depends what you mean by feminist. The Church positively teaches the idea that women are equal in dignity and worth as creatures of God and that any discrimination against them in violation of those properties is wrong.
And what's the beef with democracy? Are you suggesting that the Church opposes democracy in principle? The Church in fact teaches that there are many systems of political order which are compatible with her social teaching, explicitly including democratic ones. But people can make an idol of their own ideal of democracy every bit as much as people can and have made one of monarchy.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Or is that the Catholic Church has historically arrived at these positions, and even if it is the case that a church with a cultural predisposition to gender equality or democracy would have reached different conclusions, the fact that history fell out the way it did means that this is what God has willed ?
No. Though I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
you did imply that: quote:
all those who are wedded to traditional gender roles see the Catholic church as their refuge
And that clearly is not the case.
You're right. I should not have said "all". Apologies.
Appreciated, Russ.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Sorry - one of my responses to Russ got caught up in a quote from him. The bit that says: quote:
Yes, sometimes directly. In the case of remarriage after divorce, for example
is mine.
--------------------
"[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:
I'm guessing you won't like some of the ways I might cut the culture/core line.
If you agree that there is such a thing as a culture/core line, and that making issues from the culture side of the line part of the faith that you preach is a Bad Thing, then that's a good start.
I'm very aware that I haven't defined "culture". If you want to argue from first principles that something in particular is or isn't core, or is or isn't culture, go ahead.
But it seems question-begging to say that something is "core not culture" because your particular Christian church preaches it.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
some musical styles/traditions may be inherently more suited to Catholic worship across or within many cultures than others.
I only mentioned music because I thought you were putting forward music as something that was on the culture side of the line. I'm not out to criticize Catholic music; I'm trying to get clarity about you think and what I think about the general question of Christianity and culture.
Seems to me that you can argue for "God in the still small voice of calm" as part of the message. And that up-tempo music has a cross-cultural impact on human beings that is not calming. And conclude therefore that slower tempo music is more appropriate for worship.
I'd want to contrast that with someone who rejects the use of drum or saxophone in worship because they perceive that those instruments have non-religious associations in their particular culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Most people can embrace a culture new to them and appropriate it as their own, independently of their pre-existing preferences.
I'd probably agree that most people can. The question is whether it is right to make that ability a condition of membership in the Church if one believes that there is no salvation outside such membership.
And I think you're saying that no it isn't right and the Catholic church doesn't do it.
Am i imagining a certain reticence ? Is giving unequivocal and clear assent to a principle by which the Catholic church could conceivably be criticized an unCatholic thing to do ?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
what's the beef with democracy? Are you suggesting that the Church opposes democracy in principle?
I think there's at least a grain of truth in the suggestion that the Vatican spent the nineteenth century in reaction against democracy and the twentieth century in reaction against equality for women.
If one were to rank the various christian ecclesial bodies on a scale from most democratic to least democratic, where do you think the Catholic church would come ?
More towards the hierarchical end ? Doesn't matter - it's just part of the culture of the Catholic church. I'm suggesting that it is not a right/wrong question. It's just cultural.
Seems to me quite common for those outside of an organisation to see it as monolithic - speaking with a single voice, having a single culture. Whilst those inside are more aware of the different sub-groups with their different emphases, and more-or-less-subtly differing visions of where the organisation should go and what it's policies should be.
My clumsy references to "Vatican-approved theologians" or "the hierarchy" are an attempt to be clear as to who exactly is saying what.
Because, having grown up in a democratic culture, I make the distinction between the consensus or at least a clear majority of the individual members thinking or believing something, and the government of that body thinking or believing something. Every body has some sort of governance structure; that's what makes it a body. It's perfectly legitimate for the head to think and the mouth to speak. But legitimate for a democrat to ask whether the mouth is speaking for the head alone or for the consensus of the whole body.
--------------------
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
It seems that the Germans have already got to work on their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. Here Cardinal Kasper is indicating that he got what he wanted from the document. Most telling is where it says:
"Some time ago, a priest of his acquaintance had decided not to prohibit a remarried mother from receiving communion herself on the day of her daughter’s first communion. And he himself, Kasper, had helped that priest to make this decision, certain that he was “absolutely right.” The cardinal then reported the matter to the pope, who approved of the decision and said: “That is where the pastor has to make the decision.”
