Ship of Fools: Purgatory: The authority of the Catholic Church

Thread: Purgatory: The authority of the Catholic Church Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000888

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

This arises out of points made on a recent Hell thread. My position there was that there were genuinely debateable issues to which the allleged faults of the Roman Catholic Church* are relevant, and I'd like to see if we can discuss one of these without anti-Catholic prejudice.

My starting point: I'd like to be a ‘catholic'. By that I mean, I'd like to belong to the Church the the apostles started, and to which all Christians are called to belong. I'd like to be part of a Church which can at least aspire to being in communion with all Christians. I'd like that Church to teach orthodox Christian doctrine, and to devote its intellectual resources to defending and promoting that doctrine, so that I can be reasonably confident that what I believe is orthodox, and that I have access to the best arguments to convince me of that. The corollory to that is that I don't want the Church to teach anything as an essential of the Christian faith about which orthodox Christians can reasonably disagree, but what it does teach as essential, I want it to teach with authority. That is what I would see as a truly universal church, and that's what I would like to join.

My question: Is the Roman Catholic Church the one I ought to be part of?

She has a strong institutional claim to direct continuity with the apostles, and represents the majority of the followers of Jesus Christ. And she claims to have authority to teach what the Christian faith actually is, in its fullness. So far, so good. However, there seem to me to be grave reasons for doubting that the RCC actually has that authority:

Reason 1: Teaching disputed points as if they were infallibly true.

Example: The papal teaching defining the Assumption of Mary concludes: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

That, it seems to me, is a as close to being demonstrably wrong as it is possible to be in matters of religion (assuming that "the divine and Catholic faith" means anything other than "what I say"). I have no problem with Christians believing that Mary was taken bodily into Heaven, but really, nothing turns on it. If one were to delete the doctrine of the Assumption from the faith, and then go through the Catechism with a blue pencil to remove everything that must fall as a consequence, and the answer would be ‘nothing at all'. A Christian can (and many do) believe as fervently in the divinity and incarnation of Christ, and the holiness of his blessed mother, as well without this doctrine as with it. It is manifestly obvious that disagreement on this disputed point is no denial of the faith whatever.

This being something that orthodox Christians can and do, doubt, a universal church ought not to define it as an essential of faith, purportedly with infallible authority.

Reason 2: Teaching that is, as far as I can tell, just plain wrong.

Examples: Contraception (a beneficial and morally unproblematic practice). Ordination of women (for a MOTR Anglincan like me, denying that women can ever be priests is like living under the flightpath at Heathrow and denying that jumbo jets could ever fly).

I don't want to debate the specifics of either of those topics (especially as one is a DH), beyond saying that I am pretty close to unpersuadable that the RCC position is at all capable of being right. Accepting that the RCC has moral authority to teach on these points would mean concluding that my best moral and spiritual intuitions are not merely flawed (I accept that) but worthless (which I cannot accept, and, if accepted, is a philosophical dead end).

Reason 3: Historical abuses.

Examples: The crusades. The inquisition. The indulgences system that set off the Reformation.

Yes, I know that these are historical, I know that most modern Catholics would repudiate them either wholly or partly, and I know that every church with a history also has a history of mistakes.

So in a sense, these things are not problems at all - they present no hinderance at all to me walking through the doors of a Catholic church and participating in the worship. Where they are a problem is that they are all institutional acts of the RCC. The Church, so it seems to me, did actually teach that making war on infidels was a pious act, that imprisoning and torturing suspected heretics, and then handing them over to certain death was morally acceptable, that payment of money helped to lift the burden of sin. And now, no one of any sense thinks that the RCC was right.

If the question were simply whether to be (say) an Anglican or a Roman Catholic, these abuses could be answered by pointing out that the Protestants, given the opportunity, have done just as badly - but that isn't the only question. The RCC claims to have infallible teaching authority on faith and morals, and when it can clearly be seen to get matters of faith and morals badly wrong this authority is damaged. The problem doesn't go away if it is pointed out that infallibility was not formally invoked for these abuses. The point is that the RCC as an institution officially endorsed actions against faith and morals, which it says are and have always been within its competence to decide infallibly.

So this is a problem - not so much for me accepting RC doctrine as it is now taught, but for me accepting the principle that RC teaching must be true because it is RC.

(Non-)Reason 4: Recent scandals.

Example: Child abuse and cover-ups thereof.

I mention this for completeness - because applying the same analysis to this issue as to the previous one, it does not undermine the Church's teaching authority in the same way. It certainly is a cause for concern, and is a reason for not trusting priests and bishops to do the right thing simply because they are priests and bishops, but I don't think it can be said that the RCC ever had any official view of sexual abuse other than that it is a grave evil. No one was promised time-off from purgatory for abusing children (as they were for going on a crusade) and no church institution was set up for the purpose of promoting child abuse (as it was for the purpose of religious persecution) - however widespread and odious, child abuse was always wrong by the standard which the RCC claimed to teach, and so is, for me, quite possible to reconcile as an ordinary human instance of knowing the right thing and failing to do it.

The rest of the points leads me to the conclusion that the RCC does not have the moral authority which it claims. It has not competently decided questions of faith and morals, and it has not properly defined what ought to be believed as a part of an orthodox Christian faith.

So:

(1) Am I right in thinking that joining the RCC would mean accepting an authority that I presently reject?

(2) If so, what arguments are there for accepting that authority?

(3) How do Catholics reconcile the difficulties they have** on these and similar issues with acceptance of their Church's teaching authority?

(*I'm using the name Roman Catholic Church/RCC here to make clear that I am talking about that specific ecclesial community, and not any protestant or other conception of ‘the Catholic Church')

(**And I think they do have them, contraception being the obvious example where many, possibly a majority, of the Catholics in the UK do not accept what their Church teaches)

[ 02. November 2012, 20:37: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by 205 (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Accepting that the RCC has moral authority to teach on these points would mean concluding that my best moral and spiritual intuitions are not merely flawed (I accept that) but worthless (which I cannot accept, and, if accepted, is a philosophical dead end).

How are you getting from merely flawed to worthless?

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
My starting point: I'd like to be a ‘catholic'. By that I mean, I'd like to belong to the Church the the apostles started, and to which all Christians are called to belong. I'd like to be part of a Church which can at least aspire to being in communion with all Christians. I'd like that Church to teach orthodox Christian doctrine, and to devote its intellectual resources to defending and promoting that doctrine, so that I can be reasonably confident that what I believe is orthodox, and that I have access to the best arguments to convince me of that. The corollory to that is that I don't want the Church to teach anything as an essential of the Christian faith about which orthodox Christians can reasonably disagree, but what it does teach as essential, I want it to teach with authority. That is what I would see as a truly universal church, and that's what I would like to join.

My question: Is the Roman Catholic Church the one I ought to be part of?

She has a strong institutional claim to direct continuity with the apostles, and represents the majority of the followers of Jesus Christ. And she claims to have authority to teach what the Christian faith actually is, in its fullness. So far, so good.

Everything in there seems to apply equally well to the Anglicans as well (apart from the majority bit).

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
(3) How do Catholics reconcile the difficulties they have** on these and similar issues with acceptance of their Church's teaching authority?
...
(**And I think they do have them, contraception being the obvious example where many, possibly a majority, of the Catholics in the UK do not accept what their Church teaches)

When I was a new teacher and struggling to fulfil the demands of the National Curriculum, I was helped greatly by a senior teacher's observation, that "These goals are an ideal towards which we aim, not a minimum which must be attained."

I don't speak for any Catholic*, but there is something to be said for the Church maintaining the ideal rather than diluting it down. I can even see that with contraception, the ideal would be not to use it nor have to use it. Were I Catholic, I might want that ideal maintained by the Church, even though I could also be using contraception myself for practical reasons. I think the Pope recently indicated something similar when he 'allowed' the use of condoms for those working in the sex industry, for example: the care for the self and for the other that this involves could be a step on the road to a higher ideal of chastity or continence.

*will willingly accept correction if I have read this entirely wrongly.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 205:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Accepting that the RCC has moral authority to teach on these points would mean concluding that my best moral and spiritual intuitions are not merely flawed (I accept that) but worthless (which I cannot accept, and, if accepted, is a philosophical dead end).
How are you getting from merely flawed to worthless?

Because if I am wrong about contraception, I am so badly wrong that my moral instincts about it must be unreliable.

Compare, say, other disputed moral questions, like abortion, or pacifism, or capital punishment. I have views about these, of course, but I can see what the other side is saying, what good intentions motivate the other side, and why reasonable people could disagree. I might be wrong about the specifics, but I am not inept. I can imagine myself changing my mind.

On contraception, that's not the case. I can't see that there's anything to be said, morally, on the other side whatsoever - not out of ignorance or lack of thought, but because I've heard all the arguments ably put, and simply cannot discern any substance there at all. If contraception is a grave sin, then I utterly lack the faculty to see it. My moral judgement on that point could not be more deficient.

The point is that on some issues the RCC official line is so much at odds with my moral common sense, that it would require more than ordinary humility to see that it is right and I am wrong. I would be taking on trust the fact that it is right for no reason that I can see or comprehend, against all of my moral instincts. That is, it puts me in 1984 territory - the only way I could accept that the RCC is right about condoms would be almost to brainwash myself into believing that the RCC is right because it says so. This is a problem for me.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

Heavens, Eliab, if you're seeking perfection, don't join us... [Big Grin]

From your OP it sounds like you're looking for the "original" church, as in "intended by Jesus". The problem is, nobody knows what was intended by Jesus. Just because the RC curia claims that they are the apostolic succession does not mean that they are. Under that argument, you might well consider becoming an Anglican or an Orthodox.

If you've set your sights on the RCC, please be aware that we are a very mixed bag. We've got the Opus Dei and we've got Liberation Theology. We've got charismatics and Latin-Rite fans. We've gor exclusivists, inclusivists, pluralists and those who do not agree with either of the three. In our churches, we do Baroque, Postmodern, Garish or Cistercian. Our religious orders have a wildly ranging spirituality, from Jesuits to the Franciscans...

So, which kind of RC do you want to become?

And lastly, it appears that the whole issue is boiling down to contraception. Again. As if it was all about that. Well, it isn't.

The important thing for you is not to find a reason to join the RCC. It is to find a spiritual home for yourself, one where you feel you're called to. Don't be disappointed if it is not the RCC. You might be more useful to us from the outside.

[ 02. July 2012, 13:15: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

There's plenty to discuss in the OP, but I think it is better to do this over several posts. Let's deal with a misunderstanding first:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Reason 1: Teaching disputed points as if they were infallibly true.

Example: The papal teaching defining the Assumption of Mary concludes: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

That, it seems to me, is a as close to being demonstrably wrong as it is possible to be in matters of religion (assuming that "the divine and Catholic faith" means anything other than "what I say"). I have no problem with Christians believing that Mary was taken bodily into Heaven, but really, nothing turns on it. If one were to delete the doctrine of the Assumption from the faith, and then go through the Catechism with a blue pencil to remove everything that must fall as a consequence, and the answer would be ‘nothing at all'. A Christian can (and many do) believe as fervently in the divinity and incarnation of Christ, and the holiness of his blessed mother, as well without this doctrine as with it. It is manifestly obvious that disagreement on this disputed point is no denial of the faith whatever.

Let us look at Munificentissimus Deus to understand what is actually going on:

quote:
44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

The bold highlights I have added show the real logic. There is no claim here at all that the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is totally central to the Catholic Faith by virtue of its content. One does not fall away from the Catholic Faith because one does not find this teaching obvious by and in itself. Rather, the pope is here saying: I will now make a statement concerning faith in the fullness of the power granted by God to my office: I will here make use of my infallibility to define a truth of faith, and I will unequivocally demand the full assent of faith to this of all the Church. In short, the pope has thrown all the authority that he has behind this dogma. The pope is all in. Hence if you deny this dogma, you've fallen away from the Catholic faith. Not because you've rejected the Assumption of Mary as such, but because you have rejected the pope's authority by virtue of rejecting the Assumption of Mary, which he has unequivocally told you has now become part of Catholic belief.

For all intents and purposes "the divine and Catholic faith" indeed means nothing other than "what I say", when the pope speaks ex cathedra - as he has done here. You may wish to argue that that is a problem. Fine. But that would be a different argument. It is not the case that the pope has tried here to pass off a disputed point as obvious, as you seem to think. There's nothing "demonstrably wrong" here, unless you can somehow show that it is impossible for Mary to have been assumed.

This brings us to this declaration:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The corollory to that is that I don't want the Church to teach anything as an essential of the Christian faith about which orthodox Christians can reasonably disagree, but what it does teach as essential, I want it to teach with authority.

What you are in fact saying here is that the Church should not teach anything with authority. For where all orthodox Christians reasonably agree, there is no need to teach with authority at all. The Church would there simply have to state the argument, and all orthodox Christians would say "Right, as I thought." or "Indeed. How come I didn't think of that. Thanks." Instead, teaching with authority is precisely needed where reasonable Christians do not agree. They do that a lot, disagreeing. In fact so much so, that defining "orthodoxy" apart from what has been taught with authority is essentially impossible.

You are just fundamentally wrong about religion there, IMHO. You are looking for some kind of philosopher's way to salvation, but there is none. As is rather readily apparent from the many religions and philosophies of life out there. There really is no reasonable agreement to be had on philosophy, religion, or more specifically, Christianity. That is an illusion.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's deal with a misunderstanding first:

[...]

The bold highlights I have added show the real logic. There is no claim here at all that the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is totally central to the Catholic Faith by virtue of its content. One does not fall away from the Catholic Faith because one does not find this teaching obvious by and in itself. Rather, the pope is here saying: I will now make a statement concerning faith in the fullness of the power granted by God to my office: I will here make use of my infallibility to define a truth of faith, and I will unequivocally demand the full assent of faith to this of all the Church. In short, the pope has thrown all the authority that he has behind this dogma. The pope is all in. Hence if you deny this dogma, you've fallen away from the Catholic faith. Not because you've rejected the Assumption of Mary as such, but because you have rejected the pope's authority by virtue of rejecting the Assumption of Mary, which he has unequivocally told you has now become part of Catholic belief.

That explanation is very helpful, thank you.

But then you are right to say that this makes "the divine and Catholic faith" mean what the Pope says (ex cathedra), and that is a problem. If it's not in dispute that, in and of itself, what happened to Mary's body doesn't really affect what the gospel is, if it wouldn't be an essential of the faith if the Pope hadn't gone ‘all in', then why say it? Why make this an additional and unnecessary obstacle to faith? As it isn't inherently an essential, how can it possibly be right to make it a communion-breaking issue?

The fact that the Pope believes the Assumption to be true is no problem at all for me. The fact that he teaches it isn't much more troublesome. The fact that he makes it an essential of faith is - however convinced he might personally be, the relevance of this doctrine to the question of "What makes a Christian?" is, by virtue of its content, negligible. The fact that the Pope has elevated it to a matter of the highest importance is, for me, an argument against his authority.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The corollory to that is that I don't want the Church to teach anything as an essential of the Christian faith about which orthodox Christians can reasonably disagree, but what it does teach as essential, I want it to teach with authority.
What you are in fact saying here is that the Church should not teach anything with authority. For where all orthodox Christians reasonably agree, there is no need to teach with authority at all.

The key words were "as an essential of the Christian faith". There are doctrines, I think, where if you disagree with them you are essentially practising a different religion to the one commonly called Christianity. God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, grace, repentance, forgiveness, all seem to me to be essentials - they separate what almost everyone would think of as "Christian" from "non-Christian". I have no problem with the Church saying that these are the boundaries of orthodox belief.

What I object to, as a misuse of that authority, is taking some doctrine which would never have been thought to have that significance, and making it an entry requirement, purportedly with infallible authority. If it is obviously true that two Christians could disagree about something, while they remains in agreement about what Christian orthodoxy says on every other point, I think the Church has no business defining ‘the Catholic faith' so as to exclude one of them.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

Eliab,do you still find God in your church? If so, I recommend that you stop worrying and stay with it. Fiery letters in the sky telling me to get my arse out of the CofE would shift me, but not much less than that. For all my frustration, disappointment and doubts about so much of Anglicanism, if God still hangs in there, that's good enough for me. And had I first found Him in one of his other haunts, eg the RCC, I'd feel the same. Simeon stuck it out at the temple, living among the wheeler-dealers, breathing the stench of blood sacrifice. Waiting for the Christ. We have it easier.

[ 02. July 2012, 17:46: Message edited by: Bean Sidhe ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If it's not in dispute that, in and of itself, what happened to Mary's body doesn't really affect what the gospel is, if it wouldn't be an essential of the faith if the Pope hadn't gone ‘all in', then why say it? Why make this an additional and unnecessary obstacle to faith?

It is really quite ironic that you think of this as an "obstacle to faith"... This dogma was declared just after WWII for one primary reason: to cheer up and encourage Catholics after a trial of great darkness. See paragraph two and following in the original document linked to above.

What the pope is doing here is to throw his weight behind popular Catholic piety. It was a move to stand with his people, to say: you and me, we all believe in this. It was also a particular kind of veneration that only the pope can give to Mary, by which he can affirm and boost the veneration of the people for Mary. You light a candle for her, I declare an infallible dogma about her.

This was not a "let's make a creed against the Arians" moment. This was not intended to be controversial at all. This was the doctrinal equivalent of a pep talk! The last thing this was supposed to be is an "obstacle to faith" to anybody. Certainly not to anybody Catholic, and frankly back then pope's weren't concerned all that much with winning over other Christians. (Notably though, the dogma was defined in such a way as to be compatible with the belief in Dormition held by most Orthodox.)

Now, the language in defining the dogma had to come down like a ton of bricks on those who disbelieve in the dogma at the point of definition. Why? Because it is just this language that marks the application of infallibility. Only if the pope states unequivocally that X is to be the defined and universal truth, and non-X is anathema, only then is this a clear and intentional infallible statement. Basically, that one was for the "lawyers" (those theologians who would parse the document with a lawyer mentality).

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The fact that he makes it an essential of faith is - however convinced he might personally be, the relevance of this doctrine to the question of "What makes a Christian?" is, by virtue of its content, negligible. The fact that the Pope has elevated it to a matter of the highest importance is, for me, an argument against his authority.

The pope has not really elevated this dogma to a matter of the highest importance. He merely has declared this dogma to be certainly true. Of course, he has used the rarity of this kind of event as a sort of PR stunt. Maybe he shouldn't have. Nobody has claimed that the popes infallibly do what is best for the Church... But that this is not, shall we say, the most pressing issue ever in the life of faith is of course part of the reason why this dogma was chosen. The pope could have declared infallible dogma on predestination, stepping into centuries of heated Catholic debate. He also could have declared infallible dogma against hesychastic practices, destroying relations to the Orthodox. Instead, he declared basically "Jesus' mum was honoured by God with the assumption". That's supposed to be a crowd pleaser which hurts nobody. Little did he know that it would become an obstacle to the sort of minimalistic faith you long for...

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I object to, as a misuse of that authority, is taking some doctrine which would never have been thought to have that significance, and making it an entry requirement, purportedly with infallible authority. If it is obviously true that two Christians could disagree about something, while they remains in agreement about what Christian orthodoxy says on every other point, I think the Church has no business defining ‘the Catholic faith' so as to exclude one of them.

Firstly, anything that is in fact true is fair game for being declared infallibly true by the pope, and what anybody thinks of this is strictly neither here nor there. Secondly, if you are looking for a minimalistic faith, then surprise, surprise, Catholicism is not for you. This really is quite at odds with the spirit - or better Spirit - of the whole thing. Catholicism is like nature, gloriously complex and odd, just crammed full with all sorts of stuff. I'm as neo-scholastic as the next person, so yeah, I'm out there in the wild applying taxonomy to all that I can find. But even that is just a strange way of appreciating the wonders of it all. A good biologist is not a tax accountant.

So the pope honouring an apparently minor doctrinal point with the biggest bang of ecclesiastic power is really very, very Catholic. And by virtue of how this stuff works, I have little doubt that eventually this will turn out to have been very, very important in yet another quirky way. If there is one law to orthodox theology, it is the iron law of consequences unintended by humans but Divine. Der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt. Der Mensch dachte, Gott lachte. (Well known German proverb, roughly: "Man thinks, God directs. Man thought, God laughed." Sorry, it is snappy and rhymes in German...)

I've started my "spiritual career" with reading Zen koans, Roman Catholicism is a lot weirder still. Because the real mystery is never trivial or vague. Only if you have some strong analytical skills can you truly appreciate the zaniness of quantum mechanics or general relativity. We have characterized each of the 302 neurons of C. elegans with considerable precision, and that worm still does plenty of stuff to surprise us. Christianity is whack in that peculiar way that has the smell of truth for me. Not wishy-washy, but mind-bending. Not all over the place, but never quite where you expect it. Not contrary to reason, but at the edge of it. To be chased, but always one step ahead. Awash with humanity, but ... not ... quite ... human. Teasingly beyond.

Seriously, your concern here about the essentialness of infallible dogma sounds to me like requiring that all mammals must give birth to live young. And then comes along a platypus... Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

This is the most interesting post on Catholicism that I have read in a long time. Thanks, IngoB. [Overused]

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But then you are right to say that this makes "the divine and Catholic faith" mean what the Pope says (ex cathedra), and that is a problem. If it's not in dispute that, in and of itself, what happened to Mary's body doesn't really affect what the gospel is, if it wouldn't be an essential of the faith if the Pope hadn't gone ‘all in', then why say it? Why make this an additional and unnecessary obstacle to faith? As it isn't inherently an essential, how can it possibly be right to make it a communion-breaking issue?

Because it’s true, ot at least the Catholic Church believes it to be true. And furthermore, the truth of this has only been ‘controversial’ quite recently. The Orthodox believe it, and it is also no problem believing it for Lutherans. The belief that Mary was ever-virgin, and possibly also immaculately conceived, is even found in the Book of Concord, in the Smalcald Articles I.IV: “[We hold that] the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary.” (Emphasis added)

AFAIK, the Catholic Church doesn’t agree to the narrow definition of Gospel which only takes into concideration (what some people define as) the ‘core,’ and which avoids ‘controversy.’ Did the bishops at Nicea ‘avoid controversy’? Did the bishops at Chalcedon ‘avoid controversy’? Or, to use a more ‘controversial’ topic: Did William Wilberforce ‘avoid controversy’?

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The fact that the Pope believes the Assumption to be true is no problem at all for me. The fact that he teaches it isn't much more troublesome. The fact that he makes it an essential of faith is - however convinced he might personally be, the relevance of this doctrine to the question of "What makes a Christian?" is, by virtue of its content, negligible. The fact that the Pope has elevated it to a matter of the highest importance is, for me, an argument against his authority.

But if it’s true, why shouldn’t he teach it? Would you say the same about the Arian controversy?

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The key words were "as an essential of the Christian faith". There are doctrines, I think, where if you disagree with them you are essentially practising a different religion to the one commonly called Christianity. God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, grace, repentance, forgiveness, all seem to me to be essentials - they separate what almost everyone would think of as "Christian" from "non-Christian". I have no problem with the Church saying that these are the boundaries of orthodox belief.

What I object to, as a misuse of that authority, is taking some doctrine which would never have been thought to have that significance, and making it an entry requirement, purportedly with infallible authority. If it is obviously true that two Christians could disagree about something, while they remains in agreement about what Christian orthodoxy says on every other point, I think the Church has no business defining ‘the Catholic faith' so as to exclude one of them.