But if you read here, Cardinal Mueller, another German, has a much different take on AL. None of this comes as any surprise. We all could have predicted what the two opposing cardinals would have said. But doesn't this open up a de facto schism? How can two cardinals treat the same document so differently? Perhaps these matters will be decided by bishops conferences. Perhaps by individual bishops or by individual pastors. In any event, unity is broken.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Russ, I've read over your post quite a few times now, and each time I've felt a bit stumped. I get the impression you're looking for me to condemn something in general terms so that you can then point to some as-yet-unnamed specific thing and say, "Aha! So what about this [Catholic violation of a general principle I've endorsed in general] then?" But I could be getting you completely wrong here. So I'm going to try to answer you bit by bit. Hope this helps.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm guessing you won't like some of the ways I might cut the culture/core line.
If you agree that there is such a thing as a culture/core line, and that making issues from the culture side of the line part of the faith that you preach is a Bad Thing, then that's a good start.
I agree that there is a culture/core line, but it may sometimes be a bit blurred. Putting something that is definitely on the culture side on to the you-must-believe/do-this side would be wrong. But can we be a bit specific here? What things that you think should be purely cultural do you think are actually being put on the core agenda?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm very aware that I haven't defined "culture". If you want to argue from first principles that something in particular is or isn't core, or is or isn't culture, go ahead.
Let's have a specific, then.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But it seems question-begging to say that something is "core not culture" because your particular Christian church preaches it.
That very much depends on what you mean by "preaches", doesn't it? The Church doesn't tend to preach stuff (at an authoritative level) that isn't what we think of as core. It may practise or commend some non-core stuff as being conducive to the ends of the faith, but that is not the same thing. Once again, without a specific example, it's difficult to get my head around. Remember, it's the Church that determines what is core rather than culture in matters of the faith for her members.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
some musical styles/traditions may be inherently more suited to Catholic worship across or within many cultures than others.
I only mentioned music because I thought you were putting forward music as something that was on the culture side of the line. I'm not out to criticize Catholic music; I'm trying to get clarity about you think and what I think about the general question of Christianity and culture.
Alright, then it seems to me that the Church can require that people not perform certain types of music during the Mass, not as a matter of faith but as a matter of prudence and discipline. Does that help?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Most people can embrace a culture new to them and appropriate it as their own, independently of their pre-existing preferences.
I'd probably agree that most people can. The question is whether it is right to make that ability a condition of membership in the Church if one believes that there is no salvation outside such membership.
Look, if you're talking about culture in general, the Church is inherently culturally and historically steeped in first-century Judaism, and that is not something which it can do anything about (and probably shouldn't try to). If that's going to put certain people off because the 1st-c. Judaic outlook or background to be found in the New Testament rankles with them or is alienatingly foreign then there's only so much the Church can do to accommodate that. She is what she is. If you're talking about something piffling like whether we shake hands or kiss or bow profoundly as a sign of peace in the post-1962 Mass - that is something which is broadly culturally relative and is not something the Church requires assent to for membership. So what is it you think the Church is actually requiring that it shouldn't?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Am i imagining a certain reticence ? Is giving unequivocal and clear assent to a principle by which the Catholic church could conceivably be criticized an unCatholic thing to do ?
No. It's more like signing a blank cheque: I don't know how much you'll want to clobber me for later. So it's not so much reticence as plain, simple suspicion, frankly. Why won't you just come out and say what it is that is bugging you about the Church so we can discuss it specifically?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
what's the beef with democracy? Are you suggesting that the Church opposes democracy in principle?
I think there's at least a grain of truth in the suggestion that the Vatican spent the nineteenth century in reaction against democracy and the twentieth century in reaction against equality for women.
There were lots of political problems that the Church explicitly spoke out against in the 19th c. and the distinguishing feature of them all was that the Church believed them to be weapons directed against the Church (the faithful as well as the "govenrnace") and were inimical to natural justice. Think (appropriately enough) Bismarck's Kulturkampf. Think exploitation of workers. Think also revolutions, Il Risogimento and Italian unification, etc. But she never spoke out against democracy as such - not in any binding way. And she pissed off a lot of her own people by not doing so.
As to the role of women, the Church likewise has always taught the equality of women with men - equal in dignity and worth and in the sight of God. It has also, however, striven to respect the differences between men and women and encouraged their roles to coincide with that difference in the ways relavant to their cultural/historical contexts. If the Church has not always been good enough in preaching that message of radcial equality and challenging unjust discrimination against women that is a failing which she must cop to; but the motivation has almost always been to make sure men and women are able to live out their natural complementary roles. There is no support in any of her binding teachings to support the oppression of women. [Although that naturally depends on one's notion of what one counts as oppressive.]
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If one were to rank the various christian ecclesial bodies on a scale from most democratic to least democratic, where do you think the Catholic church would come ?
At the least end. I mean, of course. The Church makes no pretence to being democratic. That's not how she functions and never has. She is hierarchical, from the Vicar of Christ, down through to the bishops in their dioceses. Because that is part of her divine constitution (as she believes it to be).
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Doesn't matter - it's just part of the culture of the Catholic church. I'm suggesting that it is not a right/wrong question. It's just cultural.
Does matter. It's certainly not accidental or "cultural" - it's part of her very identity, her mission. That's what episcopal headship, apostolic succession, the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, papal infallibility, etc. is all about. I make no bones about that. I hope that speaks to your subsequent remarks.
--------------------
"[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 PaulTH*:
It seems that the Germans have already got to work on their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. Here Cardinal Kasper is indicating that he got what he wanted from the document. Most telling is where it says:
"Some time ago, a priest of his acquaintance had decided not to prohibit a remarried mother from receiving communion herself on the day of her daughter’s first communion. And he himself, Kasper, had helped that priest to make this decision, certain that he was “absolutely right.” The cardinal then reported the matter to the pope, who approved of the decision and said: “That is where the pastor has to make the decision.”
But if you read here, Cardinal Mueller, another German, has a much different take on AL. None of this comes as any surprise. We all could have predicted what the two opposing cardinals would have said. But doesn't this open up a de facto schism? How can two cardinals treat the same document so differently? Perhaps these matters will be decided by bishops conferences. Perhaps by individual bishops or by individual pastors. In any event, unity is broken.
Not so much, actually. The document de jure opens up no such door to change - seriously, read it. The break in unity is not caused by disagreement about the contents or meaning of a non-binding document (non-binding not by its very nature but by the absence of any new authoritative teaching) but by the pre-existing differences over whether the Church's actual existing teaching about re-married divorceesand communion should be follwed or not.
The Germans bishop, alas, (though by no means all of them) were always going to do their own thing (short of an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium, and perhaps even then) - because they were already doing it. The German Church is a hot mess in what looks like terminal numerical decline. The "schism" was already there. Unless there's some banging of heads from the top, the Germans will keep on doing their own thing regardless. A de jure schism may eventually result, even if some future pope has the papal bulls to get a tiny bit smitey. We hope and pray this it doesn't come to that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Why is consistency so important to you? It's of the very nature of economia that it isn't always consistent, that there are occasions when pastoral need must prevail over consistency. And what does the allegation of a non-existent schism have to do this?
--------------------
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
Consistency is important because the truth is important.
Consistency in error has no value. But if something is true - something important, such as something that has to do with the salvation of souls - then the Church needs to witness to that consistently. Otherwise, who really knows what to believe about - say - receiving the Sacrament in a state of objective sin?
Consistency is necessary for and a witness to the unity of the body of the Church. Inconsistency is a sign of rupture and a witness to division. It is a stumbling block to those who seek the truth and to live by it.
The Church is not Ezra Pound - who when challenged on his political inconsistencies answered, "I am vast, I contain multitudes" - we do not make a virtue of double standards. Who would praise us for a relaxed attitude to internal consistency in matters of social injustice, sexual abuse or war crimes?
Frankly, I want to count my spoons and check my wallet around someone who claims that consistency is for small minds.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Goes to show how different people are.
This kind of paranoid authoritarian thinking sends shivers down my spine.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Goes to show how different people are.
This kind of paranoid authoritarian thinking sends shivers down my spine.
CORRECTION: This affirmation of paranoid authoritarian avoidance of thought, which is of course all the more effective if self-policing, sends shivers down my spine.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This affirmation of paranoid authoritarian avoidance of thought, which is of course all the more effective if self-policing, sends shivers down my spine.