But this assumes that the Catholic Church ought to conform to a ‘minimalist’ view of doctrine that is completely foreign to it, and which has been completely foreign to it throughout history. Why shouldn’t the Catholic Church teach it, if it’s true? If people refused to believe it, they then would refuse truth. And what God desires is not merely that we should be saved (a minimalist view) but also that we might come to knowledge of the truth, as it is said in 1Tim 2:4. That is the purpose of the Pope, to be a shepheard that gives guidance on what saves us, and on what is true in matters og faith and morals. You could of course disagree with the Church on what is true or not, but that is equally true about any of the doctrine you say are essential. You will find people calling themselves Christian, who reject the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, grace, repentance, forgiveness, etc.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
But then you are right to say that this makes "the divine and Catholic faith" mean what the Pope says (ex cathedra), and that is a problem.

Sounds like maybe the Roman Catholic Church isn't the one for you then?

Going back to the OP and the desire to be a member of the/a catholic church. Taking a much more Protestant (or is it?) line on this Karl Barth argues that the key important element of belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is to recognise that the particular concrete congregation in which one worships is the Church, the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.

"[F]irst of all, Christians are simply summoned to believe in God as the common origin, the common goal of the Church to which they are called. We are not placed upon a tower, from which we can survey all varieties of Churches; we simply stand on the earth at a definite place and there is the Church, the one Church. We believe in the unity of the Church, in the unity of the congregations, if we believe in the existence of our concrete Church. If we believe in the Holy Spirit in this Church, then even in the worst case we are not absolutely separated from the other congregations. The truly ecumenical Christians are not those who trivialise the differences and flutter over them; they are those who in their respective Churches are quite concretely the Church. 'Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst' - that is the Church. In Him, despite all varieties in the individual congregations, we shall somehow be bound up with one another." (Dogmatics in outline, 134)

He's assuredly a Protestant, but of all Protestant theologians he must be the most well-respected by the Roman Catholic Church.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

[

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Because it’s true, ot at least the Catholic Church believes it to be true.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The fact that the Pope believes the Assumption to be true is no problem at all for me. The fact that he teaches it isn't much more troublesome. The fact that he makes it an essential of faith is - however convinced he might personally be, the relevance of this doctrine to the question of "What makes a Christian?" is, by virtue of its content, negligible. The fact that the Pope has elevated it to a matter of the highest importance is, for me, an argument against his authority.
But if it’s true, why shouldn’t he teach it? Would you say the same about the Arian controversy? ..................................................
Why shouldn’t the Catholic Church teach it, if it’s true? If people refused to believe it, they then would refuse truth. And what God desires is not merely that we should be saved (a minimalist view) but also that we might come to knowledge of the truth, as it is said in 1Tim 2:4. That is the purpose of the Pope, to be a shepheard that gives guidance on what saves us, and on what is true in matters og faith and morals. You could of course disagree with the Church on what is true or not

I may have misread this but you seem to have moved from "the Catholic church believes it to be true" to acceptance that it is true, and therefore should be taught.
If so - is it true because the church believes it to be so or because of some unexplained evidence?
If you are arguing that something should be taught because it is believed by the teacher to be true aren't you creating a charter for the dissemination of hate (racial/religious/misogynistic/incitement to gaybashing etc.) and potentially harmful ideas such as protecting oneself from malaria through an homeopathic preparation? Even in the USA the separation of church and state precludes teaching “Intelligent Design” in state funded schools despite many of their staff fervently believing it to be true.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by Ingo:
It is really quite ironic that you think of this as an "obstacle to faith"... This dogma was declared just after WWII for one primary reason: to cheer up and encourage Catholics after a trial of great darkness. See paragraph two and following in the original document linked to above.

This is definitely not the kind of thing I think of when I hear that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. It might be a scientific sort of mind that's troubled on speaking about something in a way that makes it an absolute fact (within the church) merely for the sake of a pep rally, however important the pep rally may be.

The use of ex cathedra as a political tool, even a well meaning one, bothers me. I want something that's to be that true to be true, not just to be something that the body politic feels really good about. This is also why the whole idea of infallibility bothers me. I'll have to think about this...you've definitely changed the way I look at papal pronouncements.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

Talk about being cheered up in a time of darkness. IngoB, you made my day:

Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is really quite ironic that you think of this as an "obstacle to faith"... This dogma was declared just after WWII for one primary reason: to cheer up and encourage Catholics after a trial of great darkness. See paragraph two and following in the original document linked to above.

What the pope is doing here is to throw his weight behind popular Catholic piety. It was a move to stand with his people, to say: you and me, we all believe in this. It was also a particular kind of veneration that only the pope can give to Mary, by which he can affirm and boost the veneration of the people for Mary. You light a candle for her, I declare an infallible dogma about her.

I would never have seen that, not in a hundred years, without your help. I'd seen the definition as exclusionary and mean-spirited, not as displaying a particularly Catholic sort of magnaminity. Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The pope could have declared infallible dogma on predestination, stepping into centuries of heated Catholic debate. He also could have declared infallible dogma against hesychastic practices, destroying relations to the Orthodox. Instead, he declared basically "Jesus' mum was honoured by God with the assumption".

Could he, though?

Unless I've misunderstood the doctrine (always a possibility) I didn't think that the point was that the pope is actually or potentially omniscient - that he could at any time be infallibly consulted about any religious truth. I thought it was just that the Holy Spirit guaranteed that when speaking so as to bind the whole church, he would not get it wrong.

That is, I didn't think there was any guarantee against the pope having mistaken personal views on predestination, or being completely ignorant of Orthodox spirituality, only that his human errors and ignorance would be kept out of official dogma. If so, he may very well not have been in a position to declare infallibly one way or another on all sorts of controversies. Or am I wrong about that?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Firstly, anything that is in fact true is fair game for being declared infallibly true by the pope, and what anybody thinks of this is strictly neither here nor there.

and:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Why shouldn't the Catholic Church teach it, if it's true?

I have real difficulty in seeing how you both can go so easily from "we think this is true" to "it's fair to teach this infallibily in the Catholic Church". There's no end of things that I think true that I wouldn't want taught as infallible Christian dogma binding on all the faithful.

The effect of authoritative teaching is to say: you must believe this in order to consider yourself a faithful Catholic. Since the Catholic Church believes that all Christians are called to be faithful Catholics, this amounts to "you must believe this". To have any right to insist on belief to that degree - to say, in effect, it would ordinarily be a sin for a Christian not to believe such - I think at least two criteria must be satisfied:

1) The Church should be absolutely certain that the doctrine proposed is true;
2) It is reasonable to expect all Christians to have absolute confidence that the Church has correctly discerned the truth.

If either of these is shaky, if either the Church could be wrong, or a Christian could reasonably fear that the Church is wrong, 100% confidence in the doctrine is unwarranted, and therefore it should not be insisted upon. It seems to me that to say "if true, why not declare it infallibly" you have to be certain that your doctrinal machinery is error-free AND that all Christians really ought to be able to see that. I know of no reason for thinking that this is so, and several for thinking that it isn't.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Secondly, if you are looking for a minimalistic faith, then surprise, surprise, Catholicism is not for you. This really is quite at odds with the spirit - or better Spirit - of the whole thing. Catholicism is like nature, gloriously complex and odd, just crammed full with all sorts of stuff. I'm as neo-scholastic as the next person, so yeah, I'm out there in the wild applying taxonomy to all that I can find. But even that is just a strange way of appreciating the wonders of it all. A good biologist is not a tax accountant.

and:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
AFAIK, the Catholic Church doesn't agree to the narrow definition of Gospel which only takes into concideration (what some people define as) the ‘core,' and which avoids ‘controversy.' Did the bishops at Nicea ‘avoid controversy'? Did the bishops at Chalcedon ‘avoid controversy'? Or, to use a more ‘controversial' topic: Did William Wilberforce ‘avoid controversy'?

I think that's a bit of a straw man. I'm not arguing for a minimalistic faith. I'm very grateful for the richness of Christian tradition, and I'm sure that I'm quite as opinionated about it as either of you. I am, if anything, arguing for controversy rather than seeking to avoid it. Also, I've said, explicitly, that I'm not troubled by the pope, or anyone else, believing every Catholic dogma, or teaching others about what they believe.

The only qualification to that is that I do object to them teaching it authoritatively, infallibly, and as an entry requirement to (what they claim is) the full Christian faith. I object to them insisting on beliefs which are not core.

And there is a core of Christian belief that is not hard to recognise. One test might be, that if the only thing you knew about someone was that she said "I'm a Christian", the beliefs that you would assume she held because of that are central to Christianity. You would not assume that she believed in the Assumption, or predestination, or veneration of icons, or creationism, or speaking in tongues (she might, or she might not, agree with any of those). You would assume that she believed in God, the incarnation, and forgiveness of sins (it is possible that she might not, of course, but it would be surprising, an anomaly, if she did not, in a way that dissent from non-core beliefs would not be surprising).

If you are a Church that claims to be the one that all Christians should join, insisting that "Christian" here means what everyone ordinarily takes it to mean is one thing, but insisting that all Christians should take your side on controversies where Christians are known to disagree is something else. You need a very clear mandate, and a very strong track record, to say that you have anything approaching a right to be the arbiter of every disputed point. I can't see that in the RCC or any other church. Do you see it? Why?

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I may have misread this but you seem to have moved from "the Catholic church believes it to be true" to acceptance that it is true, and therefore should be taught.

If the Catholic Church believes something to be true, the Catholic Church could teach it as true. For the same reason it teaches the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If so - is it true because the church believes it to be so or because of some unexplained evidence?

Could you not ask the same about every bit of doctrine, including the Trinity?

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If you are arguing that something should be taught because it is believed by the teacher to be true aren't you creating a charter for the dissemination of hate (racial/religious/misogynistic/incitement to gaybashing etc.) and potentially harmful ideas such as protecting oneself from malaria through an homeopathic preparation?

Maybe, but that doesn’t really effect my point. I don’t believe in that. If the Catholic Church believes something to be trur that if fact isn’t true, then you probably shouldn’t join. My point is that if the Assumption of Mary is an obstacle to faith, than maybe one shouldn’t become Catholic. As it states in 1Tim 2:4: “[God our Savior] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (ESV, emphasis added) The Catholic Church believes that Mary was assumed, therefore she teaches it as true. And therefore one ought to believe in that truth to become Catholic.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Even in the USA the separation of church and state precludes teaching “Intelligent Design” in state funded schools despite many of their staff fervently believing it to be true.

So you are saying that in the USA the separation of church and state precludes teaching ‘Intelligent Design’ in church? If not, why bring it up?

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The only qualification to that is that I do object to them teaching it authoritatively, infallibly, and as an entry requirement to (what they claim is) the full Christian faith. I object to them insisting on beliefs which are not core.

Which means that you are arguing for a minimalistic faith. The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with this ‘core-thinking.’ It is completely foreign to her, and has been completely foreign to her throughout history.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And there is a core of Christian belief that is not hard to recognise.

Says one who lives post-Nicea 325, post-Constantinople 381, post-Ephesus 431, post-Chalcedon 451, post-Constantinople II 553, post-Constantinople III 680, and post-Nicea II 787.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
One test might be, that if the only thing you knew about someone was that she said "I'm a Christian", the beliefs that you would assume she held because of that are central to Christianity.

Again, this assumes a minimalistic view that is completely foreign to the Catholic Church, completely foreign to Christianity before (and even periods during and after) the Reformation. As I’ve pointed out, the belief in Mary being ever-virgin (and quite possibly her being conceived immaculately) is taught in the Book of Concord, the founding documents of the Lutheran faith. It is said, in Smalcald Articles I.IV: “[We hold that] the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary.” (Emphasis added) This belief is even more controversial than the belief in her assumption.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You would not assume that she believed in the Assumption, or predestination, or veneration of icons, or creationism, or speaking in tongues (she might, or she might not, agree with any of those).

Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn’t mean that she ought not believe in that. And the veneration of Icons was in fact one of the disputed things that was taught authoritatively, infallibly, and as an entry requirement to the full Christian faith in the seventh ecumenical council (Nicea II 787).

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You would assume that she believed in God, the incarnation, and forgiveness of sins (it is possible that she might not, of course, but it would be surprising, an anomaly, if she did not, in a way that dissent from non-core beliefs would not be surprising).

But there are in fact many Christians who doesn’t believe in the Incarnation. Many pentacostals I have discussed with believe in a semi-adoptionist view, or they believe in a semi-Apollinarian view. The latter is in fact true of William Lane Craig. This search for a ‘core’ often has the habit of descending into heresy.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you are a Church that claims to be the one that all Christians should join, insisting that "Christian" here means what everyone ordinarily takes it to mean is one thing, but insisting that all Christians should take your side on controversies where Christians are known to disagree is something else. You need a very clear mandate, and a very strong track record, to say that you have anything approaching a right to be the arbiter of every disputed point. I can't see that in the RCC or any other church. Do you see it? Why?

I can easily imaging Arius saying the exact same thing. Why shouldn’t he get his will?

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Firstly, anything that is in fact true is fair game for being declared infallibly true by the pope, and what anybody thinks of this is strictly neither here nor there.
and:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Why shouldn't the Catholic Church teach it, if it's true?
I have real difficulty in seeing how you both can go so easily from "we think this is true" to "it's fair to teach this infallibily in the Catholic Church". There's no end of things that I think true that I wouldn't want taught as infallible Christian dogma binding on all the faithful.

The effect of authoritative teaching is to say: you must believe this in order to consider yourself a faithful Catholic. Since the Catholic Church believes that all Christians are called to be faithful Catholics, this amounts to "you must believe this". To have any right to insist on belief to that degree - to say, in effect, it would ordinarily be a sin for a Christian not to believe such - I think at least two criteria must be satisfied:

1) The Church should be absolutely certain that the doctrine proposed is true;
2) It is reasonable to expect all Christians to have absolute confidence that the Church has correctly discerned the truth.

If either of these is shaky, if either the Church could be wrong, or a Christian could reasonably fear that the Church is wrong, 100% confidence in the doctrine is unwarranted, and therefore it should not be insisted upon. It seems to me that to say "if true, why not declare it infallibly" you have to be certain that your doctrinal machinery is error-free AND that all Christians really ought to be able to see that. I know of no reason for thinking that this is so, and several for thinking that it isn't.

Which is precisely why infallible declarations setting out dogma are rare. They bind the Church through heavenly authority for all time. So at present they are confined to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Our Lady in terms of something that all Catholics accept and believe. We believe and hold it to be so.

See, in our quest to understand and embrace the seriously whack, we know that there is always more to know and understand about the Deposit of Faith, more to discuss, more to explore in order to deepen our faith.

Infallible declarations set that part of the faith in stone, unable to be explored and deepened further. It's a bold Pope who would exercise such a power, for it not only binds the Church but it excludes anyone who doesn't hold such dogma to be divinely revealed truth from being a Catholic.

The net result is that neither the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception are matters for discussion in the Catholic Church ... because you, um, can't really.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
This is definitely not the kind of thing I think of when I hear that the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

Really? How come? I mean, the other certain instance of the pope speaking ex cathedra in modern times was the 1854 declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
It might be a scientific sort of mind that's troubled on speaking about something in a way that makes it an absolute fact (within the church) merely for the sake of a pep rally, however important the pep rally may be.

Jesus told St Peter to feed His sheep, not to teach them physics. The pope is a pastor, if you like the pastor until the Pastor returns, but still a pastor.

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The use of ex cathedra as a political tool, even a well meaning one, bothers me. I want something that's to be that true to be true, not just to be something that the body politic feels really good about.

The body politic? Huh? Heaven forfend that the pope uses this as political tool, even if you merely mean ecclesiastic politics. And there is no truer than true.

Perhaps you will feel better about the previous (likely) instances of ex cathedra: against the Jansenists 1653 and 1794. That sounds perhaps more appropriate, smacking down heretics and all that. Except that the Jansenists were Catholic doom and gloom perfectionists, the darkest side of St Augustine. Curing depression among the sheep is perhaps not so different from cheering up the sheep...

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
This is also why the whole idea of infallibility bothers me. I'll have to think about this...you've definitely changed the way I look at papal pronouncements.

Good, I guess. You can always read some Pius X if you want to reaffirm your prior suspicions. [Smile]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

Fascinating on the Blessed Virgin Mary, thank you IngoB. I'd always wondered why the Pope decided to make such ... fringe issues as a location for infalliable statements. (Doesn't make them any more true, but makes them a lot more comprehensible).

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

Reading the posts from Catholics makes me understand even better why I would never consider joining their denomination. They are as bas as their pope.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Which means that you are arguing for a minimalistic faith. The Catholic Church doesn't agree with this ‘core-thinking.' It is completely foreign to her, and has been completely foreign to her throughout history.

I fully agree with you that the Catholics reject the idea of an irreducible minimum of faith that is required, such that every other truth about God can be sidelined. The Orthodox reject that too. So do most Protestants. So do I. Deploying it here as if the alternative to full acceptance of Papal infallibility were minimalism is a strawman argument.

I disagree with the suggestion that the RCC does not recognise that some truths are core, and some aren't. For a start, the RCC recognises that there are, in actual fact, non-Catholic Christians, even amongst those who reject a lot of Catholic dogma. And it has, as far as I am aware, always distinguished heresy (doubting or denying part of the faith as a Christian) from schism (separation from the Church) from apostacy (repudiation of the faith). That distinction would make no sense at all if the RCC were not as comfortable as I am with the idea that it is possible (though wrong) to reject some part of what the Church teaches or commands but not fundamentally to reject the gospel.

And you understand the distinction perfectly well. That's why you ask me:

quote:
I can easily imaging Arius saying the exact same thing. Why shouldn't he get his will?

The only reason for mentioning Arius, and expecting his case to be one where I have to concede that he's outside the tent, is that you expect me to agree that Arius was denying a fundamental truth of the Christian faith. Merely by using that example you acknowledge that you can and do employ exactly the same reasoning that I'm using.

Arius, of course, is an example in my favour. The world-wide Christian Church decided against his doctrine and continues to decide against it pretty much regardless of whether they accept Papal authority or not. Mainstream Protestantism is as committed to the full divinity of Christ as ever it was. To deny the same, though possible, is an oddity amongst Christians. Those groups that have adopted this as official doctrine (like the Jehovah's Witnesses) don't want to associate with the rest of us - they know that they believe something different. I can defend the proposition that "An orthodox Christian ought not to be an Arian" without invoking infallibility or authority at all. I can do it simply by pointing to the ordinary understanding of what the Christian faith is, how Christians have interpreted the Scriptures, and by reference to what Christians believe.

quote:
Says one who lives post-Nicea 325, post-Constantinople 381, post-Ephesus 431, post-Chalcedon 451, post-Constantinople II 553, post-Constantinople III 680, and post-Nicea II 787.

Post-Reformation, too. History didn't stop in 787, or 1054.

I have to recognise, of course, that Church authority was used to promote (what I now believe to be) the truth. You should recognise that Christians who have come adrift from Church authority have nonetheless managed to preserve Christian truth. Neither of those facts go to the question of whether any particular Church has absolute authority, or has employed it legitimately, or what the proper limits of authority are.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
They are as bas as their pope.

I'm not sure what this word was supposed to be, but it seems to be sailing pretty close to the edge for Purgatory. Perhaps it is best to leave it as an undecipherable mistake.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by Cedd (# 8436) on :

Eliab - the aspirations in your OP are commendable and, no doubt, most Christian would like the assurance that they belong to the One True Church (or denomination) with which they could agree on all matters of doctrine and so forth. However, reading through the thread, it sounds as though you are trying to justify either your acceptance or your rejection of the RCC on purely intellectual grounds and on some quite narrow issues. Is that really how God works? If you feel called or attracted to the RCC then go and immerse yourself in it for a bit and pray a lot and see where God leads you.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
Reading the posts from Catholics makes me understand even better why I would never consider joining their denomination. They are as bas as their pope.

Thanks for that. Now piss off for another two years, bigot.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

What an odd post.

Maybe you've been reading too much of Waugh or Chesterton or maybe even Graham Greene?

There is something intensely attractive to the RCC, probably to do with exotic culture contrasted to the sometimes grim and drizzly north European church.

I too have tried becoming a Catholic, and failed so far. Maybe I'll try again. But the post is a bit like:

I love Greece, but I totally can't stand hot weather. Should I emigrate there? Can anyone give me an argument why I should?

It's as plain as day that at present, like me, you are not prepared to submit to the authority of the RCC as it chooses to define it, and in particular to the authority of the Pope.

What is there for you to decide? I may wake up one day and find I believe it all. I've already gotten over my aversion to veneration of the BVM. So who knows. Maybe I'll die first.

I suspect you're not much different.

Mind you when I read your well written post, I did rather hope you'd lay off the most recent scandals. I've never understood why it causes people to draw conclusions about what Jesus meant when he said to Peter: You are my rock and on this rock I will build my Church.

How does a paedophile (or racist/fascist, or money grubbing) priest (or pastor or congregational elder) sort out that hermeneutical issue?

Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
They are as bas as their pope.

Well ... that's a relief. [Biased]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Now piss off for another two years, bigot.

You can't seriously think that this is appropriate in Purgatory. Enough.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I disagree with the suggestion that the RCC does not recognise that some truths are core, and some aren't. For a start, the RCC recognises that there are, in actual fact, non-Catholic Christians, even amongst those who reject a lot of Catholic dogma. And it has, as far as I am aware, always distinguished heresy (doubting or denying part of the faith as a Christian) from schism (separation from the Church) from apostacy (repudiation of the faith). That distinction would make no sense at all if the RCC were not as comfortable as I am with the idea that it is possible (though wrong) to reject some part of what the Church teaches or commands but not fundamentally to reject the gospel.

Indeed, this is the real problem for our hard line Catholics; given that the RCC has now joined the 'Churches Together' movement, they have clearly come to the recognition that the Christians they've joined have NOT made a shipwreck of their faith AS THE INFALLIBLE STATEMENT CLAIMS. Therefore by their behaviour they are proving that they don't actually believe their own 'infallible doctrine'. Therefore they are themselves no longer 'good' Catholics.

For me the basis for rejecting the additional features that the RCC has added over the years is that it is a denial of particular strand of biblical teaching.

quote:
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.

1 Tim 1:3-4 and

quote:
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Col 2:16-19
All the doctrines about the BVM - perpetual virginity, immaculate conception and assumption - to me are in the category of myths which may or may not be true, but don't add to the faith once and for all received. That's all about Jesus and the difference that He's made to the universe; focusing attention on the BVM is in practice distracting attention from Him. Or at least that's my perception - YMMV. For me this list of quotes is horrendous: for example 'It is impossible to save one's soul without devotion to Mary and without her protection.' simply won't do. Whatever Galatians is about, it's about a group of Christians who are being bullied into adding to their faith in Christ an additional element. And as we've established, the RCC doesn't actually believe it anymore, so it would be a lot more healthy if they did the honest thing and withdraw those heretical* - in the technical sense - beliefs.

* Opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :

Ender's Shadow:
Your first paragraph does not follow as a matter of logic. For one thing it contains the false premise that engaging in any ecumenical movement must mean abjuring aspects of Catholic dogma.

Similarly the Biblical quotes you give do not apply to divinely revealed truth - the true doctrine.You might disagree that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are part of divinely revealed truth. But that does not make them myths. It is simply an expression of your opinion.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

Your first paragraph does not follow as a matter of logic. For one thing it contains the false premise that engaging in any ecumenical movement must mean abjuring aspects of Catholic dogma.

Perhaps it does; to the extent that the RCC climbs off its pedestal as the only legitimate church IN PRACTICE, it is indicating that it doesn't really believe the terms of the Assumption declaration that anyone who rejects the truth of the declaration has made a shipwreck of their faith. The old position on the pedestal is self consistent - it's just not one that the RCC is able to sustain these days.

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

Similarly the Biblical quotes you give do not apply to divinely revealed truth - the true doctrine.You might disagree that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are part of divinely revealed truth. But that does not make them myths. It is simply an expression of your opinion.

Faith is being certain about God, not being sure of certain facts. Any additional beliefs - such as the Trinity - are valid derivations from the faith, but are not actually necessary for faith; given that the Trinity is practically incomprehensible, this is just as well. Given that the Marian doctrines are not valid derivations in the same way, but the result of piety, they do not form either part of the package necessary for salvation, not part of what logically follows from it. Therefore they are, IMHO, validly classed as myths which may be helpful - but which are not beliefs which should be accepted as their rejection is evidence of a shipwrecked faith.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
Reading the posts from Catholics makes me understand even better why I would never consider joining their denomination. They are as bas as their pope.

I think you meant "bad" as "d" is just past "s" on the keyboard.

[Killing me]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I too have tried becoming a Catholic, and failed so far. Maybe I'll try again. But the post is a bit like:

I love Greece, but I totally can't stand hot weather. Should I emigrate there? Can anyone give me an argument why I should?

I think I'm saying something more like "Greece sounds great, but are you sure you're not shitting me about the weather?". If the RCC really is selling what it advertises, I'd buy it. Who wouldn't? At the moment, I'm not convinced, but I'm very interested in why other Christians are convinced.

quote:
I did rather hope you'd lay off the most recent scandals. I've never understood why it causes people to draw conclusions about what Jesus meant when he said to Peter: You are my rock and on this rock I will build my Church.

I thought I did lay off them! I mention them because they clearly are a problem for other people, so I explained that they weren't for me (as far as accepting RC authority goes, that is).

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
And lastly, it appears that the whole issue is boiling down to contraception. Again. As if it was all about that. Well, it isn't.

It isn't all about that, at least not for me, but the RC teaching on contraception probably is the one that would make the greatest difference to my life, if I tried to follow it. There is no avoiding the fact that doing this would place an enormous strain on my marriage (and really that's not up for debate - I do know that some Catholic couples manage to live with this teaching using NFP quite happily, but I also know my own relationship, and there is basically no chance that a ban on contraception would not be a serious problem).

Of course, if it is true that I am offending God every time I use a condom, I want to know this, and I want to stop doing it, but because that will necessarily involve putting a burden on the most important human relationship I have (and one which God commands me to maintain) I think I am right to demand a very high level of certainty before I accept the RC teaching. Since none of my moral instincts remotely support RC teaching, I would be taking the truth of the matter wholly on trust. Thus I would have to be very strongly convinced of the principle that what the Church says must be right.

That is, if I were entirely convinced that the RCC is the one true Church, its teachings on contraception would not keep me out. It's not a deal breaker. But because refusing to use contraception would be costly (whether the teaching were right or wrong), and might even (if the teaching is wrong) be positively sinful in my personal circumstances, it is a reason for looking very closely and critically at RC claims for uniqueness.

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd:
Eliab - the aspirations in your OP are commendable and, no doubt, most Christian would like the assurance that they belong to the One True Church (or denomination) with which they could agree on all matters of doctrine and so forth. However, reading through the thread, it sounds as though you are trying to justify either your acceptance or your rejection of the RCC on purely intellectual grounds and on some quite narrow issues. Is that really how God works?

The intellectual side is the one I want to discuss here, because its the area where I can most benefit from the views of others, as well as being one of the main ways in which I personally engage with my faith.

Yes, I think God can and does work in that way. And in other ways, as well. This point, though, is essentially an intellectual one. The RCC requires a degree of intellectual submission to its teachings, and that is a claim that must be intellectually tested.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Ender's Shadow:
Your first paragraph does not follow as a matter of logic. For one thing it contains the false premise that engaging in any ecumenical movement must mean abjuring aspects of Catholic dogma.

The point is (and Ender's Shadow is taking it further than I did) that engagement with ecumenism is a de facto recognition that one can be a Christian and a useful partner in ministry but not a Catholic. That is, despite what k-mann has argued here, it is not foreign to the Catholic Church to distinguish meaningful 'core' beliefs that define Christianity as a whole from the fulness of Catholic doctrine and practice.

Obviously the RCC regards many of its non-core teachings as true and important, just as Protestants do. The RCC isn't "minimalist" as regards the faith. It doesn't think that the core, the beliefs that make Christianity Christian, are the only ones that matter. But then, Protestants don't either.

Which is why it looked, to me, as if k-mann was throwing sand at the issue. I want to know how I can be sure that the pope is right on 'non-core' issues. He responds that the RC doesn't distinguish core and non-core, that therefore if the pope can't decide on condoms, he also can't decide on Christology. He argues that if my questionning of the RCC's authority is valid, I have no grounds for thinking Arianism was rightly condemned, which surely as a Christian I must think it was? The irony, of course, is that the last point can only work on the shared assumption that the Arian heresy goes to core belief.

It is a way of avoiding the real question. Sure, the pope is right on Christology, but so is almost every other mainstream Christian leader. I want to know whether he's right on condoms, and confession, and communion, and all those other points where agreeing with him might mean that I have to change my mind. Those are the issues where RC authority matters. There's no point in trying to defend the RCC's unique claims to authority by pointing out that it is right on the teachings that it holds in common with the rest of Christendom.

Prove that the RC is right generally, even when it is the lone voice, and you're getting somewhere. Prove that you're right about Arianism, and then say there's no difference between that and your more controversial views, and it does nothing to advance Catholic claims.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Ultimately, the authority of the Catholic Church, like the authority of every Church, and indeed the authority of Scripture, is circular and self referential.

With Scripture, the argument goes:
"This book proclaims the infallible truth."
"Who says so?"
"The book."
"Why do you believe the book?"
"Because it proclaims the infallible truth."

Replace "book" with "pope", and you have the argument for the authority of the Catholic Church (or, with suitable substitutions, of any other).

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

As a convert to the Roman Catholic Church, I spent a long time studying and trying to understand the significance of the processes and encyclicals of Vatican II. One point that was raised again and again in commentaries based on conciliar documents, with various stipulations and reservations, drew on the statement in the Decree on Ecumenism that there is a 'hierarchy of truths' and therefore not all official Church teachings are equally binding on all Catholics or essential to the integrity of the Catholic faith. This doesn't refer to dogmas pronounced infallible -- the example that was given to us was that Catholics were now free to believe that unbaptised babies did not end up in limbo, thereby ending centuries of emotional anguish for the mothers of stillborn infants.

There is also a certain tension that many canon lawyers point to when they talk about showing 'respect' but not 'submission' to doctrines or papal pronouncements, as when the German bishops together dissented from papal teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae, the same public opposition voiced in the Winnipeg Statement from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Most Catholics I know who use contraception justify their dissent from offical teaching by reference to the 'hierarchy of truths' and the primacy of conscience.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by 205:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Accepting that the RCC has moral authority to teach on these points would mean concluding that my best moral and spiritual intuitions are not merely flawed (I accept that) but worthless (which I cannot accept, and, if accepted, is a philosophical dead end).
How are you getting from merely flawed to worthless?
Because if I am wrong about contraception, I am so badly wrong that my moral instincts about it must be unreliable.

Compare, say, other disputed moral questions, like abortion, or pacifism, or capital punishment. I have views about these, of course, but I can see what the other side is saying, what good intentions motivate the other side, and why reasonable people could disagree. I might be wrong about the specifics, but I am not inept. I can imagine myself changing my mind.

On contraception, that's not the case. I can't see that there's anything to be said, morally, on the other side whatsoever - not out of ignorance or lack of thought, but because I've heard all the arguments ably put, and simply cannot discern any substance there at all. If contraception is a grave sin, then I utterly lack the faculty to see it. My moral judgement on that point could not be more deficient.

The point is that on some issues the RCC official line is so much at odds with my moral common sense, that it would require more than ordinary humility to see that it is right and I am wrong. I would be taking on trust the fact that it is right for no reason that I can see or comprehend, against all of my moral instincts. That is, it puts me in 1984 territory - the only way I could accept that the RCC is right about condoms would be almost to brainwash myself into believing that the RCC is right because it says so. This is a problem for me.

For me too. The Roman Catholic line on contraception isn't for me the moral equivalent of creationism. It's the moral equivalent of flat earthism. When we have photos taken from space and I've looked down on the earth from a plane. There are so many demonstrations that the world is round that if it were flat I'd have to give up on the evidence of my senses.

So to with contraception. Literally every line of moral reasoning I have says that non-abortive forms of contraception are a moral good. I can get both sides of e.g. the abortion debate. And the Roman Catholic arguments not only ignore to me every single moral issue going, they present an argument that violates my understanding of evolution, that as a designer I'd find positively annoying (seriously, I'm glad when someone finds a different use for something I created than I intended), and my aesthetic sense.

Therefore the authority of the Catholic Church demands that I throw out literally all my moral reasoning, the overwhelming majority of my creativity, and much of my sense of aesthetics. I literally can not believe that I am unequivocally wrong on all these points. And that my general creativity, repurposing things to fit new functions makes both myself and much of the mechanism of evolution evil.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

Your first paragraph does not follow as a matter of logic. For one thing it contains the false premise that engaging in any ecumenical movement must mean abjuring aspects of Catholic dogma.

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

Perhaps it does; to the extent that the RCC climbs off its pedestal as the only legitimate church IN PRACTICE, it is indicating that it doesn't really believe the terms of the Assumption declaration that anyone who rejects the truth of the declaration has made a shipwreck of their faith. The old position on the pedestal is self consistent - it's just not one that the RCC is able to sustain these days.

Dominus Iesus

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I hope I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that one of the defining features of Catholicism is that it is, in a way, monolithic. Every bit of the doctrinal system relates to every other bit, and none can be dislodged without upsetting the whole thing.

If this is true, then it doesn't really make much sense to talk of "the Catholic line on (x, y, z...)" as an isolated doctrine. Take contraception, for example. (And again, I'm very open to correction here.) Catholic teaching on contraception arises from the idea that there is, in normal circumstances, a specific purpose to sex. Anything that intereferes with that purpose is sinful. This idea arises from Augustinian teaching on sex as related to original sin. The teaching on original sin is, in turn, related to the whole of Catholic teaching on the relationship between God and humankind, and to the teaching on salvation itself. Disrupt one element of this, and none of it makes sense any more.

In other words, there is ultimately no pick-and-choose with Catholicism. Opting in to it seems to me to be a matter of rejoicing in the things you can assent to, but submitting to the rest anyway.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
As a convert to the Roman Catholic Church, I spent a long time studying and trying to understand the significance of the processes and encyclicals of Vatican II. One point that was raised again and again in commentaries based on conciliar documents, with various stipulations and reservations, drew on the statement in the Decree on Ecumenism that there is a 'hierarchy of truths' and therefore not all official Church teachings are equally binding on all Catholics or essential to the integrity of the Catholic faith. This doesn't refer to dogmas pronounced infallible -- the example that was given to us was that Catholics were now free to believe that unbaptised babies did not end up in limbo, thereby ending centuries of emotional anguish for the mothers of stillborn infants.

There is also a certain tension that many canon lawyers point to when they talk about showing 'respect' but not 'submission' to doctrines or papal pronouncements, as when the German bishops together dissented from papal teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae, the same public opposition voiced in the Winnipeg Statement from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Most Catholics I know who use contraception justify their dissent from offical teaching by reference to the 'hierarchy of truths' and the primacy of conscience.

This is the problem with people using Vatican II as there reference point for everything as if the Church only started in 1962. The Rhine polluted the Tiber and we are still living with the consequences.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

Your first paragraph does not follow as a matter of logic. For one thing it contains the false premise that engaging in any ecumenical movement must mean abjuring aspects of Catholic dogma.

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

Perhaps it does; to the extent that the RCC climbs off its pedestal as the only legitimate church IN PRACTICE, it is indicating that it doesn't really believe the terms of the Assumption declaration that anyone who rejects the truth of the declaration has made a shipwreck of their faith. The old position on the pedestal is self consistent - it's just not one that the RCC is able to sustain these days.
Dominus Iesus

Come, come CL. You've been here 18 months so you should know that mere assertion does not constitute proof!

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I hope I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that one of the defining features of Catholicism is that it is, in a way, monolithic. Every bit of the doctrinal system relates to every other bit, and none can be dislodged without upsetting the whole thing.

If this is true, then it doesn't really make much sense to talk of "the Catholic line on (x, y, z...)" as an isolated doctrine. Take contraception, for example. (And again, I'm very open to correction here.) Catholic teaching on contraception arises from the idea that there is, in normal circumstances, a specific purpose to sex. Anything that intereferes with that purpose is sinful. This idea arises from Augustinian teaching on sex as related to original sin. The teaching on original sin is, in turn, related to the whole of Catholic teaching on the relationship between God and humankind, and to the teaching on salvation itself. Disrupt one element of this, and none of it makes sense any more.

In other words, there is ultimately no pick-and-choose with Catholicism. Opting in to it seems to me to be a matter of rejoicing in the things you can assent to, but submitting to the rest anyway.

Indeed; the doctrine of the Church is a seamless garment, just not in the way that heretic Bernardin had people believe.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
This is the problem with people using Vatican II as there reference point for everything as if the Church only started in 1962. The Rhine polluted the Tiber and we are still living with the consequences.

No, Cl, it isn't my reference point for everything, but most converts do study the 1960s aggiornamento of the Roman Catholic Church as a matter of course.

The opposition to Humanae Vitae was unprecedented in the 20th century in that many lay Catholics found that their bishops openly supported them if they chose to use contraceptives and that those bishops remained bishops and practising Catholics despite their public dissent.

The Belgian bishops stated: "Someone, however, who is competent in the matter under consideration and capable of forming a personal and well-founded judgment--which necessarily presupposes a sufficient amount of knowledge--may, after a serious examination before God, come to other conclusions on certain points. In such a case he has the right to follow his conviction provided that he remains sincerely disposed to continue his inquiry."

The Scandinavian bishops stated: "No one should, therefore, on account of such diverging opinions alone, be regarded as an inferior Catholic."

The Canadian bishops stated: "These Catholics should not be considered, or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful."

Cardinal Suenens, if I remember correctly, referred to papal teaching that rejected contraception as 'another Galileo affair'.

[ 04. July 2012, 12:59: Message edited by: Mary LA ]

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd like to be part of a Church which can at least aspire to being in communion with all Christians. I'd like that Church to teach orthodox Christian doctrine, and to devote its intellectual resources to defending and promoting that doctrine, so that I can be reasonably confident that what I believe is orthodox, and that I have access to the best arguments to convince me of that. The corollory to that is that I don't want the Church to teach anything as an essential of the Christian faith about which orthodox Christians can reasonably disagree, but what it does teach as essential, I want it to teach with authority. That is what I would see as a truly universal church, and that's what I would like to join.

You don't want much then!

In essence, your question is "I want to join a church that's teaching and following the Christian faith as it is meant to be."

So you want to know how can you tell what this looks like.

The best check/ balance is the Bible. Is the Church teaching what the Bible teaches?

On all important matters of doctrine, the things we really need to know, contrary to modern popular theories, the Bible is very clear.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
you are arguing for a minimalistic faith. The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with this ‘core-thinking.’ It is completely foreign to her, and has been completely foreign to her throughout history.

I disagree.

The Catholic church calls it "subsidiarity" - the principle that those things that can be decided at lower levels should be.

There are matters on which individuals - the lowest level - may reasonably differ. Matters which are appropriate for decision at parish level, diocesan level, or national level. And matters which the Pope should decide for the benefit of the whole Church.

This doesn't mean "the Church should shut up about everything except the bare essentials". But it does say that the onus is always on the higher authority to justify the need for a decision at that level.

As with any other human organisation, the fallible human beings in the Catholic church don't always live up to this Catholic ideal. (And as with most things, there are two opposite ways in which to get it wrong).

Worship of order, uniformity and centralised power is fascism. That too was invented in Rome.

It is clearly conceivable that the RC church may be of all churches closest to the truth, and yet still wrong in some respects. Maybe it is what is Catholic about it that is good and what is Roman about it that isn't...

Most people have heard that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I read recently that the author of that remark, Lord Acton, was a British observer at the First Vatican Council.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The Church is here to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.He said that we should 'love God and our neighbour as ourself'.

Everything which ecclesiastics say should help to elucidate how we carry out these commands of Jesus.
Over the centuries churchmen have written screeds and screeds attempting to answer questions which people have put but all of these words should point us in the direction of the ideal of loving God and our neighbour and having respect for ourselves as children of God.

Most of us realize that we fall short of the ideals -ideals which the Church tries to put in front of us - eeven those of the ideals of having sexual encounters open to the possibility of the creation of new life.

In terms of the Roman Catholic church - by far the largest of all organised Christian bodies - it is not the case that by recognising and honouring other Christian communities it dilutes its own message.Rather does it recognise only that the Church is a much greater edifice than simply those who recognise the authority of the Roman pontiff.

The word 'Roman' refers us immediately to this world and not to the world to come. Inevitably there are cultural differnces amongst the tribes of this world - some of whom feel themselves culturally comfortable within Roman culture and others not so.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
you are arguing for a minimalistic faith. The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with this ‘core-thinking.’ It is completely foreign to her, and has been completely foreign to her throughout history.
I disagree.

The Catholic church calls it "subsidiarity" - the principle that those things that can be decided at lower levels should be.

There are matters on which individuals - the lowest level - may reasonably differ. Matters which are appropriate for decision at parish level, diocesan level, or national level. And matters which the Pope should decide for the benefit of the whole Church.

This doesn't mean "the Church should shut up about everything except the bare essentials". But it does say that the onus is always on the higher authority to justify the need for a decision at that level.

But that does not refer to doctrines. The Immaculate Conception is doctrine.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

I wondered when the Immaculate Conception would pop up as it is much more contentious than the Assumption!

So many theologians, from Anselm to Aquinas.....help I have only mentioned 'A's so I will add that Marian apologist Bernard....have disagreed with it. I don't think Anselm had ever heard of the idea and Aquinas is probably more agnostic about it. Bernard just opposes the whole thing...and we haven't got beyond the Middle Ages yet.

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
<snip>

My starting point: I'd like to be a ‘catholic'.

Why?

By that I mean, I'd like to belong to the Church the the apostles started, and to which all Christians are called to belong. I'd like to be part of a Church which can at least aspire to being in communion with all Christians.

OK

I'd like that Church to teach orthodox Christian doctrine,

Why?

and to devote its intellectual resources to defending and promoting that doctrine, so that I can be reasonably confident that what I believe is orthodox, and that I have access to the best arguments to convince me of that.

Why do you wish to be only "reasonably confident" what you believe?

Mere belief means never knowing for sure - Jesus words were "come out from among them and know the truth"

Was n't he calling his fellow Jews to come out of religion and know the truth of and from God?

Why do you want to believe doctrines of man when you could "seek and find" "ask and it will be given" "knock and the door will open" - "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God.

Eliab, ask yourself does God speak? Did He speak to those who testified in scripture.? Has He stopped speaking? (NO) Could He just possibly speak to me?

Life as Jesus declared, is received in every Word
which proceeds forth from the mouth of God.
Jesus never taught seek and find doctrines of man.

Remember Paul - formerly Saul,who wrote as a new man in great detail of the many great gifts from God which he received according to the promise of God; knowledge, understanding, and wisdom being the greater. Paul declared how he had gained sure
knowledge and understanding from God. Paul explained he was not taught by any man but by God. And the apostle John who wrote "You have an
unction with the Father and have no need that any man teach you."

And Jesus Himself declared a coming of a day in which; "All shall know God and all shall be taught by God"

The "one true church" isn't a religion - the temple of God is not a physical building

massive snip

So:

(1) Am I right in thinking that joining the RCC would mean accepting an authority that I presently reject?

If you join the RCC you will be accpeting the authority of a man (ie the Pope).

(2) If so, what arguments are there for accepting that authority?

None IMHO

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
They are as bas as their pope.
Well ... that's a relief.

I thought it was rather a low thing to say. [Big Grin]

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

So everyone likes beer but the Guinness fans say their's is the only Real Beer. Then we have the continental Beer Purity Laws which dictate only specific ingredients may used, and thus all other beers are adulterated. So the fight for whose is the best and most authentic and has best historical claim among all the beers. It doesn't matter that any group claims historical precedence. In this way, I'd say the RCC is authoritative but not absolutely so.

I don't know that we can say the apostles started the RCC, even if the RCC says they did. We can only say that they followed Jesus and started the Christian churches. Plural. They didn't agree from the beginning about authority, though Paul and Peter seem to have gotten things together in the biblical telling of the first major conflict. All bets were off after political power was part of the equation. I just hope the apostles drank beer and enjoyed themselves.

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

Where did Jesus get His authority?

Jesus was authorized by God, taught truth by God and He taught man to enter into and follow a way in and by which God is both Father and Teacher.

The Catholic Church has no authority from God ISTM because it does not teach the same "way" Jesus taught which was the reality of God, not a way of religion. Jesus stood against religion and false religious teachings, and taught people to come to God to learn the truth concerning the matters of God. He taught the way to ask and receive from God. The way has not changed and it is the way for all mankind.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
There is also a certain tension that many canon lawyers point to when they talk about showing 'respect' but not 'submission' to doctrines or papal pronouncements, as when the German bishops together dissented from papal teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae, the same public opposition voiced in the Winnipeg Statement from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Most Catholics I know who use contraception justify their dissent from offical teaching by reference to the 'hierarchy of truths' and the primacy of conscience.

I'm sort of getting the impression that several Catholics are hinting that I shouldn't let the contraception ban keep me out, because I wouldn't actually be expected to obey it.

Which is nice, but doesn't really address my concern. Which is, is the teaching actually true?

If it is, though it would be a royal pain in the cock, I could obey it. It isn't beyond my capability, and if I thought that was what God wanted, that's what I'd do. So if what you are saying is “The Church is right about contraception, but pastorally, we recognise obedience is tough, and this won't be strictly demanded of you if you join” then my answer is “Thanks, but no thanks. If I ever think it's true, I'll be obeying it”.

On the other hand, if you are saying “Don't tell the Pope, but we think the Church has called this one wrong”, then I'd respond “Yeah, I think so too. But I already have a church that gets things wrong. I'd been told that your lot's USP was that you didn't”. The Pope may not be quite as 'all in' on condoms as he is on the Marian dogmas, but it seems to me that the RCC is firmly committed to the contraception teaching, and if it has indeed called this one wrongly, the idea that the Catholic Church's ordinary teaching carries a greater moral weight than any other worldly institution is pretty much finished.

Now no one is ever going to convince about contraception on the merits. We've argued that here before, I know and understand the RCC position, and I could not be less persuaded. The only way I'd ever accept the teaching is by being persuaded on other grounds that the RCC is the supreme judge of this sort of thing, and, having ruled on it, I ought to accept its views simply on authority. That's what I'd like to see argued, and, so far, it hasn't been.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
Where did Jesus get His authority?

Jesus was authorized by God, taught truth by God and He taught man to enter into and follow a way in and by which God is both Father and Teacher.

Jesus ‘got’ his authority merely by being who he is, by being God.

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
The Catholic Church has no authority from God ISTM because it does not teach the same "way" Jesus taught which was the reality of God, not a way of religion.

And what is ‘religion’? Are you saying that Christ didn’t recite the Psalms? That he didn’t institute a ritual? That he didn’t want us to praise, worship and give thanks to God?

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
Jesus stood against religion and false religious teachings, and taught people to come to God to learn the truth concerning the matters of God.

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
He taught the way to ask and receive from God. The way has not changed and it is the way for all mankind.

And this isn’t ‘religion’? What definition of the term ‘religion’ do you use?

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

Posted by Eliab: I'm sort of getting the impression that several Catholics are hinting that I shouldn't let the contraception ban keep me out, because I wouldn't actually be expected to obey it.

No that wasn't the point of my post, Eliab. I was just looking at the reception WITHIN the catholic Church of Humanae Vitae and the rejection by bishops that led the way for many lay Catholics to use contraception while in good conscience remaining in the Church. The teaching on contraception is not dogma.