Avoidance of thought?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Any club/society/voluntary organisation is entitled to set its own rules for membership. As someone who regards himself as catholic, there are several teachings of the Catholic Church, which that Church regards as core. I therefore cannot be a member, and accept that.
Some recent posts on this thread seem to me to be based in the nasty days of sectarianism which existed here - and I gather also in several other countries - which I had hoped had long since disappeared.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Any club/society/voluntary organisation is entitled to set its own rules for membership. As someone who regards himself as catholic, there are several teachings of the Catholic Church, which that Church regards as core. I therefore cannot be a member, and accept that.
Some recent posts on this thread seem to me to be based in the nasty days of sectarianism which existed here - and I gather also in several other countries - which I had hoped had long since disappeared.
Yebbut. Organisations like the Women's Institute or the Old Etonian Association, both organisations with whose core eligibility requirement I cannot comply, don't claim a monopoly on access to the kingdom of heaven, the ship of salvation or eternal life.
[ 19. May 2016, 13:22: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Looking at the RCC from the Orfie side, "avoidance of thought" is an almost funny accusation. It was the RCC who brought rigorous thought into Christianity, not a bad thing in-and-of itself of course, and from an Orthodox perspective overapplied it liberally.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Some recent posts on this thread seem to me to be based in the nasty days of sectarianism which existed here - and I gather also in several other countries - which I had hoped had long since disappeared.
Yebbut. Organisations like the Women's Institute or the Old Etonian Association, both organisations with whose core eligibility requirement I cannot comply, don't claim a monopoly on access to the kingdom of heaven, the ship of salvation or eternal life.
So what? I mean, really - if you don't believe the Church's claims about herself, why are you in any way bothered by them?
I don't believe Islam's claim that Muhammad is the prophet of God and reject the requirements of the other four of the Five Pillars. I cannot accept the claims of Islam and therefore cannot become a Musilm. But it doesn't in the least bother me that most Muslims would think that I cannot therefore get to heaven.
Do the "exclusivist" claims of Islam bother you as much as the Catholic claims? If not, why not?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Some recent posts on this thread seem to me to be based in the nasty days of sectarianism which existed here - and I gather also in several other countries - which I had hoped had long since disappeared.
Yebbut. Organisations like the Women's Institute or the Old Etonian Association, both organisations with whose core eligibility requirement I cannot comply, don't claim a monopoly on access to the kingdom of heaven, the ship of salvation or eternal life.
So what? I mean, really - if you don't believe the Church's claims about herself, why are you in any way bothered by them?
I don't believe Islam's claim that Muhammad is the prophet of God and reject the requirements of the other four of the Five Pillars. I cannot accept the claims of Islam and therefore cannot become a Musilm. But it doesn't in the least bother me that most Muslims would think that I cannot therefore get to heaven.
Do the "exclusivist" claims of Islam bother you as much as the Catholic claims? If not, why not?
Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
So the majority opinion amongst the Muslim sects is that people who reject all five pillars* will nonetheless get to paradise? Citation, please.
*I.e., have actually heard of but reject Islam.
[ 19. May 2016, 18:33: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Goes to show how different people are.
This kind of paranoid authoritarian thinking sends shivers down my spine.
CORRECTION: This affirmation of paranoid authoritarian avoidance of thought, which is of course all the more effective if self-policing, sends shivers down my spine.
Needs a little refinement. What I mean is more precisely that too much thinking happens at the wrong time. It happens in advance of the arrival of people into a situation. DH issues in particular are decided in the abstract, and people's lives condemned as a result. The realities of the lives of individuals are not allowed to cloud the picture. Thought in the face of real, individual human situations is avoided in favour of abstraction.
More like the mosaic law than an absence of stone-throwing....
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Any club/society/voluntary organisation is entitled to set its own rules for membership. As someone who regards himself as catholic, there are several teachings of the Catholic Church, which that Church regards as core. I therefore cannot be a member, and accept that.
Some recent posts on this thread seem to me to be based in the nasty days of sectarianism which existed here - and I gather also in several other countries - which I had hoped had long since disappeared.
I get none of it in western Canada. Sure people disgree with both each other and their churches' teachings - half of the population is RC - and they absolutely pick and choose about what to follow. Hence the small size of families, frequency of living together before marriage, broad acceptance of indigenous cultural traditions. I have heard the local RC bishop talk a number of times. Good fellow, very pastoral and kind.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What I mean is more precisely that too much thinking happens at the wrong time.