It does feel like a hair-splitting juggling act at times, but the diversity and dissent is right there in the heart of the Roman Catholic Church and always has been.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
the diversity and dissent is right there in the heart of the Roman Catholic Church and always has been. [/QB]

-exactly.

Eliab, I get the impression that you want to join the "perfect" congregation (you're too late, there, the "Parfaits" was the name the Cathars gave to themselves...).

Joking apart, if you fear that unless you become RC you'll be ticked off once you arrive at the Pearly Gates, that's not going to be the case. You can be an Anglican, a Lutheran, a Buddhist, really almost whatever and live closer to the Gospel than many RCs.

Also, it appears that you are deeply concerned with the contraception issue. I recommend that you read up on what the Church officialy says on this, and why. It has nothing to do with being anti-sex or anti-fun or anti-women, but everything to do with their concept of the human person. Look at the source of the Churches' teaching, and then decide whether you can live with it or not.

As to the Immaculate Conception etc, these are dogmata , and the contraception teaching is not a dogma.

And besides, being RC is not about dogmata or contraception. It ios about a specific way one sees the community of the Faithful (a.k.a. the Church) try to follow the Gospels.

[ 06. July 2012, 09:34: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
It does feel like a hair-splitting juggling act at times, but the diversity and dissent is right there in the heart of the Roman Catholic Church and always has been.

Yes, and I can easily see how Christians brought up in (or otherwise already part of) the Catholic Church could, in good conscience, remain Catholic even when they reject some RCC teaching, because it is the church that they are committed to, and because the RCC could still be the ‘best fit' for them overall. I'm not criticising that in the least.

That's not my situation, though. I'm not a Catholic. I'm considering what claim the RCC has to define for me what full and authentic Christian teaching actually is. If I decide that an important moral teaching of the RCC ought to be rejected, I cannot at the same time say that I am persuaded that I ought to accept RCC moral authority. And RCC moral authority really is the one thing that the RCC purports to offer that cannot be had anywhere else. That's what I want to test.

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Also, it appears that you are deeply concerned with the contraception issue. I recommend that you read up on what the Church officialy says on this, and why. It has nothing to do with being anti-sex or anti-fun or anti-women, but everything to do with their concept of the human person.

I have done. I know what the Church says. I know it well enough that I could argue the case against contraception from Catholic principles myself. I'm not prevented from agreeing with it because I am ignorant, or because I'm influenced by erroneous preconceptions or prejudice. The reason I don't agree with it is because every moral instinct I have tells me that the RCC is wrong.

Basically, I have a choice: go with my own judgement, which might, of course, be wrong but is the best I have, or accept that because I am persuaded on other grounds that the RCC cannot err in teaching faith and morals, I must be wrong when I disagree with the RCC, whether I am able to see why, or not. The argument from authority is the only one that stands a chance.

So what is the argument from authority? Where is the substance to the RCC's extravagent claims for itself?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm sort of getting the impression that several Catholics are hinting that I shouldn't let the contraception ban keep me out, because I wouldn't actually be expected to obey it. Which is nice, but doesn't really address my concern. Which is, is the teaching actually true?

Firstly, if you are to be received into the RCC you will have to vow the following (RCIA #491): "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." It is basically certain that you would get away with committing perjury on the issue of contraception or really any other issue, unless you manage to make a huge public issue out of this and thereby force the hierarchy into action. Nevertheless, a lack of prosecution does not make a false oath right. As convert you are factually in a different situation to cradle Catholics, because your commitment comes to a head at a specific point in time, whereas that of cradle Catholics is ongoing and procedural. The latter allows for much more "fudging". Yet you cannot simply join the "fudge", that is a "privilege" of those whose faults are distributed over a lifetime of being Catholic.

Secondly, nevertheless your approach here is flawed. In the final analysis you are asked to accept a claim of authority, not of truth. Of course, that authority precisely claims to speak Divine truth. Hence to some extent finding truth in what that authority says supplies evidence for its authority. Yet the fundamental problem of the moral and spiritual life is that practically speaking truth can be found only very partially by our own lights. Worse, it is a truth, which is available to us by introspection, that we are often arrayed against truth, in particular moral truth. This tension can become painfully conscious, as we watch ourselves do what we know we should not do. The answer to this problem is also known, and universal across all cultures and times. One has to find a guide, and follow that guide with effort and discipline, in order to go where one cannot go alone. The real question is hence whether you think Christ is the best guide in the first place, and then whether the RCC is the best guide to Christ in the second place.

Please note that such a decision could leave the truth on contraception untouched. If one has decided to trust a guide, then it is not necessary that one understands all advice the guide gives. It is great if that is the case, but acting merely on the guide's say-so is generally part of following a guide. Of course, this requires trust in the guide, and that then really is the key: Do you trust the RCC to guide you best to Christ? If yes, then IMHO you should become a RC - even if there is stuff that you can only accept but not understand. (Please note that I said "RCC", not this RC priest or that RC bishop or even the RC pope.)

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Now no one is ever going to convince about contraception on the merits. We've argued that here before, I know and understand the RCC position, and I could not be less persuaded.

This (Purgatory) is not the place to discuss contraception. However, this (SoF) really is not the place to discuss contraception. Flowers grow on battle fields only when everybody is dead.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The only way I'd ever accept the teaching is by being persuaded on other grounds that the RCC is the supreme judge of this sort of thing, and, having ruled on it, I ought to accept its views simply on authority. That's what I'd like to see argued, and, so far, it hasn't been.

And again, your approach is somewhat flawed. Because if this could be argued, then the Holy Spirit would be out of his job. In the end, there is no compelling argument to be had. For nobody, and nothing. Perhaps we can tilt the playing field a bit with the best of our arguments, but the game itself remains Divine.

But anyway, I guess one has to say something. Let me make the following analogy, which for me is not really an analogy but rather something I lived for many years. If you want to practice martial arts, you have to make a key decision: are you going to practice a traditional martial art, or are you looking for self-defense or perhaps skill in cage fighting competitions? Not that I want to make any particular claims about the fighting effectiveness. Perhaps you are great at self-defense with your traditional martial art, perhaps your cage fighting skills would make you a great warrior on the battle field. That's not my point. My point is that there is a difference in focus in learning here.

If you are doing a traditional martial art, then you will try to reproduce it, at least in its essence. Maybe you will develop the art further, but in some clear sense you must stay true to it: or the tradition will be destroyed, no matter how well you may be fighting with the novelties. And there really is only one way to pass on a traditional martial art. It goes from master to student. More precisely, it primarily goes from a master to a few students who will become the next masters, while there well be many, many more who are training with them in the school (but never reach the level to become master, for various reasons).

For Christianity, too, you have to make a decision. Is it all about "becoming the best person I could be"? Even if you fill the "best" there with Christian values (charity, piety, ...), that remains the "self-defense" approach. I do not think that this is quite right. Obviously one cannot argue against people bettering themselves, but for me being a Christian means following Christ with the "traditional martial arts" approach. The essence of Christ is not separable for me from the passing on of the Way from master to student. The "flavor" of what being a Christian is like must pass on from mind to mind, body to body, heart to heart: human to human. And there must be masters, for there will be students. A book, even an inspired book, can never really capture this.

This does not get us quite to the RC hierarchy yet. The final step of my thinking is simply human failure. In fact, a particular obvious example is provided by Western traditional martial arts. We had them, they were fantastic, they lasted for many centuries - and then they basically died, surviving only in shadows in some sports. So having identified how I think a Way must be passed on, and assuming that God wants to protect this against human failure, what do we get? I say something like the RC hierarchy is just what I would expect. Mind you, something like it, not necessarily precisely it: I think there are plenty of "accidental features" in what we have now. Still, for me this was and is the obvious source of the Way.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

I'm always drawn to ideals of what might yet come to be, in an ideal church, in an ideal world.
But perhaps because it is the Feastday of little Maria Goretti who was raped and murdered at the age of 11, I keep coming back to the exceptions made by the Vatican as regards their own teaching on contraception.

One example taught in moral theology classes at John Vianney Seminary in Pretoria has to do with the 1960s Simba revolt in the Congo where raped nuns who had been made pregnant were permitted abortions and nuns remaining in dangerous areas were allowed to wear diaphragms or use pessaries (the Pill wasn't widely available as yet).

More recently, the Vatican responded to mass rapes in Bosnia by deciding that women in danger of rape could use contraceptives, even though its ban on contraception in normal circumstances remains.

The official mandates issued to Catholic Hospitals by the US Catholic Bishops specifically authorise contraception after rape.

The teaching on rejecting contraception isn't that clear-cut as a moral absolute, it can't be. Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) has some wonderful insights into conception as a gift of love and the call to holiness in the 'closest intimacy and generating of new life', the beauty and joyfulness of the sexual union in matrimony. I love that idealism and vision, but it was written at a time before the prevalence of sexual violence was public knowledge. One of these days we might see an amended teaching --

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm sort of getting the impression that several Catholics are hinting that I shouldn't let the contraception ban keep me out, because I wouldn't actually be expected to obey it.

Which is nice, but doesn't really address my concern. Which is, is the teaching actually true?

If it is, though it would be a royal pain in the cock

You need to buy bigger condoms, then.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

I'd want to associate myself with much of IngoB, Desert Daughter and MaryLA has said to you, Eliab. I do want, however, to pick up on a couple of points in MaryLA's last post.

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
One example taught in moral theology classes at John Vianney Seminary in Pretoria has to do with the 1960s Simba revolt in the Congo where raped nuns who had been made pregnant were permitted abortions...

Could you provide more evidence of who permitted this and why? It would seem to me an extraordinary claim and one which suggests that somebody in authority thought that one person should pay with their life for the violent act of another.

quote:
The official mandates issued to Catholic Hospitals by the US Catholic Bishops specifically authorise contraception after rape.

Again, could you provide further and better particulars?

quote:
The teaching on rejecting contraception isn't that clear-cut as a moral absolute, it can't be. Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) has some wonderful insights into conception as a gift of love and the call to holiness in the 'closest intimacy and generating of new life', the beauty and joyfulness of the sexual union in matrimony. I love that idealism and vision, but it was written at a time before the prevalence of sexual violence was public knowledge. One of these days we might see an amended teaching --

Well it is a moral absolute but, like all moral absolute, it is valid only within the scope of the teaching. I would argue that the use of barrier methods of contraception as a prophylactic against conception in the face of the real threat of sexual violence is not within the scope of the teaching in HV.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...As convert you are factually in a different situation to cradle Catholics, because your commitment comes to a head at a specific point in time, whereas that of cradle Catholics is ongoing and procedural. The latter allows for much more "fudging". Yet you cannot simply join the "fudge", that is a "privilege" of those whose faults are distributed over a lifetime of being Catholic.

I'm curious as to how you can draw a distinction here. Surely a cradle Catholic who begins to doubt or disagree with fundamental aspects of Catholic teaching is in an even more untenable position than the recent convert, who, it must be admitted, may be excused for not understanding or remembering everything he has been taught in his catechesis classes. It is surely the lifelong Roman Catholic who, in the cold light of day, decides that transubstantiation is nonsense, and that Jesus was speaking purely metaphorically, who has taken a decisive step away from the Faith, not the convert who, going along with the flow and the exciting new sense of fellowship, doesn't realize all the implications of what he is signing up to, and anyway has probably been told not to worry about the bits he doesn't 'understand' (probably by people who don't really understand them themselves).

I really can't see how you can say one Catholic is allowed to 'fudge' his faith, and another is not. Where exactly does it say this in the official Catechism, or are there different versions for different grades of believer?

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

If you still have a few stumbling blocks remember that being received into the Catholic Church is a beginning, not an end. Contraception was one for me, too, and honestly emotionally it still is (though intellectually I understand it).

And as Desert Daughter says, there's plenty of diversity in this Church of ours. Much more so than in protestant sects that, these days, tend to be either the 1972 Democratic Convention at Prayer like TEC or or those who think one must be a conservative Republican to be Christian like the evangelical churches. It's part of what attracted me to it.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I would be surprised if any official statement let the cradle Catholics 'off the hook' as it were. But there is a difference. 'Belonging' ISTM is a crucial part of Catholic identity, (which is why you can have the oxymoron of a 'Catholic atheist')... the 'believing' is important, but if you belong to the Church in a sense the Church does the believing for you.

If you are joining the Catholic Church from elsewhere, it's a different matter, as Eliab clearly understands. You don't as yet belong, so you have to decide whether you believe enough to let you belong.

That's as I see it, as a sympathetic outsider. Though I suppose if your strongest belief is that it's important to belong, that outweighs any doubts about other matters.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Holy Smoke, I'm not sure you really understood what IngoB was saying. For the convert there is the moment when one has to stand up in front of God and the Church and say the words IngoB quoted. Either you can say that truthfully or you cannot. The cradle Catholic does not have to do that. What happens after that moment is a different matter altogether. Certainly a Catholic, cradle or convert, who decided that the Church's teaching on the Real Presence and Transubstantiation was untrue would have taken a definitive step away from the Catholic Faith and one which would, objectively, exclude that individual from full participation in the Church's sacramental life.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Picking up on IngoB's analogy of reception into the RCC being equivalent of being inducted into a martial arts tradition (and echoing various other points that have been made)... What is it about the RCC's position that is any different from that of another church? Is IngoB really saying that the difference between whether I should become a Roman Catholic or a Quaker is no different from whether I should study karate or aikido?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Yes, and I can easily see how Christians brought up in (or otherwise already part of) the Catholic Church could, in good conscience, remain Catholic even when they reject some RCC teaching, because it is the church that they are committed to, and because the RCC could still be the ‘best fit' for them overall. I'm not criticising that in the least.

That's not my situation, though. I'm not a Catholic. I'm considering what claim the RCC has to define for me what full and authentic Christian teaching actually is. If I decide that an important moral teaching of the RCC ought to be rejected, I cannot at the same time say that I am persuaded that I ought to accept RCC moral authority. And RCC moral authority really is the one thing that the RCC purports to offer that cannot be had anywhere else. That's what I want to test.

I entirely agree and that is fundamental.

If a cradle Roman has questions about some area of Catholic teaching, be it Cordelia Marchmain's sacred monkeys of the Vatican, exactly how transubstantiation takes place, or whether the Pope can change reality by Encyclical, they remain a Roman Catholic, even if less of a good one. But I don't think you can become one unless you either accept the lot on personal conviction or accept that you will henceforth believe as the Pope believes simply because he is the Pope and you aren't.

If you are persuaded by papal authority, then - and I would say, only then - you can become a Roman. I don't think you can in the hope that sometime in the future you might feel persuaded, or from worry that he just might turn out to be right in his verdict on your ecclesial household's orders.

If God wants you to be a Roman, then I think your heart will be persuaded. It will seem obvious when/if it happens. Until then, don't be too anxious about it.

Otherwise,you're where the rest of us are, admiring some features about the Roman church but remaining in your present household.

Phil 4:11 "For I have learnt, in whatever state I am, to be content".

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Newman wrote many letters to prospective converts after his own submission, in which he counselled that unless one accepted the claims the Catholic Church made for herself then one should remain outside but that the moment one accepted them then one was under an urgent moral imperative to submit to her authority. I think that is pretty close the proper measure.

BTW Enoch, what is a cradle Roman, or are you being deliberately offensive?

[ 06. July 2012, 19:38: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Not meaning to be offensive and wasn't aware that I might be or how - one who is a Roman Catholic by family and background, baptised as one and brought up in the Roman church, as I am in the CofE, not one who has converted from something else.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

The "Roman Church" is what, precisely? "Romans" are whom, exactly? [Disappointed]

[ 06. July 2012, 21:08: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If God wants you to be a Roman, then I think your heart will be persuaded.

If God wanted you to be a Roman, He'd have seen to it that you were born in Rome to Italian parents.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The "Roman Church" is what, precisely? "Romans" are whom, exactly?

Seriously. "Roman" or "Roman Catholic", btw, excludes Eastern Rite Catholics.

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
[/qb]

Jesus ‘got’ his authority merely by being who he is, by being God.

Jesus was and is the Son of God. I don't think He ever said He was God.

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
The Catholic Church has no authority from God ISTM because it does not teach the same "way" Jesus taught which was the reality of God, not a way of religion.

And what is ‘religion’? Are you saying that Christ didn’t recite the Psalms? That he didn’t institute a ritual? That he didn’t want us to praise, worship and give thanks to God?

I'm not saying any of those things k-mann

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
Jesus stood against religion and false religious teachings, and taught people to come to God to learn the truth concerning the matters of God.

I agree that Jesus stood against false religious teachings (as should anyone, of course), but where did you get the impression that he stood against religion as such? Can you please point to some evidence of this claim?

I don't see Jesus standing against anything - I do see Him standing for God and truth. Mind you He had some harsh things to say to the religious leaders in his day. "Snakes" and "vipers" come to mind.

All the words purported to have been spoken by Him are evidence of His teachings - he taught seek and find the Kingdom of God - not man. I agree he learned from the writings of David and therefore is sometimes called the son of David.

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
He taught the way to ask and receive from God. The way has not changed and it is the way for all mankind.

And this isn’t ‘religion’?

Certainly not.

What definition of the term ‘religion’ do you use? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Religion is a creation of man, not God. And man places himself at the head of his religion instead of God. Religion is an attempt to grapple with the numinous. The way spoken of and taught by Jesus is to be followed for it is the way in and by which one gains knowledge of truth. Truth inspired in the mind of man by God. Truth means reality doesn't it? Who needs religion when they can have the reality of God Himself as Father, teacher, creator?

All the conflicts between religions are conflicts of belief and opinion and have nothing to do with God. The way taught by Jesus speaks of reality, not religion.

Discussing reality should always be encouraged. Discussing religious doctrine is always a waste of time.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If God wants you to be a Roman, then I think your heart will be persuaded.
If God wanted you to be a Roman, He'd have seen to it that you were born in Rome to Italian parents.

I am obliged to you, RuthW, for your entirely undeserved kindness.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Oh honestly! Not another. Rosina, darling, would you do us all a favour and use Preview post to check how your posting is laid out and then check your UBB code?

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
Jesus was and is the Son of God. I don't think He ever said He was God.

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

quote:

All the words purported to have been spoken by Him are evidence of His teachings - he taught seek and find the Kingdom of God - not man. I agree he learned from the writings of David and therefore is sometimes called the son of David.

And how, pray tell, do we know "the words purported to have been spoken by Him"?

BTW, he wasn't called Son of David because he learned the psalms - every Jew did that - he was called the Son of David because he was (a) of David's house and line; and (b) it was a common Messianic title and his followers wanted to claim/own that for him.

quote:
Religion is a creation of man, not God. And man places himself at the head of his religion instead of God. Religion is an attempt to grapple with the numinous. The way spoken of and taught by Jesus is to be followed for it is the way in and by which one gains knowledge of truth. Truth inspired in the mind of man by God. Truth means reality doesn't it? Who needs religion when they can have the reality of God Himself as Father, teacher, creator?

Guess what, Rosina? You don't get to think up a new and peculiar definition of the word "religion" and then impose it on the discourse here. Not unless your name is Humpty Dumpty, you don't.

quote:
All the conflicts between religions are conflicts of belief and opinion and have nothing to do with God. The way taught by Jesus speaks of reality, not religion.

No they aren't. You are either monumentally ignorant or just plain stupid if you look at the evidence of religious conflict and can believe that. Many such conflicts are about identity, commerce, race, tribe or competition for scarce resources.

quote:
Discussing reality should always be encouraged. Discussing religious doctrine is always a waste of time.

Then clear off dear and let those of us who think otherwise get on with what we like doing.

[ 06. July 2012, 22:14: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

This issue keeps cropping up here on the Ship. I am always sensitive to the fact that Catholics in communion with the Pope prefer to be called just Catholics, and indeed that to use the adjective is inaccurate and ambiguous as well as discourteous. But that raises another ambiguity in that many - possibly most - other Christians claim to be catholics also. Can we assume the same courtesy on behalf of Catholics to us catholics?

By referring to Catholics as Catholics I'm not thereby admitting that I don't see myself as such. Any more than by referring to Orthodox as Orthodox is admitting my own heterodoxy. I'm quite happy to be an orthodox catholic (all lower case).

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

My last post was in response to Trisagion's reply to RuthW, and the mini-debate about nomenclature that preceded it. If that wasn't clear.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
This issue keeps cropping up here on the Ship. I am always sensitive to the fact that Catholics in communion with the Pope prefer to be called just Catholics, and indeed that to use the adjective is inaccurate and ambiguous as well as discourteous.

Quite. It wasn't being called a "Roman Catholic" to which I was objecting. Although it is discourteous to call somebody by a name they've asked you not to use, I understand that it helps bolster others identity and let it pass. What I was objecting to was being called "Roman" and the Catholic Church being called the "Roman Church" or the "Church of Rome". It is simply polemical and dismissive.

quote:
But that raises another ambiguity in that many - possibly most - other Christians claim to be catholics also. Can we assume the same courtesy on behalf of Catholics to us catholics?

You are an Anglican, Angloid. You belong to a body that commonly calls itself "The Church of England". Whether I think you are catholic or orthodox or a member of a church, Church or ecclesial communion or whatever, the point is that for the purposes of my refering to you and yours with the courtesy necessary to facilitate debate and not to irritate you, I call you what you and yours are commonly called and don't, for example, call you the Protestant Church of England, or the church of England, or the ecclesial communion that calls itself the Church of England.

quote:
By referring to Catholics as Catholics I'm not thereby admitting that I don't see myself as such. Any more than by referring to Orthodox as Orthodox is admitting my own heterodoxy. I'm quite happy to be an orthodox catholic (all lower case).

Exactly.

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

sorry for inexperience of quotes and postings.

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
Jesus was and is the Son of God. I don't think He ever said He was God.
Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

I believe God Fathers His Son - The Son of God is any person born of the Seed of God, raised to maturity by God. God is Father to this one. The Holy Spirit is what God inspires and is the way truth is conveyed from God to the Son.

These three "testify." The Father and Son, are one in mind and spirit. The Holy Spirit is the substance and matter from the mind of God

quote:
[/qb]

Guess what, Rosina? You don't get to think up a new and peculiar definition of the word "religion" and then impose it on the discourse here. Not unless your name is Humpty Dumpty, you don't

quote:

Sure I do - I was asked for my definition or religion and gave it.

Why does that make you angry?

<snip>

"Conflicts" of any sort have nothing to do with God IMHO

quote:
Discussing reality should always be encouraged. Discussing religious doctrine is always a waste of time.
Then clear off dear and let those of us who think otherwise get on with what we like doing. [/QB]

Ciou

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

I think the capitalization is enough, without adding any words, to tell the difference between being catholic and being Catholic.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

I suppose it's a bit of a tangent, Trisagion, but I've always found your unease with "Roman Catholic" a bit odd given that many US churches identify themselves as such on their signage and printed materials. Is this a pond difference?

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I suppose it's a bit of a tangent, Trisagion, but I've always found your unease with "Roman Catholic" a bit odd given that many US churches identify themselves as such on their signage and printed materials.

They do? All the ones I've seen in my area just say "Such-and-Such Catholic Church" on the sign. I guess YMMV.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Given what I do for a living, Unreformed, my exposure to a variety of physical plants in the Catholic Church is probably significantly larger than yours.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Given what I do for a living, Unreformed, my exposure to a variety of physical plants in the Catholic Church is probably significantly larger than yours.

Ok, point taken. I defer to your wider experience.

ETA: Also sorry for being a bit thick. I Didn't get at first that you were an actual organ builder and it wasn't just a screen name. [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 07. July 2012, 01:52: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The "Roman Church" is what, precisely? "Romans" are whom, exactly?

As I understand it, she is called thus because she is (or was, if you prefer) the official church of the Roman Empire. But seriously, Trisagion, it is just an abbreviation of 'Roman Catholic', and if you are offended by that, then we are also offended by many of the things which you believe and profess, not least your opinions on the validity of Anglican orders.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

A fascinating thread you started, Eliab.

Some of the posts were extremely incisive and certainly made me sit up.

I was somewhat amused and slightly curious about the case you put forward.

Were you wanting someone to give you a reason to cross the Tiber? Because, if you were, most Roman Catholic posters seemed to be advising you to exercise extreme care to fully understand what you were actually committing yourself to before you signed up, which seemed to me to be highly ethical and praiseworthy.

Were you wanting to put holes in many articles of Catholic teaching? Because I think, with great courtesy and grace, most of your objections were dealt with more than adequately.

Were you attempting to nail some sort of personal thesis up because I'm not sure you did?

Was it just another intellectual game on SOF? "Spiritual Chess"? [Eek!]

Great posts from you, but, at the end of them, I was wondering just where you were coming from, or even if you knew?

Doubting and searching are extremely common in modern spiritually inclined people. Some of them are, like you, extremely intelligent.

Sometimes, for many people, the journey; quest; whatever; seems to become an end in itself. Many of my university contemporaries, even though they might have achieved high positions in the Anglican Church in this country and are are extremely intelligent, seem, in some ways, to be as lost as they were 40 years ago. But that does not mean that many of their Roman Catholic contemporaries of the same era are any more "found".

It is, I think, theoretically possible to be 100% "doctrinally correct" and yet totally "spiritually lost" because mere correct doctrinal adherence is not enough to save your soul (if you accept that old fashioned phrase).

There is something of a loving response to Love
( it's called Grace in old fashioned terms) which is required.

It's not something I inferred you had grasped. Perhaps it wasn't part of your "intellectual brief" but it is, whether you remain Anglican or not, the core of the matter.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

Trisagion, not extraordinary at all -- there are several articles in the Jesuit publication Civillta Catolica (approved before publication by the Vatican) that discuss the issue. Very thorny and controversial perhaps but historical reality. Moral theologian Charles Curran also debated the issue in a response to a piece in Commonweal back in 1998, if I recall.

To talk about encyclicals or moral teachings as timeless or ahistorical is problematic because the application or implementation of teachings is conditioned by context, especially in war or social anarchy.

Edited for typos

[ 07. July 2012, 07:16: Message edited by: Mary LA ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I suppose it's a bit of a tangent, Trisagion, but I've always found your unease with "Roman Catholic" a bit odd given that many US churches identify themselves as such on their signage and printed materials. Is this a pond difference?

As I said, I wasn't objecting to being called "Roman Catholic". I'd prefer not to use it but what I was objecting to being called "Roman" and the use of terms such as "the Roman Church" or "the Church of Rome". We all know what that's about. They are sneery, supercilious expressions through the use of which Anglicans of a certain stripe seek to suggest the essential foreignness of Catholicism whilst somehow seeking to reiterate their own claims to catholicity.

HolySmoke, I know some of our beliefs are offensive to you - which is why, out of courtesy and respect - the courtesy and respect essential for civilised discourse - we don't go around voicing them indiscriminately and attempt, wherever possible, to express them carefully when it becomes necessary to express them at all. It's about courtesy: nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
Trisagion, not extraordinary at all -- there are several articles in the Jesuit publication Civillta Catolica (approved before publication by the Vatican) that discuss the issue.

Thank you.

quote:
Very thorny and controversial perhaps but historical reality.

Very thorny and controversial indeed and perhaps a historical reality. As I said in the earlier post, it is certainly extraordinary and I look forward to reading the evidence for its historical reality.

quote:
Moral theologian Charles Curran also debated the issue in a response to a piece in Commonweal back in 1998, if I recall.

You'll forgive me if I reserve my position on the quality of Charles Curran's moral theology and its conformity with Catholic teaching. Curran mandatum to teach Catholic theology was revoked by the Holy See in 1986. His dismissal as a Professor at CUA was upheld by the secular courts. His views as to what might or might not be morally permissable aren't likely to shed much light on Catholic teaching.

quote:
To talk about encyclicals or moral teachings as timeless or ahistorical is problematic because the application or implementation of teachings is conditioned by context, especially in war or social anarchy.

I didn't, of course, talk about them as timeless or ahistorical. They aren't. The teaching they contain (although not the way it is expressed) may well be. The application or implementation of teachings is, of course, conditioned by context. It's what we call "being pastorally sensitive".

[ 07. July 2012, 07:42: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

Yes, pastoral sensitivity -- that's why students at a local seminary are asked to engage with this kind of issue before going into parishes and working with rape survivors from north Congo, Zimbabwe or South Africa. It might not be necessary in many First World contexts.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
Yes, pastoral sensitivity -- that's why students at a local seminary are asked to engage with this kind of issue before going into parishes and working with rape survivors from north Congo, Zimbabwe or South Africa. It might not be necessary in many First World contexts.

Quite.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Wow. I've been around over sixty years, Trisagion, and that's a sensitivity I've either never met or have been oblivious to. Roman in this context - rather than in the context 'native of the city of Rome', or 'pertaining to an empire that fell in 476 AD' - to me means, 'in communion with and accepting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome', as in 'Roman obedience'.

As such, I'm very puzzled why it should be a touchy issue.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I suppose it's a bit of a tangent, Trisagion, but I've always found your unease with "Roman Catholic" a bit odd given that many US churches identify themselves as such on their signage and printed materials. Is this a pond difference?

No. I happens in England too. I serve on a committee where the (R)C bishop's rep. was asked what title he wanted and he asked for 'Roman' as part of his title. I was surprised but did not query it as it is none of my business.

It's less offensive than 'Italian Mission.'

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Basically, I have a choice: go with my own judgement, which might, of course, be wrong but is the best I have, or accept that because I am persuaded on other grounds that the RCC cannot err in teaching faith and morals, I must be wrong when I disagree with the RCC, whether I am able to see why, or not. The argument from authority is the only one that stands a chance.

So what is the argument from authority? Where is the substance to the RCC's extravagent claims for itself?

The word "monolithic" - used earlier in this thread - is revealing. There seems to be this image of the "monolithic Catholic church" that has a body of doctrine that is perfectly unchanging, integrated, comprehensive and irrefutable, which is totally believed by all its members. Like a Roman legion, marching perfectly in step, totally obedient to orders from the tribune.

We all know that life isn't really quite like this in practice. But this is the sort of image that lurks in the back of many minds, and does reflect the aspiration that some Catholics hold for the Catholic church - what they want it to be. (And maybe for some non-Catholics this is the image they love to hate.)

But the word that we need to discuss is "authority".

Parents have it over their children, teachers over pupils, officers over soldiers, prison officers over inmates, and martial arts sensei (???) over their students.

It's been said that the moment you first realise that your parents don't actually know everything and aren't right about everything is the moment that you start to grow up.

Growing up should be one of the aims of spiritual life.

Authority is temporary - exercised by parents so that their children have the best chance to grow up, by sensei that their students may one day be masters, by officers so that the men may survive the battle and live to sit around the campfire and chat about how the battle might have been fought differently.

Seeking to prolong authority - reluctance to relinquish it when its justification is past - is an abuse.

If you wish to be forever a child, doing as you're told "because I say so" there are people in this world who will do that for you. But it ain't healthy.

I'm told that one of the Popes in the 13th century issued an encyclical justifying the use of torture by the Inquisition.

The Catholic church seems to me to have:
- a doctrine of infallibility under certain rare circumstances
- an organisational culture in which this myth of the Church Monolithic lurks in the background
- a cadre of informed officers and laymen who engage in recreational discussion as to the degrees of authority that should be afforded to different types of church document under different circumstances
- no good and accepted theory that I've yet come across as to how and when past papal pronouncements should be reduced in status or rejected as being with hindsight thoroughly uninspired.

But maybe IngoB and others will put me straight...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wow. I've been around over sixty years, Trisagion, and that's a sensitivity I've either never met or have been oblivious to. Roman in this context - rather than in the context 'native of the city of Rome', or 'pertaining to an empire that fell in 476 AD' - to me means, 'in communion with and accepting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome', as in 'Roman obedience'.

Oblivious, I suspect.

quote:
As such, I'm very puzzled why it should be a touchy issue.

I think I explained the reasons that it is touchy: it is primarily used to (a) hint that Catholicism is somehow unEnglish (within a British context); and (b) to make a point about the claim to be Catholic of Anglicanism. It really is the equivalent of Catholics routinely refering to the CofE as the "church of England" or the "ecclesial communion of England": it isn't what Anglicans call themselves and, I imagine, they would find the expression, if it were ever used, as stupid and petty and just plain discourteous.

Leo, your local Catholic ecumenical contact is acting directly contrary to his own Bishop's wishes. When +Declan was a VG in my diocese he required all schools and churches to describe themselves as "Catholic" and to remove any reference to "Roman Catholic" from notepaper, signed, documentation etc. When he was appointed to Clifton (where I was then living), he issued the same instruction.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Enoch:
[qb]If God wants you to be a Roman, then I think your heart will be persuaded.

If God wanted that, you would probably be born in Rome some 1800-2000 years ago.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
Religion is a creation of man, not God. And man places himself at the head of his religion instead of God. Religion is an attempt to grapple with the numinous. The way spoken of and taught by Jesus is to be followed for it is the way in and by which one gains knowledge of truth. Truth inspired in the mind of man by God. Truth means reality doesn't it? Who needs religion when they can have the reality of God Himself as Father, teacher, creator?

All the conflicts between religions are conflicts of belief and opinion and have nothing to do with God. The way taught by Jesus speaks of reality, not religion.

Discussing reality should always be encouraged. Discussing religious doctrine is always a waste of time.

So you are in fact not using a definition of religion that any lexicon agrees to? Why should we bother discussing with you if you don’t use words in ways that can actually be understood?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina
sorry for inexperience of quotes and postings.

There is a UBB practise thread in the Styx where you can work on your skills.

Many people, including me, will not bother to read posts where it is difficult to tell the difference between a quote and an original statement.

Moo

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Leo, your local Catholic ecumenical contact is acting directly contrary to his own Bishop's wishes. When +Declan was a VG in my diocese he required all schools and churches to describe themselves as "Catholic" and to remove any reference to "Roman Catholic" from notepaper, signed, documentation etc. When he was appointed to Clifton (where I was then living), he issued the same instruction.

Yes - I know and highly respect +Declan and this doesn't surprise me. The diocese had a lot of trouble finding someone to take on this job.

Looking on the bright side, having found one, they are now trying to resource the (voluntary) post and i am impressed by and learning from what has emerged.

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
So you are in fact not using a definition of religion that any lexicon agrees to? Why should we bother discussing with you if you don’t use words in ways that can actually be understood?

What is it you do not understand about my words: "Religion is a creation of man"? ISTM human beings need to find order and meaning in the universe. Human beings like to belong and the formal, ritualized expression of a set of foundational beliefs brings people together. I know religion is never going to go away. However, I am not interested in religion as much as truth. Which is why I asked Eliab "why?" he wrote what he did about belonging to the RCC.

Religion is not the keeper of truth nor the guardian of truth. God alone is Keeper and Guardian of Truth It is truth that sets man free from his beliefs in religious teachings that are not truth. It is only the truth from God that gives man life and raises him up from death. Sadly many religions teach that man cannot seek and find God directly but this is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus who taught "go into a quiet place and ask" and "fast and pray".

Here is a quote for you by Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger,"
Roman stoic philosopher, writer, and politician (4-65):

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

[Smile]

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
So you are in fact not using a definition of religion that any lexicon agrees to? Why should we bother discussing with you if you don’t use words in ways that can actually be understood?
What is it you do not understand about my words: "Religion is a creation of man"?

I understood you perfectly. It’s just that you’re wrong.

If you had just gone to a normal dictionary, like the Oxford dictionary, you would see that the noun ‘religion’ means “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” Did Christ want us to believe in and worship God? If yes, he wants us to be in a religion. That is what the word means. To say that ‘religion’ is ‘man made’ makes as much sense as saying that you cannot walk, because walking is ‘man made.’ Yes, certain walks are indeed ‘man made.’ Walking as such isn’t ‘man made’ in the samse sense.

Furthermore, ‘religion’ is derived from the latin word religare, which means ‘to bind.’ This implies that we have a bound to God (relationship with him), and perhaps that we are bound to his will.

So yes, you are using a definition of ‘religion’ that you have come up with yourself, and you demand people to go along with you misconception. Are you sure your name isn’t Humpty Dumpty?

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Did Christ want us to believe in and worship God?

snip

Furthermore, ‘religion’ is derived from the latin word religare, which means ‘to bind.’ This implies that we have a bound to God (relationship with him), and perhaps that we are bound to his will.

How could one not worship God?

We will have to agree to disagree on our understanding of the word "religion"

Jesus did not ask anyone to just believe in God. He declared that if they followed the way he taught then they would know the truth and they would be set free.
Free from false religious teachings and doctrines.

Jesus did not found any religion. He fought against religion.
He taught others concerning the reality of God and how to ask and receive from God.

Members of a religion all refer to the teachings of the founder of their particular religion - in the case of the RCC this is the pope.

This is the opposite of the teachings of Jesus who taught "seek ye first the kingdom of God".

Jesus knew and spoke of the reality of God. It is a very foolish person indeed who prefers their religion to God.

Jesus never taught man to create religion nor to follow religious doctrine. He taught a "way" in and by which a person would gain knowledge by personal experience. Actually it is a scientific way to follow and is a way of proving.

As is written "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it"

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Firstly, if you are to be received into the RCC you will have to vow the following (RCIA #491): "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." It is basically certain that you would get away with committing perjury on the issue of contraception or really any other issue, unless you manage to make a huge public issue out of this and thereby force the hierarchy into action. Nevertheless, a lack of prosecution does not make a false oath right.

Agreed.

quote:
Secondly, nevertheless your approach here is flawed. In the final analysis you are asked to accept a claim of authority, not of truth. Of course, that authority precisely claims to speak Divine truth. Hence to some extent finding truth in what that authority says supplies evidence for its authority. Yet the fundamental problem of the moral and spiritual life is that practically speaking truth can be found only very partially by our own lights. Worse, it is a truth, which is available to us by introspection, that we are often arrayed against truth, in particular moral truth.

I think I'm a little more optimistic than you about our ability to discern truth, but I think it's a difference of degree, not quality. We certainly won't get to anything like full understanding without help, and we often make mistakes and have failures of perception on moral issues.

quote:
The real question is hence whether you think Christ is the best guide in the first place, and then whether the RCC is the best guide to Christ in the second place.

Yes – and it's the second part that's in issue here.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The only way I'd ever accept the teaching is by being persuaded on other grounds that the RCC is the supreme judge of this sort of thing, and, having ruled on it, I ought to accept its views simply on authority. That's what I'd like to see argued, and, so far, it hasn't been.
And again, your approach is somewhat flawed. Because if this could be argued, then the Holy Spirit would be out of his job. In the end, there is no compelling argument to be had. For nobody, and nothing. Perhaps we can tilt the playing field a bit with the best of our arguments, but the game itself remains Divine.

If so, then what's the way in?

quote:
But anyway, I guess one has to say something. Let me make the following analogy, which for me is not really an analogy but rather something I lived for many years. If you want to practice martial arts, you have to make a key decision: are you going to practice a traditional martial art, or are you looking for self-defense or perhaps skill in cage fighting competitions?

I like that analogy. It seems to me that the difference is this – the 'skill-oriented ' approach is going to ask, of every technique, “does this work for me? - does it keep me safe, improve my fitness, help me win competitions, get me to whatever my objective is?”. It will certainly be attentive to, and make use of traditions, because those, after all, are records of what has worked in the past for lots of other people, so are prima facie worth learning, but ultimately it will take a critical view. Every technique has to earn its place in the syllabus. The student always has the power to accept or reject something depending on whether it serves his objective.

The 'tradition-based' approach is more about learning a way which the student submits to. His object is to master a particular art, and therefore to become skilled in whatever that art happens to be good for, rather than set out his own objective and evaluate elements of the art on the degree to which they assist in reaching that goal. The way has become an end in itself, and the student can choose to follow it, or not, but while he follows it using this approach, he simply has to accept what the art is.

quote:
So having identified how I think a Way must be passed on, and assuming that God wants to protect this against human failure, what do we get? I say something like the RC hierarchy is just what I would expect. Mind you, something like it, not necessarily precisely it: I think there are plenty of "accidental features" in what we have now. Still, for me this was and is the obvious source of the Way.

I want to be 'tradition-based' when it comes to Jesus, but I find that I'm 'skill-oriented' when it comes to church. There are many Christians I can learn from, but none that I trust absolutely to tell me what Christianity is - just as the sensible 'skill-oriented' martial artist will have a great deal of respect for the traditional forms, but not absolute submission to them.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I was somewhat amused and slightly curious about the case you put forward.

Were you wanting someone to give you a reason to cross the Tiber? Because, if you were, most Roman Catholic posters seemed to be advising you to exercise extreme care to fully understand what you were actually committing yourself to before you signed up, which seemed to me to be highly ethical and praiseworthy.

See my reply to IngoB above. I am, on his analogy, a student learning an art because I want something from it. In fact, I want lots of things, but the relevant one to this thread is truth. I want to believe as true everything that God has revealed as true, and not place the same level of confidence in anything which has not been so revealed and therefore could well be wrong.

There are two ways to that end – respectful criticism and testing of any doctrine that appears important being one, and respectful submission to a teaching authority that can be trusted to have done the criticism for you being the other. At the moment, I'm at the 'criticism/testing' stage.

One of the things which presents itself as important to me, and which therefore ought to be seriously considered, is the Catholic Church's claim to be a trustworthy (indeed, infallible) teaching authority. I am not starting from a Catholic perspective, so that claim would require a definite choice on my part to accept it. The path I am on at the moment is not the tradition-based one of submission to a particular visible-on-earth spiritual authority, it is what I've called the skill-oriented approach of critically testing doctrinal claims, in which tradition is a powerful argument in favour, but only an argument, not a compelling authority. But to be true to that path, a claim to be a compelling authority ought to be considered, criticised, and tested.

That's the point of this thread. Do I expect to be convinced of Catholic claims? No. Am I open to being convinced? Yes.

quote:
Were you wanting to put holes in many articles of Catholic teaching? Because I think, with great courtesy and grace, most of your objections were dealt with more than adequately.

You did? I don't. Some of the specific problems I had have certainly been answered, but what I'm trying to get at is the exercise of Catholic authority. That goes deeper than agreement or disagreement with Catholic teaching.

An example – Mary's perpetual virginity. My perspective is a critical one - “is that true?”. I take into account that Christendom has long believed it, I qualify that by noting that there have always been many Christians who would be inclined to believe any praise of Mary, and others who have been anti-sex, so the popularity of the doctrine could be accounted for even if it is untrue. I see that we have no primary source evidence, and our secondary sources (the NT writers) either didn't know or didn't care to tell us. And then I ask if, despite all that, it is remotely credible that a devout first century Jew would rush to carnal intimacy with a woman whom he believed had given birth to the Holy One of Israel. And where I end up is agreeing with the doctrine. But I'm not a fraction closer to thinking like a Catholic. IngoB or Trisagion might make exactly the same arguments in favour of it as I would, but unlike me they are not asking “is it true?” but “why is it true?” or “how do we explain and defend this truth?”

What I want is not “there are good reasons for thinking that the Catholic Church is right about this” but “there are compelling reasons, reasons strong enough to bet your spiritual life on, that the Catholic Church is right”. Not right about this or that controversy, but always right, inevitably right, guaranteed-by-God-never-to-be-wrong right. It's that claim that I want to test.

quote:
Were you attempting to nail some sort of personal thesis up because I'm not sure you did?

No.

quote:
Was it just another intellectual game on SOF? "Spiritual Chess"?

No.

There are three possible benefits from the discussion for me. The first two are contradictory: I might discover that the Catholic Church is God's infallible authority on earth; I might be satisfied that this claim has been definitively tested and found wanting. As I say, I don't expect either to happen, but if either did, that would be great – I'd've learning something important. The third benefit is that I hoped I would learn something about how Catholics view their Church, and how they deal with the issues that I have problems with. I thought that there was a good chance of achieving that one. So far, I'm not disappointed.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
...See my reply to IngoB above. I am, on his analogy, a student learning an art because I want something from it. In fact, I want lots of things, but the relevant one to this thread is truth. I want to believe as true everything that God has revealed as true, and not place the same level of confidence in anything which has not been so revealed and therefore could well be wrong.

There are two ways to that end – respectful criticism and testing of any doctrine that appears important being one, and respectful submission to a teaching authority that can be trusted to have done the criticism for you being the other. At the moment, I'm at the 'criticism/testing' stage.

One of the things which presents itself as important to me, and which therefore ought to be seriously considered, is the Catholic Church's claim to be a trustworthy (indeed, infallible) teaching authority. I am not starting from a Catholic perspective, so that claim would require a definite choice on my part to accept it. The path I am on at the moment is not the tradition-based one of submission to a particular visible-on-earth spiritual authority, it is what I've called the skill-oriented approach of critically testing doctrinal claims, in which tradition is a powerful argument in favour, but only an argument, not a compelling authority. But to be true to that path, a claim to be a compelling authority ought to be considered, criticised, and tested.

... Some of the specific problems I had have certainly been answered, but what I'm trying to get at is the exercise of Catholic authority. That goes deeper than agreement or disagreement with Catholic teaching.

An example – Mary's perpetual virginity. My perspective is a critical one - “is that true?”. I take into account that Christendom has long believed it, I qualify that by noting that there have always been many Christians who would be inclined to believe any praise of Mary, and others who have been anti-sex, so the popularity of the doctrine could be accounted for even if it is untrue. I see that we have no primary source evidence, and our secondary sources (the NT writers) either didn't know or didn't care to tell us. And then I ask if, despite all that, it is remotely credible that a devout first century Jew would rush to carnal intimacy with a woman whom he believed had given birth to the Holy One of Israel. And where I end up is agreeing with the doctrine. But I'm not a fraction closer to thinking like a Catholic. IngoB or Trisagion might make exactly the same arguments in favour of it as I would, but unlike me they are not asking “is it true?” but “why is it true?” or “how do we explain and defend this truth?”

What I want is not “there are good reasons for thinking that the Catholic Church is right about this” but “there are compelling reasons, reasons strong enough to bet your spiritual life on, that the Catholic Church is right”. Not right about this or that controversy, but always right, inevitably right, guaranteed-by-God-never-to-be-wrong right. It's that claim that I want to test.

...

There are three possible benefits from the discussion for me. The first two are contradictory: I might discover that the Catholic Church is God's infallible authority on earth; I might be satisfied that this claim has been definitively tested and found wanting. As I say, I don't expect either to happen, but if either did, that would be great – I'd've learning something important. The third benefit is that I hoped I would learn something about how Catholics view their Church, and how they deal with the issues that I have problems with. I thought that there was a good chance of achieving that one. So far, I'm not disappointed.

Thank you.

I would take the "skill-oriented approach of critically testing doctrinal claims" as being similar to the fairly common Anglican one of having creative doubts about certain matters.

The Roman Catholic Church, as against the Church of England, or even the Orthodox, due to the central place given to Scholastic Theology, would seem to take what I would call a "maximalist" approach to defining certain matters of belief to the Nth degree, whereas the Orthodox, or Anglicans, would tend to see this as unnecessary.

The Orthodox, for instance, as far as I am aware, do believe that the Theotokos/BVM remained a virgin all her life, but felt it unnecessary to promulgate a specific doctrine on this matter. This is possibly in the light of the the Orthodox Tradition that St Joseph was an older widower with children, hence Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters".

My personal feeling, having been attached to the Anglicans and Roman Catholics at different stages in my life and being a somewhat surprised returnee to the latter in very recent times, is that, until the Roman Catholics and Orthodox really come together, a seemingly "impossible" task at the moment, Christianity will not truly be "breathing with both lungs" to quote a recent papal encyclical.