"Too much" thinking, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It happens in advance of the arrival of people into a situation.
This is called arriving at general principles, directed by discernment from (what Catholic conceive of as) divine revelation. The alternative is to take every single case as if it were the very first of its kind ever encountered and to give no general advice in advance on what sorts of thing are to be striven for and avoided. This would be as impossible as it would be stupid to attempt.
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
DH issues in particular are decided in the abstract, and people's lives condemned as a result.
Nothing is decided in the abstract - everthing is discerned with a deep knowledge of and respect for human nature in its fallen but still noble state.
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The realities of the lives of individuals are not allowed to cloud the picture. Thought in the face of real, individual human situations is avoided in favour of abstraction.
Any irrelevant "realities" (i.e., concrete particular circumstances that have no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the action) are not allowed to mask the reality of sin where sin is present.
But you couldn't be more wrong on the issue of attention to individual human situations - the Church has always sought to distinguish between sinful actions and the actual imputability of blame for those actions. To do so involves precisely the careful attention to the motives, circumstances, details, background, etc., behind people's actions that you boldly claim the Church neglects. It used to be called "casuistry" before that term was redefined by its enemies. But you'll still find it in the confessional and wherever people bring their stories to the Church.
The Church must judge - but not in the sense of "condemn"; rather, in the sense of arriving at (and helping people themselves arrive at) the truth about individual lives and the action of Grace in them.
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
More like the mosaic law than an absence of stone-throwing....
More like helping people avoid dangers and pitfalls (and healing them when they are damaged) than nonchalantly neglecting to give them any guidance or help to choose what is right in the name of some specious concept of "respect" for personal autonomy.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Organisations like the Women's Institute or the Old Etonian Association, both organisations with whose core eligibility requirement I cannot comply, don't claim a monopoly on access to the kingdom of heaven, the ship of salvation or eternal life.
But every religious group which claims to have such a 'monopoly', as you put it, will make some demands in terms of doctrines and lifestyle that someone somewhere is going to disapprove of. I can't see any way of getting around that.
In a given environment, pastoral and sociologial realities will influence how heavily a denomination enforces its official position, but the RCC is a highly centralised global institution so I suppose there are limits as to how far it can go in making wholesale changes. Any changes would delight some but alienate others.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I get none of it in western Canada. Sure people disgree with both each other and their churches' teachings - half of the population is RC - and they absolutely pick and choose about what to follow. Hence the small size of families, frequency of living together before marriage, broad acceptance of indigenous cultural traditions. I have heard the local RC bishop talk a number of times. Good fellow, very pastoral and kind.
It was around here very strongly in the fifties when I was at school, but faded rapidly in the sixties - perhaps co-incidentally when the battle against State Aid for church (largely parochial Catholic) schools was lost and money began flowing. By the mid-seventies, it had all but gone.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
So the majority opinion amongst the Muslim sects is that people who reject all five pillars* will nonetheless get to paradise? Citation, please.
*I.e., have actually heard of but reject Islam.
I think you've got this the wrong way round - Islam teaches that 'people of the book' i.e.Jews and Christians, along with themselves OK
[ 20. May 2016, 14:11: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
So the majority opinion amongst the Muslim sects is that people who reject all five pillars* will nonetheless get to paradise? Citation, please.
*I.e., have actually heard of but reject Islam.
I think you've got this the wrong way round - Islam teaches that 'people of the book' i.e.Jews and Christians, along with themselves OK
So, where? Specifically.
--------------------
"[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 Gee D:
It was around here very strongly in the fifties when I was at school, but faded rapidly in the sixties - perhaps co-incidentally when the battle against State Aid for church (largely parochial Catholic) schools was lost and money began flowing. By the mid-seventies, it had all but gone.
I seem to equate this in my mind with the junior choir singing Joy is like the Rain to an earnestly played guitar in about 1971 as a recessional hymn. And the congregation joined in. Shedding tears of joy.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
So the majority opinion amongst the Muslim sects is that people who reject all five pillars* will nonetheless get to paradise? Citation, please.
*I.e., have actually heard of but reject Islam.