John Henry Newman was an Anglican who tested the claims of the Roman Catholic Church until all his previous defensive walls fell. John Keble, another member of the Oxford Movement, felt he could remain in the Church of England in good conscience. Both left a unique and saintly legacy in their Church of convincement which still lives.

The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in England have a long and sometimes bitter history. They are, in many ways, similar, and, in others, remarkably different. Since the Elizabethan Religious Settlement and excommunication of Elizabeth I the chances of organic reunion have gone. Prior to that there was that chance. The establishment of the Ordinariates shows just how much Rome was prepared to offer dissident Anglicans.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the only Church with a claim to being the most ancient and true representor of original Christianity. You would have to seriously consider the Orthodox claims which are not couched in Scholastic terminology. I suspect you feel a certain affinity with the latter approach but it was a fairly late development in Western theology.

Interesting, you seem to be taking a terribly intellectual approach, even a purely intellectual approach, to the matter of religious truth. I think it could be worthwhile looking at some of the great religious figures as well. That might give you a better idea of the "flavour" of both denominations. Curiously, I've not heard you talk of any. Faith, real faith, is not a purely intellectual thing. Jesus didn't just preach. He cured the sick and reintegrated them into society. His Kingdom, though not of this world, was something far, far more than the Scribes and Pharisees, the religious intelligentsia and authorities of his day, remotely imagined.

I am not sure how far you will get with your "critically testing" approach because, the way you phrase it, it seems that you are submitting what you consider are the RCC's central claims, which may, or may not actually be central, to your individual intellectual "tests". Whether any individual's intellectual "tests", without Grace, are sufficient I very much doubt. I think intellect will take you to a certain point and then you might just have to trust.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

What an interesting thread. I particularly like Sir Pellinore's piece above, and also appreciate IngoB's clarifications on some of the issues Eliab is asking about. And there have been many other fascinating contributions.

I was brought up as a Catholic, then had the typical drifting away from the Church and indeed Christianity as a young adult, then came back to Christianty. Decided that I did want to follow Christ; but did not any longer feel comfortable in the Catholic church.

The third prong of Eliab's question, how Catholics deal with the issues that give him pause, is easily answered in my case: I couldn't. There were just too many things I didn't agree with and would have had to act differently on--contraception being an important one. I did look into the whole thing and found I could, like many if not most other Catholics, practise contraception if my own conscience told me it wasn't morally wrong, and still consider myself a Catholic; but it was less than ideal to feel all the time I was falling short.

Then there were other stumbling blocks-and this very question of the authority of the Church was one of them. And the doctrine of Papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra as well, ratified in the second half of the nineteenth century (sorry I forget date)--which I've since learned Newman himself was against. And the fact that I could remember the days when it was considered wrong for a Catholic to enter a non-Catholic church; I could even remember one nun saying non-Catholics would not go to heaven. (Though I must add I'm very grateful for my Catholic childhood and convent education).

So the thing for me became, how can the Catholic Church be so sure she alone holds the only truth? The Orthodox say the same, but their truth is different. And other denominations have a different truth again. Somebody has to be wrong.

I couldn't be a Catholic any more, but I was still Catholic enough to feel, ok, if the Catholic church doesn't have The Truth, who does? It must be somewhere....And so I did a lot of searching.

But gradually, over the years, I came to think that no one Christian church can be "the Truth." They all have fragments of the truth and their shared core beliefs may be the truth, but none (as I see it) has the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, because they are run by fallible humans who can't always hear the Holy Spirit.

So this freed me from the search for the perfect church to which I could give intellectual and emotional assent. I came to the conclusion that, while I wanted to be a Christian, I didn't need to believe that any one church was right in every particular, but to find --and I hoped I'd be led to it--a congregation where I could feel intellectually and emotionally at home. First this was the Methodists, but then I found (and I do believe I was led there) the Episcopal Church. (Though English, I spent many years in the US). Of course, it was full of other disaffected Catholics! And it all felt very familiar--Catholicism lite, as some people say. But it's not just Catholicism with less--in the Anglican communion there's this positive, creative ability to live with ambiguity and with not knowing, which suits me now. For surely it is all just so mysterious and unknowable--how can we mere humans think we have all the answers?

Alas, I'm going through a period of very feeble faith right now (many Catholics would doubtless see this as an inevitable result of my being lapsed) but that is by the by.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, as Lord P said, I don't think this kind of question--which Christian congregation should I join?--can be decided on a purely intellectual basis. While we do need to employ our God-given brains, there are also emotions, and temperaments, and spiritual inclinations, that come into play...

I know how wishy-washy that sounds!

Cara.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

Cara, I'm hoping that so long as we're not lukewarm there might also be a place in the Kingdom for the wishy-washy.

I converted to Roman Catholicism when I was young and later found myself struggling and alienated. Even at the worst times of painful unbelonging, I've been encouraged by others also struggling -- I came across the work of Catholic theologian David Tracy who argues for the 'fragment' as against the totalising impulse of post-Enlightenment theology and how we are able to go on in plurality and ambiguity, in the face of impossibility, the hiddenness and incomprehensibility of God.

Theologians working with mystical and apophatic understandings aren't any more popular or easy to grasp than those engaged with the political, but for some of us this resonates.

As the poet Rene Char wrote

“A new mystery sings in your bones / develop your legitimate strangeness.”

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
And the doctrine of Papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra as well, ratified in the second half of the nineteenth century (sorry I forget date)--which I've since learned Newman himself was against.
Cara.

This is the major reason I could never be a Catholic. I don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope and never will since it is an extremely recent ruling in the history of the church.

How do other Catholics on the thread feel about the ratification of the infallibility of the Pope since it wasn't so for the majority of church history? And this is a serious question, I'd like to know how others feel.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The path I am on at the moment is not the tradition-based one of submission to a particular visible-on-earth spiritual authority, it is what I've called the skill-oriented approach of critically testing doctrinal claims, in which tradition is a powerful argument in favour, but only an argument, not a compelling authority. But to be true to that path, a claim to be a compelling authority ought to be considered, criticised, and tested.

Sounds like you're asking if there's a way to find the start of that path without leaving the one you're on.

Like the episode of Star Trek where Spock claims to have rationally decided that an irrational action was necessary.

quote:

What I want is not “there are good reasons for thinking that the Catholic Church is right about this” but “there are compelling reasons, reasons strong enough to bet your spiritual life on, that the Catholic Church is right”. Not right about this or that controversy, but always right, inevitably right, guaranteed-by-God-never-to-be-wrong right. It's that claim that I want to test.

What would constitute proof of such a claim ? The minimum might be a history of adopting positions which with hindsight we can see as being morally right.

But my reading of history is that the Catholic church of the Middle Ages was no less and no more against slavery, torture, mistreatment of Jews etc than was the rest of the human race at that time.

But maybe it wasn't moral infallibility that you were thinking of.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
)--which I've since learned Newman himself was against..

Then you learned incorrectly. Newman was what was called an "inopportunist". That is he was one of a substantial number who, whilst believing in Papal Infallibility (something Newman first explicitly acknowledged in 1841, having suggested in 1832 that his reading of the Council of Chalcedon led him to "marvel at the power of the Pope, scarcely less than in the present day) thought that at the time of the First Vatican Council (1869/70) it was inopportune to define the teaching in dogma because of the reaction it would cause in non-Catholic countries such as Britain and in Germany.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope and never will since it is an extremely recent ruling in the history of the church.

If that ruling were at some point to be modified or nuanced in some way, that would be an even more recent ruling, so presumably you wouldn't believe that either ?

For what it's worth, I don't believe that football referees are objectively infallible, but tend to think that the game works better when players don't argue with the referee. In other words they have a sort of functional infallibility for the purposes of the game.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
)--which I've since learned Newman himself was against..

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Sounds real to me Cara. They - we - are ALL wrong. ALL theology is heresy.

[ 08. July 2012, 13:18: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm sort of getting the impression that several Catholics are hinting that I shouldn't let the contraception ban keep me out, because I wouldn't actually be expected to obey it. Which is nice, but doesn't really address my concern. Which is, is the teaching actually true?
Firstly, if you are to be received into the RCC you will have to vow the following (RCIA #491): "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." It is basically certain that you would get away with committing perjury on the issue of contraception or really any other issue, unless you manage to make a huge public issue out of this and thereby force the hierarchy into action. Nevertheless, a lack of prosecution does not make a false oath right. As convert you are factually in a different situation to cradle Catholics, because your commitment comes to a head at a specific point in time, whereas that of cradle Catholics is ongoing and procedural. The latter allows for much more "fudging". Yet you cannot simply join the "fudge", that is a "privilege" of those whose faults are distributed over a lifetime of being Catholic.

IngoB, I can accept and respect the position you have outlined here; it makes a lot of sense to me. What I find hard accepting is the attitude of a friend of mine who recently became an RC. When I asked his reasons they basically boiled down to, "I'm living in Paris and would like to worship with the locals rather than the ex-pats". His family and I have asked him about his views on contraception and other issues (he is an increasingly active gay man), and he replied, "I still don't accept any of that stuff - I guess I'm always going to be a critical member of the church". Given all of that I still have problems understanding why he wanted to convert - and why the RCC accepted him!

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
)--which I've since learned Newman himself was against..
Then you learned incorrectly. Newman was what was called an "inopportunist". That is he was one of a substantial number who, whilst believing in Papal Infallibility (something Newman first explicitly acknowledged in 1841, having suggested in 1832 that his reading of the Council of Chalcedon led him to "marvel at the power of the Pope, scarcely less than in the present day) thought that at the time of the First Vatican Council (1869/70) it was inopportune to define the teaching in dogma because of the reaction it would cause in non-Catholic countries such as Britain and in Germany.

I believe he also wrote in correspondence that when he first saw the wording of the definition he breathed a sigh of relief at just how limited it was (indicating the defeat of the Ultramontanists) and that he was happy assent to it.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm sort of getting the impression that several Catholics are hinting that I shouldn't let the contraception ban keep me out, because I wouldn't actually be expected to obey it. Which is nice, but doesn't really address my concern. Which is, is the teaching actually true?
Firstly, if you are to be received into the RCC you will have to vow the following (RCIA #491): "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." It is basically certain that you would get away with committing perjury on the issue of contraception or really any other issue, unless you manage to make a huge public issue out of this and thereby force the hierarchy into action. Nevertheless, a lack of prosecution does not make a false oath right. As convert you are factually in a different situation to cradle Catholics, because your commitment comes to a head at a specific point in time, whereas that of cradle Catholics is ongoing and procedural. The latter allows for much more "fudging". Yet you cannot simply join the "fudge", that is a "privilege" of those whose faults are distributed over a lifetime of being Catholic.
IngoB, I can accept and respect the position you have outlined here; it makes a lot of sense to me. What I find hard accepting is the attitude of a friend of mine who recently became an RC. When I asked his reasons they basically boiled down to, "I'm living in Paris and would like to worship with the locals rather than the ex-pats". His family and I have asked him about his views on contraception and other issues (he is an increasingly active gay man), and he replied, "I still don't accept any of that stuff - I guess I'm always going to be a critical member of the church". Given all of that I still have problems understanding why he wanted to convert - and why the RCC accepted him!

Some people convert for specious reasons, some for irrational reasons and others still for plainly stupid reasons. Such is human nature.

The Catholic Church doesn't have a window into people's souls. If he lied through his teeth in the reception process there is no real way for the priest or bishop concerned to know that he did. In the circumstances the only person he is truly hurting is himself by consciously putting his immortal soul in danger.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Of what ? And where do immortal souls start ... outside 'time' of course ?

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
We will have to agree to disagree on our understanding of the word "religion"

Why? Because you want to make up your own definitions of normal words? Why not also say that Christ was against ‘walking’?*

* I, of course, interpret ‘walking’ as maiming people with pitch forks, drenching them in petrol and setting them on fire. If you disagree, I guess we “will have to agree to disagree on our understanding of the word ‘walking’.”

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
...

So this freed me from the search for the perfect church to which I could give intellectual and emotional assent. I came to the conclusion that, while I wanted to be a Christian, I didn't need to believe that any one church was right in every particular, but to find --and I hoped I'd be led to it--a congregation where I could feel intellectually and emotionally at home. First this was the Methodists, but then I found (and I do believe I was led there) the Episcopal Church. (Though English, I spent many years in the US). Of course, it was full of other disaffected Catholics! And it all felt very familiar--Catholicism lite, as some people say. But it's not just Catholicism with less--in the Anglican communion there's this positive, creative ability to live with ambiguity and with not knowing, which suits me now. For surely it is all just so mysterious and unknowable--how can we mere humans think we have all the answers?

Alas, I'm going through a period of very feeble faith right now (many Catholics would doubtless see this as an inevitable result of my being lapsed) but that is by the by.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, as Lord P said, I don't think this kind of question--which Christian congregation should I join?--can be decided on a purely intellectual basis. While we do need to employ our God-given brains, there are also emotions, and temperaments, and spiritual inclinations, that come into play...

I know how wishy-washy that sounds!

Cara.

Thank you Cara.

I don't think you sound wishy-washy at all but like many intelligent people on a search for somewhere within Christianity where it all might mean something.

Some of the great Western Christian mystics, St John of the Cross and St Theresa of Avila among them, went through a very long, bleak period where they felt bereft of any sign of God's love. Their periods were particularly intense and seemed to last forever. We know about them because they both wrote about them.

I think many people go through a similar, if less intense, experience similar to this. In his play "The Potting Shed" Graham Greene deals with a man in middle age who is at a watershed in his life, with a failed marriage and an inability to relate to his family and an important event in his past which seems to have been relegated to his subconscious which he needs to rediscover to find himself; his life and marriage and his faith.

Much of T S Eliot's poetry is about rediscovering the wellsprings of faith and meaning in oneself in the Waste Land that is our modern world.

Faith and meaning are, I believe, things we ultimately need to find within ourselves. They may well be a response to something outside but we have to internalise them. Otherwise we just give lip service to creeds and carry out religious rites by rote and remain surprised why "nothing seems to change".

The Irish-Australian Roman Catholicism in Australia in the 1960s was one where rigid adherence to a seemingly endless set of rules, some so minor, enforced by aged unsmiling clerics, with some exceptions, and something that is well left behind.

There are still a few old fashioned Anglo-Catholic clerics around who were almost as bad. Fortunately most have retired or gone to the TAC.

Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion seem to be going through quite a catharsis at the present time.

I hope, when the catharsis is over, both Churches will have realised what the important wellsprings of the Christian Faith are and what are not. That is not to decry the traditional beliefs but to hope they will not be confused with non-doctrinal issues such as the old canard birth control. Ditto tolerance and acceptance of all without necessarily condoning certain lifestyles.

It is a very testing time for Western Christianity.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
For what it's worth, I don't believe that football referees are objectively infallible, but tend to think that the game works better when players don't argue with the referee. In other words they have a sort of functional infallibility for the purposes of the game.

Yeah, but if the referee in a game of football gets something wrong, or is biased against one team, or simply doesn't know the laws of the game properly, the worst that happens is a team loses. Nobody dies or goes to eternal damnation.

Real life is not a game, and if we give so much power to its "referees" and they get something wrong, or are biased, or just don't know the laws properly, then we face some serious consequences.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
Cara, I'm hoping that so long as we're not lukewarm there might also be a place in the Kingdom for the wishy-washy.

I converted to Roman Catholicism when I was young and later found myself struggling and alienated. Even at the worst times of painful unbelonging, I've been encouraged by others also struggling -- I came across the work of Catholic theologian David Tracy who argues for the 'fragment' as against the totalising impulse of post-Enlightenment theology and how we are able to go on in plurality and ambiguity, in the face of impossibility, the hiddenness and incomprehensibility of God.

Theologians working with mystical and apophatic understandings aren't any more popular or easy to grasp than those engaged with the political, but for some of us this resonates.

As the poet Rene Char wrote

“A new mystery sings in your bones / develop your legitimate strangeness.”

Thank you, Mary. This is lovely. I think A N Wilson, who has recently gone back to being a Christian, wrote not long ago about being proud of, or glad about, the fact that he seemed wishy-washy to some. Alas, I can't remember the whole thrust of what he said (maybe someone else can), but I think the gist was that if we are not locked in to a rigid view, we are freer to learn and grow..not sure, but anyway I certainly am wishy-washy. And sometimes, I fear, lukewarm as well--have always felt very much alarmed by the scripture (forget chapter and verse) you doubtless had in mind, "you are lukewarm, and I will spit you out of my mouth."

Will check out Tracy and Char.

Cara

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
)--which I've since learned Newman himself was against..
Then you learned incorrectly. Newman was what was called an "inopportunist". That is he was one of a substantial number who, whilst believing in Papal Infallibility (something Newman first explicitly acknowledged in 1841, having suggested in 1832 that his reading of the Council of Chalcedon led him to "marvel at the power of the Pope, scarcely less than in the present day) thought that at the time of the First Vatican Council (1869/70) it was inopportune to define the teaching in dogma because of the reaction it would cause in non-Catholic countries such as Britain and in Germany.

Thanks for this correction and clarification, Trisagion.

Cara.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
I believe he also wrote in correspondence that when he first saw the wording of the definition he breathed a sigh of relief at just how limited it was (indicating the defeat of the Ultramontanists) and that he was happy assent to it.

Thanks for this as well, CL. You and Trisagion have shown what I already know--I read too fast and forget the details of what I've read! I have read the Apologia and also much of Newman's correspondence but didn't recall these nuances.

But anyway, for me the infallibility of the Pope is one of the stumbling-blocks in returning to the church of my birth and upbringing.

That doesn't help Eliab much, though. I don't know how far one can go with this sort of intellectual enquiry--yet it was a good question to ask and has led to an interesting discussion. Reading about conversions, whether from non-Christian belief to Christian, or from one denomination to another, I get the impression it often works with an intellectual conviction steadily growing, but only up to a certain point....and then something more mysterious seems to happen. The convert suddenly finds he or she has crossed a boundary and is on the other side, but without always knowing quite how.

(C S Lewis on top of that bus comes to mind. And I seem to recall that from my vague--as has been established!-- memory of Newman's writings, the actual moment when he was sure he must take the step is not in focus. Ditto Gerard Manley Hopkins. The lead-up to the moment in both cases is detailed, the decisive thought or turning point seems elusive. But I could be wrong. And perhaps some more recent converts to Catholicism have explained it in a way that would help Eliab).

In the end, the question of the authority of the Catholic church, it seems to me, comes down to faith. Like everything to do with religion, it cannot be logically proven one hundred per cent to the intellectual satisfaction of a person of our scientific, proof-demanding age. It's a question of which branch of Christianity seems to the seeker to be the truest to Jesus and to the guidance of the Holy Spirit; and which traditions seem the most valid and authentic. (A Catholic would probably put it differently, though.)

Jesus said "I will be with you to the end of the age."
Did he mean he would be with all of us who seek to follow him?
Or did he mean he would only be with the true core of Christians? And who are they? Catholic? Orthodox?

If he meant he would be with all those who seek to follow him, might not the Holy Spirit be with us all, in different ways? Though very often we do not listen....

A divided Christian church does not seem right, as it contradicts the prayer of Jesus himself that we all may be one....so one yearns for unity (and I love those bodies and communities that work towards that, like Taizé)...in the meantime, we grope onwards in the same direction along different paths. Could The Way have many different strands?

Cara.

[ 09. July 2012, 12:46: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by 205 (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
For what it's worth, I don't believe that football referees are objectively infallible, but tend to think that the game works better when players don't argue with the referee. In other words they have a sort of functional infallibility for the purposes of the game.
Yeah, but if the referee in a game of football gets something wrong, or is biased against one team, or simply doesn't know the laws of the game properly, the worst that happens is a team loses. Nobody dies or goes to eternal damnation.

Real life is not a game, and if we give so much power to its "referees" and they get something wrong, or are biased, or just don't know the laws properly, then we face some serious consequences.

It was a bit of a <mumble>, Mr. McEnroe.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I'm sorry, I don't have sound on this PC and I'm afraid your point is lost on me.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think the great, saintly, self-effacing John McEnroe was expressing dissent from the referee's decision in his normal non-confrontational way. [Killing me]

Nonetheless, the referee stood by his decision.

All this came through loud and clear.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

Faith and meaning are, I believe, things we ultimately need to find within ourselves. They may well be a response to something outside but we have to internalise them. Otherwise we just give lip service to creeds and carry out religious rites by rote and remain surprised why "nothing seems to change".

Thank you Sir P, great post--I love the reminder that so many others have written before about dark nights of the soul. I don't know that Greene book though have read others of his--will keep it in mind.

The para I quote above from your post is so crucial--to really internalise faith and meaning; so easy to write the words, so hard--in my own experience-- to do.

Cara

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think the great, saintly, self-effacing John McEnroe was expressing dissent from the referee's decision in his normal non-confrontational way.

Nonetheless, the referee stood by his decision.

Yes, but even though the ref stuck to his decision (and was therefore "right" for the purposes of the game) he was in actual fact wrong. And because he was wrong McEnroe lost a point that he should have won.

Now, if a priest/bishop/pope/patriarch/etc. is wrong but stands by his decision anyway, and if we have to go along with it regardless, what do we stand to lose? Our souls?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Actually the clip I saw just showed McEnroe arguing with the referee.

I thought that was the poster's point.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
One example taught in moral theology classes at John Vianney Seminary in Pretoria has to do with the 1960s Simba revolt in the Congo where raped nuns who had been made pregnant were permitted abortions...
Could you provide more evidence of who permitted this and why? It would seem to me an extraordinary claim and one which suggests that somebody in authority thought that one person should pay with their life for the violent act of another.

Just to deal with this side issue, since it apparently isn't going to happen otherwise: There never has been any official permission for abortion. In the Congo, nuns - who were in considerable danger of being raped - were allowed to take the pill as preventive measure against becoming pregnant. There is no fundamental problem with that at least by any RC official teaching so far. See for example this old NCR article. (I've read about this before elsewhere though, this just popped up with google now.)

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
The official mandates issued to Catholic Hospitals by the US Catholic Bishops specifically authorise contraception after rape.
Again, could you provide further and better particulars?

Emergency contraception after a rape has indeed been explicitly allowed by the US bishops, see here. Once more however, this is contrasted clearly (at least in words, in practice this may be harder) with the abortion of an already conceived embryo.

There has been no (official) breach anywhere concerning the the RC teaching against abortion. It is an evil in and by itself, the killing of an innocent human being, and hence never licit as intended act. Concerning contraception, one has to understand that official RC teaching so far concerns the effect of contraception on the regular conjugal act. It is what is considered to be a falsification of the "embodied sign of marriage" which is prohibited. There is no principle problem with for example using the pill to treat a medical condition. There is no principle problem with using it as a kind of self-defense contraception against rapists. There is also no principle problem with using contraception in sexual acts apart from (heterosexual) marriage. The problem with those is that they are illicit as such (there should only be sexual acts within marriage), but contraception does not then add to their wrongness. Or at least that is not necessarily so, and I would argue that it often diminishes their wrongness.

I hope with these clarification we can set this tangent aside.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

Well, no IngoB, it isn't that simple.

But there is such a polarised and hostile atmosphere on these boards on certain issues that I have decided not to raise certain topics or exceptions or examples from African church experience again. My raising this led to hurtful and abusive PMs as well as more reasonable questions for clarification and I have learned my lesson.

I do learn a great deal by reading through Purgatory threads and perhaps just reading here is the way forward.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think I'm a little more optimistic than you about our ability to discern truth, but I think it's a difference of degree, not quality. We certainly won't get to anything like full understanding without help, and we often make mistakes and have failures of perception on moral issues.