I think you've got this the wrong way round - Islam teaches that 'people of the book' i.e.Jews and Christians, along with themselves OK
So, where? Specifically.
Sura 3 113-115 teaches that faithful Jews and Christians, as 'People of the Book' will stand before God and be accepted as being amongst the righteous
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
According to no prophet ,half the population of Western Canada is RC and again according to no prophet they pick and choose. I would imagine that the half of Western Canada which is not RC will also pick and choose.
I'm not surprised about people picking and choosing - that is simply a fact of life.
However the Catholic Church itself cannot simply pick and choose. The bishops, and I include here the friendly RC bishop on Western Canada, cannot simply pick and choose. The bishops are the guardians of the deposit of faith maintained by the Church over the centuries. It is their job to explain that deposit of faith to those who claim to be 'their' people.
By 'their' people I mean those who claim in some way to be members of the Catholic community under the guidance in spiritual matters of a properly appointed diocesan bishop.
Of course many individuals will not be of one mind with their leaders but it is the bishop's task to decide at what point does one's 'picking and choosing' become so far removed from the teachings of the Church that one is no longer a member.
I would hope that all Catholic bishops would be as friendly as the bishop in Western Canada, but I know that they are not always so. They are, however,at least for Catholics, the successors of the Apostles and are always due a certain measure of respect.
While no prophet may approve of 'picking and choosing' there must be ,even for him, some point where one can go no further with 'picking and choosing' without losing one's identity as a Christian.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not my argument, but Islam is NOT exclusivist - we are 'people of the Book'.
So the majority opinion amongst the Muslim sects is that people who reject all five pillars [i.e., have actually heard of but reject Islam] will nonetheless get to paradise? Citation, please.
I think you've got this the wrong way round - Islam teaches that 'people of the book' i.e.Jews and Christians, along with themselves OK
So, where? Specifically.
Sura 3 113-115 teaches that faithful Jews and Christians, as 'People of the Book' will stand before God and be accepted as being amongst the righteous
Leo, to say that your interpretation of these verses is a bit of a stretch would be like saying that Himmler was a bit of a Nazi. This online Englishing of the Quran (almost the first result in a google for "quran in English") even glosses it (bracketed sections) thus: quote:
113. Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of Allah during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer.
114. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'ruf (Islamic Monotheism, and following Prophet Muhammad ) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and opposing Prophet Muhammad ); and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous.
115. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knows well those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).
But the kicker is the very next verse in the same sura: quote:
116. Surely, those who reject Faith (disbelieve in Muhammad as being Allah's Prophet and in all that which he has brought from Allah), neither their properties, nor their offspring will avail them aught against Allah. They are the dwellers of the Fire, therein they will abide. (Tafsir At-Tabari, Vol. 4, Page 58).
So, leo, what I'm looking for here is evidence that the preponderant Muslim opinion is that those who do not accept Muhammad as the ultimate prophet may still go to paradise.
I know that the following is taken from a website that is openly critical of Islam, but it was almost the only one I could find that addressed the issue directly, citing its sources. It may be wrong, in which case you can set me straight, but it appears to me to have at least made an effort to support its conclusions: quote:
There are many verses in the Qur'an that label Christians and Jews as disbelievers, and numerous more that explicitly condemn them and other disbelievers to Hell. There is scholarly consensus on the fact that Christians and Jews are viewed by Islam as kafirs, because of "the clear nature of the texts about this".
If you read verse 2:62 in context, it is referring only to those Christians, Jews, and Sabiens who believed in the time of their own Prophet/Messenger.
Each Revelation abrogated the previous. Thus, after the advent of Prophet Muhammad and Islam, no individual can make it into Paradise unless they accept Allah as God, Muhammad as his last Prophet and the Qur'an as Allah's final book of guidance.
Therefore, the concept of Heavenly rewards in Islam are now exclusively offered to Muslims. Christians and Jews may believe in a single monotheistic god, but they do not believe in "His Messenger". Thus they are destined for the "burning fire".
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Reading the Qur'an can be very difficult for people who don't already know something about Islam. Different translations confuse. People pluck things out of cvonext.
The context of the sura I referred to differentiates between true and false believers. The overarching assertion is that 'people of the book' are acceptable. It then goes on to make some qualifiers. Some ayahs refer to people who falsify the scriptures (which, of course, can also refer to muslims who twist texts to justify unislamic behaviour.)
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
And I think I need to add that though you don't like me suggesting a 'reading list' there reallty is no substitute for reading thoroughly if you are to get under the skin of another religion.
The trouble is with googling some websites is that without thorough reading one can lack the discernment needed to sift the true from the biased.
Truth does not subsist in soundbites nor easy answers.
Any why not ask your muslim friends what they think?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I'm challenging your assertion - which you interposed to correct me - because I absolutely don't accept you word for it that you're right about this. Maybe you are; maybe you're not. But if the best you can do is pat me on the head and tell me I just don't understand and will have to do a lot of reading to catch up, then this is not really a dialogue.
Perhaps instead you could start with addressing some of the points I've raised - however mistaken they may be - like the glossed translation, made by a Muslim, that I provided which flatly contradicted your opinion; or the critique made of your position made by the Islam-critical site I quoted. If they are so very wrong it should be fairly easy for you who know better to set me straight on that score yourself.
Why not give that a go?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Chesterbelloc and leo, either get a room or take it to Hell.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Right you are, Eutychus.
To be honest, I'm already trying my very best here - I really am - but clearly it's not quite good enough.
Well, my bad. My apologies.
--------------------
"[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:
I get the impression you're looking for me to condemn something in general terms so that you can then point to some as-yet-unnamed specific thing and say, "Aha! So what about this [Catholic violation of a general principle I've endorsed in general] then?"
Am I waiting in ambush to sandbag you ? Don't think so. I carry no "Aha" with me.
But I do feel that people ought to have principles. And that principles are two-edged - when one professes a principle, one is not only saying that other people should behave in a certain way but that oneself and the people and institutions that one loves should behave in this way also. Any stick I metaphorically beat you with ought to be a stick that's valid for you to chastise me with also.
Having principles should mean that if a "Catholic violation of a general principle" that you've endorsed were ever brought to your attention, you would be obliged to say that in this instance the governance of the Catholic church has made a mistake and should (if you've understood the situation rightly) change their position. And you should be able to say it whilst remaining a loyal member of the Catholic body who is passionately attached to the Catholic faith. If that's what you feel.
The alternative - to have no principles - amounts to being the sort of weasel who would commit or condone any atrocity if instructed to do so by the appropriate authority (in this case ecclesial authority).
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's certainly not accidental or "cultural" - it's part of her very identity, her mission. That's what episcopal headship, apostolic succession, the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, papal infallibility, etc. is all about.
Would you not in general recognise that the decision-making processes of a government or a firm or a charitable institution were part of its culture ? And separable from its mission (to govern in the interests of the people, to make top-quality widgets at a reasonable price, to protect and defend the interests of lame animals, whatever) ?
--------------------
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:
But I do feel that people ought to have principles. And that principles are two-edged - when one professes a principle, one is not only saying that other people should behave in a certain way but that oneself and the people and institutions that one loves should behave in this way also. Any stick I metaphorically beat you with ought to be a stick that's valid for you to chastise me with also.
Alright, I agree. But it should be quite clear already, from my recent exchange with ThunderBunk, for example, that I am not in any way opposed to having sets of general priciples and applying them as circmustances require.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Having principles should mean that if a "Catholic violation of a general principle" that you've endorsed were ever brought to your attention, you would be obliged to say that in this instance the governance of the Catholic church has made a mistake and should (if you've understood the situation rightly) change their position. And you should be able to say it whilst remaining a loyal member of the Catholic body who is passionately attached to the Catholic faith. If that's what you feel.
This is where I get a bit nonplussed. What do you mean by a "Catholic" violation of a general priciple? Do you mean a clear violation by a Catholic person/body of a Catholic principle? In which case, yes, in general I would condemn such inconsistency and have no qualms about doing it as a faithful Catholic. I can think of concrete instances of that right now, but I won't share them out loud, if you don't mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The alternative - to have no principles - amounts to being the sort of weasel who would commit or condone any atrocity if instructed to do so by the appropriate authority (in this case ecclesial authority).
Who precisely is suggesting otherwise? I mean, the usual criticism of the Catholic Church is that it is too strict and non-nuanced in the application of its princiles (again, see my exchange with ThunderBunk).