On issues of morality I think a little introspection quickly reveals a gap between our theoretical abilities and our practical ones, for all of us. The question is whether that gap is essential or accidental. I firmly believe that it is essential, based on my observations of humanity and myself, and I think there is a direct connection to the teaching on original sin. As far as religion is concerned, in my opinion the case is closed before it can be properly opened. To argue for "true religion" is like arguing for "true politics". Except that there often is a kind of "middle ground" for politics, whereas for religion it looks more like a "ceasefire" to me.

Since you are I believe a lawyer, I would like to mention that in my opinion your profession is sufficient proof for the impossibility of Protestantism. A text, no matter how carefully worded, never suffices as decisive authority given the potential ingenuity of human interpretation, and the countless motivations to push all possible envelopes in all possible directions. And scripture is not carefully worded at all. Without law makers, and without judges / juries, the legal system would collapse into indecision and/or arbitrariness by unending disagreement. That is precisely what one sees in Protestantism, it is strictly unavoidable, and I cannot possibly believe that it is God's will. So one argument I have for the Catholic hierarchy - as far as you are concerned - is simply an appeal to your professional experience.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If so, then what's the way in?

It's a lot like marrying someone. While there certainly is plenty to think about, and prudence should play a role, this cannot be reasoned out completely. Marrying someone should appear as a great good, but our mind cannot give us ultimate assurances that it will be. At some point it must be a motion of our will that commits us to actually marry this person now. That decision should not be against the best of our reason, but will step beyond it. And in some sense it is then the practice of marriage which makes or breaks it. Our good reasons and the firm commitment of our will must be embodied in concrete action, day in and day out, or this will fail eventually. Arguably, marriage is more in this realization of that initial impulse of intellect and will than in the impulse itself. In consequence, there is an almost depressing contrast between what really makes marriage tick and the idealism (and perhaps hormones...) that originally committed one to this path. The reason why one was not able to find ultimate reasons for marrying is that the goodness of marriages gets fleshed out in experiences, bodily engagement, habits, emotions ... Our most exalted dreams become simply what we do, as God becomes man.

So to me your stance concerning the RCC is like someone who tries to judge whether some woman is "marriage material" based on "objective criteria". It is not an entirely wrong approach, of course. One might even argue that it would do a lot of people great good if they spent a bit more time on such reflections before marrying. But still, at some point you have to step beyond the endless lists of "pros" and "cons" that one can draw up. The answer is not really in that, and it cannot be. In German, there's a general expression for gathering courage to act that fits perfectly here: "You must take your heart into your hand." It is you who takes. Your mind, your will. But is your heart that must be taken, and it ends in your hand, which beyond the grasp itself we can consider as symbolizing action. (To avoid typical misunderstandings: action can here be praying a rosary as much as going to Africa to build wells. I'm not arguing for a simplistic understanding of Christian action.)

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I like that analogy. It seems to me that the difference is this – the 'skill-oriented ' approach is going to ask, of every technique, “does this work for me? - does it keep me safe, improve my fitness, help me win competitions, get me to whatever my objective is?”. It will certainly be attentive to, and make use of traditions, because those, after all, are records of what has worked in the past for lots of other people, so are prima facie worth learning, but ultimately it will take a critical view. Every technique has to earn its place in the syllabus. The student always has the power to accept or reject something depending on whether it serves his objective.

Indeed, I fully intended this interpretation. Because I think it highlights what is wrong with much of Christianity. Please note carefully the move you made to define what you are critical about: "does it keep me safe, improve my fitness, help me win competitions, get me to whatever my objective is?" In trying to find "objective" criteria there is an inevitable egocentric move. Admittedly, in Christianity it is often less obvious, because of the nature of charity. So someone may think in terms of "how good am I to my neighbour", but still in the background lurks the "how good am I to my neighbour". In terms of the analogy, no matter how artful self-defence is, it remains self-defence. Following a martial art is not quite the same thing. The martial art is something beyond your own immediate concerns, even though it is you who is practising it. It is of course completely legitimate to practise a martial art for self-defence, to get fit, to meet people or whatever. But if that is all there is to it for you, then you are missing something. Something that lurks behind these more obvious benefits and comes into light only when you start to practice this martial art for its own sake.

And I happen to think that Christianity is not just some kind of "self-defence system". Let "self-defence" here be analogous to "doing good", in particular charity. Yes, in a way it focuses heavily on such matters, just as some martial arts focus heavily on self-defence. But frankly, if we go down that road I think we end up with a particularly charitable but non-religious humanism. A good thing in its way, sure, but not Christianity. There was something else there, or rather, Someone. I can see the "art of Christ" everywhere in the NT, in particular in many of the apparently unreasonable demands on the practitioner that we like to consider as "idealistic, motivational hyperbole". Well, I think one needs to listen there as an artist, even if one is not a good enough artist to pull this off in practice. It is not at all unreasonable for an Artist to tell an aspiring artist that one's art must be Divinely perfect.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The 'tradition-based' approach is more about learning a way which the student submits to. His object is to master a particular art, and therefore to become skilled in whatever that art happens to be good for, rather than set out his own objective and evaluate elements of the art on the degree to which they assist in reaching that goal. The way has become an end in itself, and the student can choose to follow it, or not, but while he follows it using this approach, he simply has to accept what the art is.

Indeed. But two additional points, beyond what I have already said. Firstly, consider Israel. If God was about getting the "most effective fighter" in terms of the analogy, then He surely sucks big time as manager. Scripture is unrelenting in telling us just how relative and transient any Jewish "success" at religion was. Secondly, objective efficiency is opposed to personality. To the extent that one can determine what the "objectively best" fighting move in some situation is, it ceases to be a personal expression. Or if a move gets us "most fit", then we do not say something about ourselves by doing this move, at least not something that distinguishes us from anyone else who want to get fit. It is precisely where one cannot say "this must be done to achieve this goal" that one finds room for expressing oneself. In practice, both self-defence fighting and martial arts leave much room for individual expression. However the constraints of the martial art point back much more to the personalities of the people that have gone before, in particular to the founder(s) of the art. In any Aikidoka, you will see a bit of Morihei Ueshiba moving. In any Taijiquan practitioner, you can catch a glimpse of Chen Wangting. Find a Serrada Escrimador, meet a part of Angel Cabales. Etc. I think in a Christian one must meet a bit of Christ, and I do not believe that this can be reduced to "doing good", or at least not to "doing good that most people will recognize as good". Precisely because what all recognize as good is not recognizably a Christian good.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I want to be 'tradition-based' when it comes to Jesus, but I find that I'm 'skill-oriented' when it comes to church. There are many Christians I can learn from, but none that I trust absolutely to tell me what Christianity is - just as the sensible 'skill-oriented' martial artist will have a great deal of respect for the traditional forms, but not absolute submission to them.

That is simply a misrepresentation. I know no Roman Catholic who "trusts absolutely" every word spoken by the RC hierarchy and is in "absolute submission" to anything but (hopefully) the bare essentials of faith. The reality of the RCC is a lot less disciplined than any traditional martial art that I have ever trained in. But I think you are simply on the wrong track if you believe that you can be 'tradition-based' about Jesus and 'skill-oriented' about church. There is no tradition to be had about Jesus other than through the church, i.e., other people that are following Jesus (and this is not as such a statement against Protestant mistakes about the authority of scripture, scripture also comes to Protestants through the agency of the Protestant church). If you go 'skill-oriented' on church, you will end up 'skill-oriented' about Christ.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
My raising this led to hurtful and abusive PMs as well as more reasonable questions for clarification and I have learned my lesson.

Just for the public record, I've not personally sent any PMs to Mary LA...

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

No, you haven't IngoB and I wasn't accusing you.

What irks me most about your post is the assumption that I would have to rely on US-based or First World sources for what is common knowledge where I live. I worked in the Congo for two years, I researched many aspects of the recent history quite carefully.

Maybe add Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness to your summer reading list?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think you'd find The Potting Shed extremely moving, Cara.

http://archive.org/details/pottingshedaplay011152mbp

The 1981 Granada production, starring Paul Scofield, was excellent. I still remember it. Sadly, I have not been able to obtain a copy.

Father Califer, the character who thought he had "lost" his faith, but who had continued for the 30 years he thought he had in it, reminds me of an aspect of myself and everyone, as does James Califer, his nephew.

My opinion is that we often don't "lose" faith but think we have.

I think most of us who were lucky enough to come across at least one genuine exemplar of Christianity, who deeply cared for us and where we were going, keep this somewhere deep within. It seems to return at the most amazing times and turns everything upside down.

Much of contemporary Christianity, of whatever sort, seems to be either incredibly cerebral, without much place for a genuine feeling response (I'm not talking of artificially hyped up emotionalism, but real human feeling, which responds to Shakespeare or Bach in a way a merely intellectual appreciation can't) or involved with good works, which is excellent, but which may not fill the empty, aching hole many moderns have.

For many of us it takes a lifetime to find we have always had something within us all these years.

I think, in these times, many of us need to find our own God given spiritual compass within ourselves. This is something I think many clerics, of all denominations, need to realise. There comes a time when they have to realise many people have really grown up spiritually and treat them as such. Every worthwhile spiritual mentor should rejoice when this happens.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The Roman Catholic Church is not the only Church with a claim to being the most ancient and true representor of original Christianity. You would have to seriously consider the Orthodox claims which are not couched in Scholastic terminology. I suspect you feel a certain affinity with the latter approach but it was a fairly late development in Western theology.

I thought that the claims of one worldwide denomination would be enough for one thread.

I will admit to seeing a lot of Orthodoxy as attractive, but I don't find their claim to be the One True Church even remotely compelling. The reason for that is that it seems to me to be nowhere near as coherent as the Catholic claim. The Catholics have the Pope, a visible symbol of unity, the successor of Peter, and it is communion with him that defines the true church. I'm (as you know) presently unconvinced that the Pope is all of that, but I do at least know what the claim about him is. If IngoB's argument (God would have wanted to perserve the Way that Jesus taught, and something like the RCC is the way to do that) is correct, I can see that Catholicism answers that need for a safeguard and guarantee by pointing to Rome and saying the bishop there is the focus of that supernatural gift of continuity.

Whereas I don't get the Orthodox claim at all. It seems (and I speak subject to correction) to be that it is an article of faith that the Church of Christ must be united, and since they are pretty sure that they know Christ, are in continuity with his apostles, and have preserved what has been handed down from the Church Fathers, the Church of Christ means whoever is united with them. Their official attitude to the rest of us seems to be essentially a confession of ignorance: they don't (institutionally) claim to know what we are. Of the Orthodox regulars here, I can think of one who would deny that I'm a Christian at all, in the true sense, as I'm not Orthodox, and others who would be seriously offended if I were even to imply that they shared that view. It seems to me that the Orthodox as a denomination don't know what I am or where I fit in, and if they don't know that, then I feel that I can accept their claim to be the Church of Christ on Earth without being remotely concerned, since I think that my denomination is that, too, and they have no cogent thesis I'm aware of to explain what else we might be.

The Catholics, of course, know exactly where the rest of us fit in. They have categories of baptism, of impaired communion, of schism and separation, of validity of sacraments, that (from their point of view) exactly describe where I stand. How I view my membership of the universal church, and my experiences of my own spiritual life, are directly engaged with in Catholic ecclesiology in a way that (as far as I have been able to tell) they simply aren't by Orthodoxy. Don't misunderstand me, I find the (usually) non-judgmental and agnostic attitude of Orthodox individuals to be a much more palateable complement to their self-confidence than the rigorous definitions of Catholicism - but also a lot less challenging.

quote:
Interesting, you seem to be taking a terribly intellectual approach, even a purely intellectual approach, to the matter of religious truth.

The claim "we are right" is an intellectual one, at least, it is at the point that it cuts. I have no problem with Catholic worship, or sacraments, or fellowship - my problem is thinking that a small number of Catholic teachings are wrong. Christianity is not all about intellect, but where an absolutist claim is made on an intellectual level, and I can't agree with it, that's a difficulty.

Also, it is not the case that my objections are only intellectual. The contraception point, for instance, is as much an adverse reaction of moral sentiment as it is of reason. My dislike of the (in practice, though I accept, not in intent) divisive Marian dogmas being made compulsory is much more due to my feeling that there should be no unnecessary obstacles placed to ‘brothers dwelling in harmony' than it is to any disagreement with the doctrines themselves. However it is on the intellectual level that these feelings could be overruled.

quote:
I think it could be worthwhile looking at some of the great religious figures as well. That might give you a better idea of the "flavour" of both denominations. Curiously, I've not heard you talk of any.

No, I haven't. It may surprise you, but they aren't relevant to my thinking. It would be a problem if Catholicism never produced great Christians, of course, but I hope we are all agreed that this is not the case. The minimal test of true religion - it might change your life - is abundantly satisfied by Catholicism. It is also satisfied by Orthodoxy and Protesantism.

Do great Catholic minds inspire me? Of course they do. But what I recognise in them is a shared faith in Jesus. They are expressing, clearly and inspirationally, truths which, when I hear them, I recognise as already being part of my faith. They are better than me at doing the same sort of thing, but not (as far as I know) in possession of secrets that as a Protestant I could never be privy to. When I think "I want what he/she has got!", what it is that I want, I perceive as more and better Christianity, not a closer identification with a particular denomination.

I am, to employ IngoB's metaphor, rather like an indifferently skilled practictioner of Karate seeing a demonstration by a master of Tae Kwon Do. I can't miss the fact that he is much better than me, and that his martial arts tradition differs in many ways from mine, but the most obvious thing that I will see is that what he does well is essentially the same sort of thing as what I do poorly. He employs the same principles of balance, ease of movement, controlled breathing, alertness, speed and strength as I do, and many of the specifics, the blocks and strikes actually employed, are similar or identical to those that I use, it's just that he's good at them and I'm not. If I am taking a skill-oriented approach to my art, rather than a traditionalist one, nothing stops me from learning from a master outside my tradition. If I see from him how to do something I have struggled with, or pick up some theory that helps me to better grasp something I had previously done without full understanding, I'll be delighted. But it won't make me convert to Tae Kwon Do. Of course, if all Tae Kwon Do teachers were blindingly good experts, and all Karate teachers were blunderers, I might conclude that I was learning the wrong style, and that Tae Kwon Do was the superior way of studying what the two arts have in common. That's not the case, though. Both styles have masters that I can learn from. Only if you insist on the very strictest tradition-based paradigm in which a Karate student would be positively discouraged from learning anything at all from the practitioners of other arts*, all of which must be disparaged as inferior, do the masters of other arts present a challenge in principle to the study of Karate.

What you need to convert me from one denomination to another is not a wealth of Christians who demonstrate by their lives and teaching how wonderful it can be to know Jesus. Those Christians will inspire me whatever denomination they or I are in, because knowing Jesus is something we all have in common. As a Protestant, nothing stops me from admiring Catholic saints, learning from them, and even asking for their prayers. Their example is as accessible to me as a Protestant as it would be if I became a Catholic, just as Protestant or Orthodox heroes of faith are accessible to Catholics. Holiness is part of the common legacy of the Christian faith, and even if we do not all manage to attain it, we can all rejoice in it.

quote:
I am not sure how far you will get with your "critically testing" approach because, the way you phrase it, it seems that you are submitting what you consider are the RCC's central claims, which may, or may not actually be central, to your individual intellectual "tests". Whether any individual's intellectual "tests", without Grace, are sufficient I very much doubt. I think intellect will take you to a certain point and then you might just have to trust.

With the qualifier that I don't accept that any individual's intellectual tests are without grace, I agree. That's the weakness. If I do not trust unconditionally in someone who knows better than me, my beliefs are always going to be constrained by my own understanding.

But for Catholicism to be the solution, the claim for infallibility has to be factually true. Otherwise I'm merely swapping the likelihood of uncertainty for the certainty of delusion. There is no advantage to believing the Pope to be infallible unless he actually is, which means that it is necessary to persuade me of his infallibility. I need to be persuaded. I can't (not ‘won't', can't) accept it unless I am persuaded that it is true.

The attractive atmosphere of Catholicism and the sanctity of great Catholic figures doesn't really touch that point. I know where that comes from - that's the grace of God working through men and women of faith. I can want that, and I can see that your Church has it, and not be a step closer to seeing that the specific claims of Catholic authority are true, because other traditions have it as well.

(* as the name of Cardinal Newman has been invoked on this thread, it seems to me that this was more or less his attitude. At one point in his Apologia he makes the explicit (and, to me, astonishing) statement that he did not attend Catholic worship at all at a point in his life when he was seriously challenged by the necessity of conversion in order to be true to his principles. He suggests that he thought it would be wrong to practice two forms of religion at once. That's a different world to mine.

Also, I don't think (and here I'm open to correction by the more knowledgeable) that Newman's conversion was provoked by a serious re-examination of the claims of the Catholic Church, as was suggested above. My reading of him is that the validity of the Catholic Church was never really in issue for him - what became untenable was the view that the Anglican Church was a branch of it. The realisation that Anglican theology and practice was not really consistent with its self-identity as the expression of Catholic Christianity in England (and its past and present dominions) meant that he couldn't remain Anglican, though he clearly wanted to do so and think of himself as ‘catholic'. Newman doesn't really help me on the question of accepting Catholic authority - I'm not sure that that was the thing he struggled with.)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
What irks me most about your post is the assumption that I would have to rely on US-based or First World sources for what is common knowledge where I live. I worked in the Congo for two years, I researched many aspects of the recent history quite carefully.

I see no particular reason why I should trust you as a source more than previous sources I have consistently heard claim otherwise over the years. You may be highly trustworthy to yourself, but to me you are just some anonymous voice on the internet. I have no way of checking that you even have been anywhere near Congo, what research you may have done there and how good / qualified you are as information gatherer. On the information that I do have, my best guess is that you are either mistaken or lying. If you really want to convince me otherwise, then you will have to do better than to point to your personal authority.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think you'd find The Potting Shed extremely moving, Cara.

http://archive.org/details/pottingshedaplay011152mbp

The 1981 Granada production, starring Paul Scofield, was excellent. I still remember it. Sadly, I have not been able to obtain a copy.

......

My opinion is that we often don't "lose" faith but think we have.

I think most of us who were lucky enough to come across at least one genuine exemplar of Christianity, who deeply cared for us and where we were going, keep this somewhere deep within. It seems to return at the most amazing times and turns everything upside down.
..........

For many of us it takes a lifetime to find we have always had something within us all these years.

I think, in these times, many of us need to find our own God given spiritual compass within ourselves.
.........

Thanks for the link, Sir P.

What you say here reminds me of that well-known quote--Blaise Pascal???--where God is imagined to say something like,
"You would not be searching for me if you had not already found me."

Cara

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I want is not “there are good reasons for thinking that the Catholic Church is right about this” but “there are compelling reasons, reasons strong enough to bet your spiritual life on, that the Catholic Church is right”. Not right about this or that controversy, but always right, inevitably right, guaranteed-by-God-never-to-be-wrong right. It's that claim that I want to test.

The claim you want to test there is a caricature, as I'm sure you are aware. I certainly do not agree with this claim, and know of no Catholic that does.

A more interesting point here is the issue of betting your spiritual life on the rightness of the RCC. I'm not sure what precisely you mean there. In what way would you be doing that?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The claim you want to test there is a caricature, as I'm sure you are aware. I certainly do not agree with this claim, and know of no Catholic that does.

Really, it wasn't meant to be.

If it helps to add an implicit “on the conditions and within the limits that the RCC claims to be infallible”, then please read it in that way. That was my intention.

If the RCC does not claim, on those conditions and within those limits, to be guaranteed to teach only the truth, then I have seriously misunderstood the position. I know, though, that not everything a Catholic bishop ever says has that same guarantee – and I didn't mean to suggest that you think that.

quote:
A more interesting point here is the issue of betting your spiritual life on the rightness of the RCC. I'm not sure what precisely you mean there.

Going “all in”.

Not necessarily that being a Catholic, or not, is an eternal salvation issue. I don't think that I'd be damned if I converted and the RCC isn't exactly what it claims. But I would be “all in” as far as this present life is concerned. I'd be saying that, in the time given to me here and now, the Catholic Church is the way in which I will seek God and find out what he requires of me. And if it turned out that the Catholic Church's claims to be right were flawed, I'd be committing myself to a colossal and costly error.

Obeying the Pope on contraception, as I've said, would be costly. I am fairly certain that my wife's reaction to the suggestion would run something like “What the fuck gives you the right to make our sex life conditional on me taking a stupid, pointless, completely avoidable, risk with my own body, you utterly selfish bastard?”. Though she might not express it quite so politely as that. And, frankly, I would see her point. Our marriage (unlike, I'm sure, the marriages of the Catholics posting here) was not contracted on that understanding, and an attempt, however sensitively advanced, to change that would be resented.

As I see my marriage, and my family generally, as an important part of my Christian vocation, I would be staking a significant part of my spiritual life on the Catholic teaching being right on that issue alone. And to do that, I think it is reasonable and moral to be as certain as I can possibly be that the Catholic claims are factually true.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Interesting, Eliab, going back and scanning this thread from your first post.

It seems like you were issuing a challenge to someone to take all your objections to the RCC seriously; for him or her to refute them point by point and thus, possibly, just possibly, convert you to the aforesaid Church's position. Your being both the prosecuting counsel and sole judge without jury.

I think the simple Zen style question would be "Why?" or "Whatever for?"

The dice does seem loaded. Your reasons for playing the game seem as much psychological, and, dare I say it, possibly subconscious as religious.

I don't think I, personally, could, or would want to "convert" you to what you seem to see, primarily, as an authoritarian system, with, almost incidentally, a set of beliefs which you cannot bring yourself to fully subscribe to. One of the matters you bring up constantly is contraception, which, as others have attempted to point out, here and elsewhere, is not a key doctrinal issue.

This thread reminds me very much of Evelyn Waugh. It's almost like a discussion, as the Bolly flows, at someone's set of rooms in the New Building at Magdalen in the 1930s as the deer graze outside. Perhaps, as often is the case with Waugh, it will, years later, seem crucial to the instigator. A turning point.

I find myself an observer to your thoughts seemingly unable to assist. Admitting this personal, relatively minor Waterloo, I wish you well. I think any real answer you may get lies in yourself and is possibly many years ahead.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If God wants you to be a Roman, then I think your heart will be persuaded.
If God wanted you to be a Roman, He'd have seen to it that you were born in Rome to Italian parents.
I am obliged to you, RuthW, for your entirely undeserved kindness.

Sorry, I missed this earlier. Not undeserved at all, and you're welcome.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

What I find hard accepting is the attitude of a friend of mine who recently became an RC. When I asked his reasons they basically boiled down to, "I'm living in Paris and would like to worship with the locals rather than the ex-pats". ... "I still don't accept any of that stuff - I guess I'm always going to be a critical member of the church". Given all of that I still have problems understanding why he wanted to convert - and why the RCC accepted him !

This seems to fall in the "Paris is worth a mass." category. [Smile]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

People do convert for interesting reasons. A Roman Catholic missionary in New Guinea met a nice Welsh nurse there; converted; married; became an Anglican cleric and was, briefly, the bishop of an Australian country town. An Anglican cleric I respect, who knew him up there, seemed to think that wanting to marry was sufficient theological reason to change. In the light of his recent, short, abortive stint as an Anglican bishop I am not sure. I think you need to have a pretty deep reason to change.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
One of the matters you bring up constantly is contraception, which, as others have attempted to point out, here and elsewhere, is not a key doctrinal issue.

It may not be a ket doctrinal issue, but it's still an issue on which the church demands obedience. Which, for all practical purposes, amounts to the same thing.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
One of the matters you bring up constantly is contraception, which, as others have attempted to point out, here and elsewhere, is not a key doctrinal issue.
It may not be a ket doctrinal issue, but it's still an issue on which the church demands obedience. Which, for all practical purposes, amounts to the same thing.

Exactly. What to do with that demand for obedience?