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's certainly not accidental or "cultural" - it's part of her very identity, her mission. That's what episcopal headship, apostolic succession, the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, papal infallibility, etc. is all about.
Would you not in general recognise that the decision-making processes of a government or a firm or a charitable institution were part of its culture ? And separable from its mission (to govern in the interests of the people, to make top-quality widgets at a reasonable price, to protect and defend the interests of lame animals, whatever) ?
In most cases, I proabaly would. But as I've already explained, the Church's general "governance structure" is itself part of the deposit of the faith - something given to it as an intrinsic part of its identity in order to work out its mission. It's core because we believe that episcopal governance with and under the successor of Peter is part of the esse (very identity) of the Church, not just part of the bene esse (well being). This may be controversial for non-Catholics, but it's surely neither news nor particularly difficult to grasp.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
In this context, is there a difference between rules and principles?
This distinction is one which I feel is at the heart of our different conceptions of the church, with Chesterbelloc seeing the church as being the guardian of, and applying rules and me principles. It would be interesting to know if this is also what Russ is referring to.
My conception of the distinction is this. Principles allow circumstances to alter cases, and enter into a direct dialogue with those circumstances. Rules require circumstances to be ignored once they have been used to identify the rule that is relevant to the situation.
[ 23. May 2016, 08:57: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's certainly not accidental or "cultural" - it's part of her very identity, her mission. That's what episcopal headship, apostolic succession, the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, papal infallibility, etc. is all about.
Would you not in general recognise that the decision-making processes of a government or a firm or a charitable institution were part of its culture ? And separable from its mission (to govern in the interests of the people, to make top-quality widgets at a reasonable price, to protect and defend the interests of lame animals, whatever) ?
In most cases, I proabaly would. But as I've already explained, the Church's general "governance structure" is itself part of the deposit of the faith - something given to it as an intrinsic part of its identity in order to work out its mission. It's core because we believe that episcopal governance with and under the successor of Peter is part of the esse (very identity) of the Church, not just part of the bene esse (well being). This may be controversial for non-Catholics, but it's surely neither news nor particularly difficult to grasp.
Sorry, that's merging two quite different issues both of which might be important, but which are nothing like the same.
A. is whether the management structure for running the church is divinely commanded, of the esse rather than just the bene esse. If you are RC or Calvinist by background, you are likely to insist that it is, though from scripture and tradition, you will deduce a markedly different structure.
B. is whether, if an organisation claims to be Christian, that should have implications for the ethos, the level of care and integrity etc within it, whether being Christian should make a difference to how as an organisation it behaves, in its dealings with the world around, its members and particularly, its staff.
It is possible for an organisation to have a management structure that is fully compliant with its doctrinal understanding of A and for it to ignore B. Complying with A does not protect it from its way of conducting itself being a complete travesty of every way in which the belief it should have in B should bear fruit.
It is also possible for an ecclesial household with no particular take on A to do much better at B than an ecclesial household with threefold orders, the modelling of apostleship or whatever its understanding of A might require of it. Having a theology of A, can make an organisation far too complacent about B. It is even possible to use one's theology of A to bludgeon the faithful in a way that is not compatible with B at all.
Personally, I think B is the more important of these two issues.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In a given environment, pastoral and sociologial realities will influence how heavily a denomination enforces its official position, but the RCC is a highly centralised global institution so I suppose there are limits as to how far it can go in making wholesale changes. Any changes would delight some but alienate others
This is the reality of what Pope Francis has discovered since 2013. Although, as a Jesuit, he's doctrinally conservative, he believes that pastoral considerations should trump doctrinal purity, just as mercy trumps justice for a God of infinite love. But he's hit a brick wall with the Institution.
He started by making comments that the time for mercy was here(when speaking of remarried divorcees). He commissioned a survey of the opinions of the faithful, which at least in the West, overwhelmingly favoured a more pastoral approach. Then he called to Extraordinary Synod of 2014, followed by the Ordinary Synod of 2015. There he found that the Church, as a whole, is unable to budge anything like as much as he would have wanted.
So after all this, he came out with a document, Amoris Laetitia, which says absolutely nothing. This is a pity after three years of work. The Pope's pastoral instincts which were honed in his native Argentina, have come to nothing against the sclerotic institutions of the machine.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