What many --most??? --Catholics do about it is, I think (I can't be sure how it works, contraceptive-using Catholics may correct me if I am wrong) to say: "I have to follow my own conscience on this, rather than the command of the Church; and as it's not a key doctrinal issue, I can still consider myself a good Catholic."

If it works for them, that is great. But then what if on top of contraception, they also have problems with, just for example, the infallibility of the Pope, or the doctrine of transubstantiation, or the obligation to go to church every Sunday? I think there are Catholics who do have more than one problem with the doctrines and rules, but still stay in the Church. I admire them in a way--I know that the reason I can't do that myself is perhaps because I've always had almost too much respect for rules and authority to feel comfortable joining the club while not respecting the rules.

Perhaps they love the Catholic Church so much that they prefer to stay inside it and deal with the discomfort of continually not living according to its demands. Or perhaps to them it's not discomfort.

At any rate, for myself, I prefer a church that has a more fluid approach with fewer rules and requirements, so I don't have to always feel I am falling short. So I'm in the Episcopal Church or, as I'm no longer in the USA, the Anglican Communion.

Obviously, I'm already always falling short of the Christian ideal! I don't love the Catholic church enough--while respecting it and being grateful for my upbringing in it--to stay in it if I'm also going to be falling continually short of the Catholic standards.

But ah, the guilt....at some moments and on some level I still have to fight the guilty feeling that this choice of an "easier" church with fewer demands and requirements is really a sign of deplorable weakness...compounded by the fact that at the moment I'm not even a good member of my chosen church!

However, for me, there's less guilt involved in being a feeble Anglican Christian than there would be in calling myself a Catholic one while breaking rules, disobeying commands, and disbelieving many doctrinal points.

In the end, surely what unites the denominations is far more important than what divides them.

In the Anglican communion I've felt freer to focus on the essence of Christianity we all share. With the Catholics, I'd be too distracted and troubled by the rules-and-doctrine side of it. Your mileage may vary.

Cara

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If it helps to add an implicit “on the conditions and within the limits that the RCC claims to be infallible”, then please read it in that way. That was my intention.

That sure helps, given that even on the most generous interpretation there would be no more than a few hundred doctrinal statements that can claim "infallible" status in the RCC. At the opposite end of interpretation, one might then find less than a dozen. Furthermore, you are likely to either agree with or not particularly care about most of them. Finally, ignorance is bliss, as they say. Since it is near impossible for you in practice to work out the precise boundaries between what you must believe and what you should believe and what you could believe, even as a convert you will be fairly protected against being culpable of perjury on Catholic doctrine. I used to get quite annoyed by the lack of official nailing down of the status of all manner of doctrine. Now I realize that this also avoids nailing a lot of people to their cross. It is one thing to be precise about faith, it is another thing to be precise about people. Consider doctrines more as signs pointing the way. Sure, some are huge and have blinking neon lights and should not be ignored if you are standing right in front of them. But not all are, and if we cannot tell at a great distance how important some signs are intended to be, then perhaps that's something we can worry about when we get closer.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Obeying the Pope on contraception, as I've said, would be costly. I am fairly certain that my wife's reaction to the suggestion would run something like “What the fuck gives you the right to make our sex life conditional on me taking a stupid, pointless, completely avoidable, risk with my own body, you utterly selfish bastard?”. Though she might not express it quite so politely as that. And, frankly, I would see her point. Our marriage (unlike, I'm sure, the marriages of the Catholics posting here) was not contracted on that understanding, and an attempt, however sensitively advanced, to change that would be resented.

Scratch the principle objection, uncover a practical issue.

OK then, some practical comments on that issue. My wife and I started modern Natural Family Planning (NFP, the Billings method in our case) when I was a Buddhist and she was a very much non-practising Catholic. NFP had not the slightest to do with religion for us. Rather, she did not respond well to taking the pill, experiencing side effects, and I didn't particularly like sex with a condom. A decade or so later, I can truly say that it has been working spectacularly well. And yes, there are plenty of scientific studies that confirm my anecdotal evidence with data. NFP costs nothing, and it requires barely more effort for the woman than the pill (at least so for the Billings method: basically a second of in(tro)spection and a mark in the calendar per day). If you are using condoms or other barrier methods, then NFP will provide basically the same protection against accidental pregnancy at no cost. If you are using the pill, then it will be less secure. But your wife will not have to dump artificial hormones into her body any more, something that she may dislike on principle and that may be connected to health risks. The one big price to pay for switching to NFP is simply the natural rhythm itself. Roughly, two weeks of sex being possible will be followed by two weeks of sex not being possible. Now, I don't know anything about your relationship, and I don't really want to know either. But I don't mind telling you that in our relationship, it is mostly me who feels that this is a considerable price to pay. My wife seems to survive two weeks of no sex without quite as much difficulty. So, the upshot of NFP for us is: perfectly reasonable family planning at no financial cost, with no potential side effects, and with the main "difficulties" experienced by the person who - nowadays - has a religious motivation for using this.

To what extent all this would be true for your wife and you I cannot tell. However, I think NFP is something that every couple should seriously consider as an option, irrespective of their religious outlook. For many, it will be a perfectly viable and perhaps even the best option, on purely "secular" considerations. In your case then, you may have potential "ulterior motives" for using NFP, but I don't see why this should stop you from suggesting it as something to try. And if you do, and if it works for you, then hey - suddenly that particular problem concerning Catholicism just went away.

OK, what if this is not something your wife is willing to do? Assuming that you want to keep your marriage intact, as I hope you would, could you nevertheless convert? I think you could. However, please note that I'm not trained as Catholic pastor and have no serious background in applied "moral theology". I do not claim any authority on the following, I'm strictly speaking my mind only, and am happy to receive correction by those who know better. Please do consult with a Catholic priest if this ever gets "real".

Anyway, my opinion then: Roughly speaking, if it is your honest intention to bring your wife to the Catholic faith and make your marriage a properly Catholic one - in the (potentially very) long run - then some accommodation along the way should be licit. If the current behaviour of your wife forces you to either bend Catholic rules on contraception or destroy your marriage, then I think you can bend the rules. Why? Because unlike for abortion these rules arise because contraception contradicts the true spirit of marriage. However, destroying your marriage surely contradicts that same spirit even more so! Hence for example if she continues to take the pill but (rightfully!) expects that sex remains part of your marriage, then I think you can have sex with her in spite of the contraception. However, I feel it would then be appropriate that you would not participate in the Eucharist (while still going to mass, of course). That would be the appropriate sign that you consider your own situation to be falling short of what is required of you as Catholic, and that you are seriously intending to fix this if you can (rather than becoming comfortable with the situation as it is).

We all must serve God best we can. If you believe that this includes becoming Catholic, and I agree with that, then this should not destroy all the other good ways in which you already serve God, but rather strengthen them. In particular, it should not destroy your marriage, but strengthen it. And if there is a big difference between what should be and what is in that particular case, then I think that simply is something God wants you to work on. As a Catholic. In becoming Catholic, you are being asked about your beliefs, not about your abilities, about your intentions, not about your situation. That you will become a sinful Catholic should not stop you from becoming a Catholic. Otherwise nobody could become Catholic. That your sins as Catholic would likely be more persistent than that of others should be an occasion for penance and petition, not despair. Obviously, it would be much nicer to convert in happier circumstances. But nobody has ever said that truth comes for free. Certainly not that guy whom they nailed to a cross...

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

This is clearly put, Ingo, and surely a help to Eliab and any other searchers thinking about this issue.

And as far as I'm concerned, you're a better guide/advisor on this issue than any priest Eliab would consult, because you at least have the experience of marriage and, particularly, you have the personal experience of how NFP works, two weeks "off" and all.
I think it was generous to talk about this experience and what it actually means in the life of a Catholic couple.

It may not sound workable to Eliab, (as it wouldn't be for me, for a variety of reasons), but at least you've shown a glimpse into the effects of following the Church's teaching on this matter.

Also, you've shown that, given his marital situation, continued use of contraception, at least in the beginning, should not in your view prevent his becoming a Catholic. (I do understand why you say he has to check with a priest on this point). Which shows the Church may be a bit more flexible than some expect.

Though of course he would be a "sinful Catholic"--like everyone, but in his case the contraception would be part of his sinfulness, and if it continued, he would be persisting in sin, "an occasion for penitence and petition." I've said enough earlier to make it clear why this would be an untenable position for me, but I do appreciate the clarity with which you've expressed it all.

I particularly like your emphasis on the fact that becoming a Catholic should strengthen his marriage, not damage it.

Cara

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
This is clearly put, Ingo, and surely a help to Eliab and any other searchers thinking about this issue...

I think the degree to which one is obliged to follow official Roman Catholic doctrine depends to a large extent on the circumstances under which one is converting. Thus, if one is a long-standing member of another denomination, and one is converting essentially for theological reasons, then might be expected to show a higher degree of conformance and submission than if one were converting because one is married to a Roman Catholic, in which latter case a willingness to engage and go along with and show respect to Roman practice and doctrine would, I would suggest, be sufficient.

To take another example, if one were to be a long-term resident of an exclusively or near-exclusively Roman Catholic country, then one might indeed (depending on the local bishops' policy) feel obliged to 'convert', in order to partake of the eucharist, but then if the 'convert' returned to Britain, then he might revert to attending an Anglican church without too much damage to the prospects for his immortal soul.

It all depends on circumstance, and I think the basic Christian principles involved override any narrow doctrinal issues such as have been brought up on this thread.

(The other thing to bear in mind, of course, is that, like most religious organizations, the RCC has a conservative wing and a liberal wing, and if one is joining it, one is joining the RCC as a whole, and the fact that the conservative wing is currently in 'power' doesn't mean that their conservative interpretations are valid for all Roman Catholics for all time. The RCC is just as much the church of Hans Kung as it is the church of Joseph Ratzinger.)

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
The RCC is just as much the church of Hans Kung as it is the church of Joseph Ratzinger.

I'll be very interested to hear what Catholics think of this statement, since it seems to me like it just couldn't be true, seeing as the pope may speak ex cathedra while Hans Kung is no longer allowed to teach Catholic theology.

I would also be interested in responses to the Diocese of Arlington requiring catechists to sign a Profession of Faith. The Washington Post article has in its sidebar the bishop's letter and the document to be signed as well as one lay catechist's letter asking the bishop to reconsider. There is also a link in the article to a profession of faith from a diocese in Oregon which requires lay catechists to take the same oath required of converts (see p. 156 of that document if you click on the link).

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

I disagree with Holy Smoke. One must not turn pastoral accommodation for an individual case of hardship into laissez faire for all. If the principle is to be "one rule for all or nothing", then that necessarily makes a Catholic rule tight and unyielding, not vague and soft. The point of pastoral accommodation is to allow more people to become better Catholics, not to dissolve Catholicism into the arbitrariness of individual opinion. Furthermore, Holy Smoke's suggestion that one can simply flip-flop between the RCC and other denominations, without significant danger to one's immortal soul, is in my eyes nothing short of criminal. I sincerely hope nobody listens to that advice, not least because Holy Smoke probably doesn't need too many millstones tied around his neck.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'll be very interested to hear what Catholics think of this statement, since it seems to me like it just couldn't be true, seeing as the pope may speak ex cathedra while Hans Kung is no longer allowed to teach Catholic theology.

It is correct that the pendulum has been swinging to the conservative side in the RCC. It is incorrect to say that Hans Küng represents a liberal side to which the pendulum may swing. His opinions on a good many issues are simply heretic, and we can be confident that they will never become official in the RCC. Whether the RCC is "as much" the Church of Küng as of the pope depends on what one means by that. Since Küng is not excommunicated (I believe), in a sense that is true. In another sense it is also true that the Church is always most of the pope, till Christ returns. But I think the best sense is to say that Küng is not willing to belong as much to the Church as the pope does, at least so for the present pope. Nobody owns the Church but Christ alone.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I would also be interested in responses to the Diocese of Arlington requiring catechists to sign a Profession of Faith. The Washington Post article has in its sidebar the bishop's letter and the document to be signed as well as one lay catechist's letter asking the bishop to reconsider.

The Arlington oath contains the Niceno–Constantinopolitan creed, two standard requirement of complete assent to de fide doctrines, and a standard requirement of "religious submission" to the other doctrines of the Church. (The last item does not necessarily imply complete assent, hence it is listed separately. It means that due to faith one always should start with the assumption that doctrines the Church proposes are true, and that one should wish sincerely to find them true. One may end thinking that they are not true, but coming to this conclusion should be hard, and remaining in it painful.) All of these are requirements of faith to all Catholics, and I seen no problem whatsoever in holding those who catechise future Catholics to these requirements by oath.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There is also a link in the article to a profession of faith from a diocese in Oregon which requires lay catechists to take the same oath required of converts (see p. 156 of that document if you click on the link).

It seems rather reasonable that at least the same standard of faith should be asked of those who teach the faith as of those who learn it from them. Nevertheless, there is lack of precise language in this profession of faith concerning the required assent, unlike in the Arlington case. Furthermore, it is a bit annoying to see a kind of shopping list of faith items, presumably those the bishop judges to be most contentious. If the catechists are not aware that these are items of the faith they are supposed to uphold and teach, then why have they been selected as catechists? This makes the oath seem like a stop-gap measure for deeper problems. Finally, four faith items on sex-related issues before we get to the real presence of Christ. Really? Perhaps the good bishop could at least pretend that the real presence of Christ is more important than a condom to Catholicism, and re-order his shopping list...

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

It still amazes me that some people see artificial contraception as a major issue to joining or not joining the Catholic Church.

I guess this is an age of single "issues" being raised and debated. Sometimes to the exclusion of much more relevant stuff.

It is extremely sad, that, certainly in the Anglophone world, it seems to have been accepted that traditional Christianity has regarded sex as "sinful". This would seem, to me, a horrible distortion. Perhaps it was the monastic emphasis in Western Christianity in medieval times which did it. Perhaps St Paul and St Augustine have been overemphasised at the expense of other Church Fathers.

The Catholic emphasis that sex exists basically to have children seems to me to need balancing by the Orthodox belief that marriage is primarily a matter of ascesis: learning to live together through unselfishness. The Orthodox have as many reservations about artificial contraception but treat it primarily as a matter between individuals and their confessor.

Contraception is merely one part of Catholic teaching on sexuality and bioethics. Most of these teachings seem unacceptable to many outside the Church.

I suspect, having explained its position clearly and displaying considerable tolerance for individuals, the Church can't do much more.

Whether individuals outside it are happy or not would not be its primary consideration. Its primary consideration is really with bringing the Kingdom of God to people by really transforming their lives.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
It still amazes me that some people see artificial contraception as a major issue to joining or not joining the Catholic Church.

I guess this is an age of single "issues" being raised and debated. Sometimes to the exclusion of much more relevant stuff.

It is extremely sad, that, certainly in the Anglophone world, it seems to have been accepted that traditional Christianity has regarded sex as "sinful". This would seem, to me, a horrible distortion. Perhaps it was the monastic emphasis in Western Christianity in medieval times which did it. Perhaps St Paul and St Augustine have been overemphasised at the expense of other Church Fathers.

The Catholic emphasis that sex exists basically to have children seems to me to need balancing by the Orthodox belief that marriage is primarily a matter of ascesis: learning to live together through unselfishness. The Orthodox have as many reservations about artificial contraception but treat it primarily as a matter between individuals and their confessor.

Contraception is merely one part of Catholic teaching on sexuality and bioethics. Most of these teachings seem unacceptable to many outside the Church.

Yes, it's a shame about this distorted idea that traditional Christianity regards sex as sinful. Actually I respect the Catholic viewpoint (as I understand it), which is, on the contrary, that married sex is a beautiful thing, a gift of God, and therefore a thing that should not be tampered with. It should be enjoyed naturally and openly without interference with the body's functioning, and if children result, then that is God's will. And if you really want to avoid having another child at some point, stick to NFP, including the two weeks of abstinence....

A beautiful approach in an ideal world, very difficult in practice, and I feel the enforced abstinence and the fears and stresses around risk of pregancy etc render the dynamics of the marriage very unnatural and can damage the relationship...but of course it does work for some couples, perhaps many more than I realise.

I don't understand why you're surprised it is a major issue for people thinking about joining or not joining the Catholic Church, Sir P , because trying to be a good Catholic in this regard affects a marriage on its most intimate level....

But of course there are other important issues, including theological and doctrinal ones, as well. The Pope, Mary and the saints, transubstantiation, closed communion etc etc.....

Re wider sexuality and bioethical positions of the Catholic church, I respect the consistency of the view that the taking of a life in capital punishment is wrong, just as it is in abortion. A consistency I felt was often lacking in conservative "pro-life" Christian groups in the USA.

Eliab, I hope this contraception discussion hasn't been too much of a tangent vis-a-vis your question about the authority of the Catholic Church. Of course you yourself mentioned contraception as one of the difficulties in Catholicism for you, and as I've said, I can relate to that. Other people don't see it as a problem to practise contraception and be Catholic.

Your comments about John Henry Newman's conversion were interesting and made me want to read the Apologia again--pity I don't have my copy here but I think it's available online. On reflection I think you may be right that his problem wasn't about the authority of the Catholic church, but about whether the Anglican church was legitimate or not, a part of the true church that came down from the Apostles. (I think this was Hopkins's issue as well). Seem to recall JHN's suddenly realising, on reading about groups within fourth century Christianity, that Anglicanism was like a breakaway heresy, and Catholicism was like the core, true church of that time.... I am very interested in the Catholic revival around and after the time of the Oxford movement, and in what drove people to convert, despite the social and often familial suffering that could ensue.

Interesting to compare the appeal of the Catholic church then and now.....are the things that drew people Rome-ward the same now as they were then?

Cara

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Arlington oath contains the Niceno–Constantinopolitan creed, two standard requirement of complete assent to de fide doctrines, and a standard requirement of "religious submission" to the other doctrines of the Church. (The last item does not necessarily imply complete assent, hence it is listed separately. It means that due to faith one always should start with the assumption that doctrines the Church proposes are true, and that one should wish sincerely to find them true. One may end thinking that they are not true, but coming to this conclusion should be hard, and remaining in it painful.) All of these are requirements of faith to all Catholics

How does this - which reads to me like a demand for absolute submission to all doctrines of the church - square with what you said earlier:

quote:
I know no Roman Catholic who "trusts absolutely" every word spoken by the RC hierarchy and is in "absolute submission" to anything but (hopefully) the bare essentials of faith.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
It still amazes me that some people see artificial contraception as a major issue to joining or not joining the Catholic Church.

I see it as a massive question on whether I can take the morality of the Catholic Church seriously.

If contraception is wrong then so is my entire system of moral reasoning; literally every moral line of logic I have ends up with contraception being a particularly good form of public health and a good thing in almost every possible way.

Which means if I am right then the Roman Catholic Church is preaching that we should clearly and obviously turn our backs on doing good and destroy good works just because it says so.

If the Roman Catholic Church is right then I have neither moral intuition nor moral reasoning. Good and evil are simple arbitrary categories decided by Authority and then given post-facto justifications.

Because to me, and to so many others (including most Catholics I know although not all) the Roman Catholic Church is clearly wrong on contraception and often compounds this with mendacity on the the subject (trying to confuse contraception with abortion) it's extremely important. Either I can accept the Roman Catholic Church's case about contraception, in which case I need to reject my entire moral reasoning, or I can reject that case in which case we have a supposedly moral institution that has absolutely no problems preaching that the destruction of good and the encouragement of harm is a fundamentally good act.

And I can't see an organisation that will preach that in the face of so much evidence and logic to be a good or even adequate one. If it is on my side from time to time (or I'm on its - either way I have no problem with most of the Social Justice agenda) it's still an organisation that has no problems throwing its entire weight behind an attempt to make the world a worse place.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How does this - which reads to me like a demand for absolute submission to all doctrines of the church - square with what you said earlier:

quote:
I know no Roman Catholic who "trusts absolutely" every word spoken by the RC hierarchy and is in "absolute submission" to anything but (hopefully) the bare essentials of faith.
?

Straightforwardly. Firstly, the hierarchy says truckloads of things, much of which is not in the realm of "doctrinal definition or exposition" at all. One does not have to trust and submit to all that, certainly not absolutely. This is particularly true where the proper sphere of the laity is concerned, i.e., how to live a Catholic life in the political, social and economical sense. To take a recent contentious example, the US bishops certainly deserve an attentive and respectful hearing from Catholics when they talk about the question whether contraception should be included in health care policies by law. But I do not see their opinion concerning this as binding on Catholics. It is one thing to say that the moral life of a Catholic does not allow the use of contraception, it is quite another to say that therefore a Catholic must resist such a law. A distinction that by the way is confirmed practically by the many countries, including for example Germany, where such health care policies have been around for many decades and are not at all on the agenda of the local Catholic bishops. Something that is essential to the Catholic faith cannot vary in such a manner across countries.

Secondly, even where the hierarchy is engaged in defining or expounding doctrine, there is a clear binary distinction concerning the level at which a faithful Catholic must receive such teachings. This is obvious in the Arlington document and was explicitly repeated in what I said. So I'm rather confused why you are confused. There are those items of faith which are sine qua non, these must be believed. Full stop. Otherwise you are a heretic, like for example Küng. You will not necessarily get excommunicated, perhaps because the Church is merciful, perhaps because she is slothful. But your opinion is then strictly not Catholic. However, the number of such items of faith is rather limited. Some people would say that there are about a dozen, some people would say that there are a few hundred, but at any rate those that people tend to care about certainly won't number more than a dozen.

All the rest of the faith, as it is being proposed to the faithful, requires their sincere favour rather than their absolute trust and submission. Basically, if you wave aside anything that the Church proposes at the doctrinal level with a mere "oh well, I don't believe in that", then that is not Catholic. And it will never become Catholic, even if you claim that you have thought long and hard before arriving at this stance. Rather, you must always feel a tension when going against the Church's teaching, a pull back to what she says. Thinking long and hard about an issue may allow you to suffer that tension and resist that pull, for the time being, but it cannot ever allow you to shake it off. (Unless of course the Church comes to agree with you. That happens occasionally...)

So in summary: submit to the essentials of faith, grant favour to all teachings the Church officially proposes and respectfully listen to what your (local) hierarchy says about their application in the world. That's Catholic. It's not the same as simply obeying every word that drips from every bishop's mouth. Bishops can talk a lot of bull, and do a lot of nonsense, like all human beings. Bishops also can say or do evil, and by virtue of the position of power do a lot of damage to individuals and the Church. The Holy Spirit is only guaranteed to aid them when they are about to create another Catholic sine qua non. And that really is only a tiny fraction of what is going on in the Church.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Since you are I believe a lawyer, I would like to mention that in my opinion your profession is sufficient proof for the impossibility of Protestantism. A text, no matter how carefully worded, never suffices as decisive authority given the potential ingenuity of human interpretation, and the countless motivations to push all possible envelopes in all possible directions. And scripture is not carefully worded at all. Without law makers, and without judges / juries, the legal system would collapse into indecision and/or arbitrariness by unending disagreement. That is precisely what one sees in Protestantism, it is strictly unavoidable, and I cannot possibly believe that it is God's will. So one argument I have for the Catholic hierarchy - as far as you are concerned - is simply an appeal to your professional experience.

That's really an argument against the "You have the Pope, we've got the Bible" strand of Protestantism. Which, I concede, is not a negligible tradition, but it isn't exactly where I am. I think I probably agree that if you absolutely have to have an infallible final authority, it helps to have one which can at least attempt to answer direct questions, correct misunderstandings as they arise, and offer explanations.

I see the analogy to law, and I accept it as a good illustration, but reject it as an argument. The observation that texts, including legal texts, admit of multiple interpretations is uncontroversial, but it is not the case that before there has been a definite ruling, all interpretations are equally good.

In a real life example, in one of my rare forays into planning law, I was briefed to advance the (ridiculous) contention that a five-foot fence constructed on top of and around the roof of a single-storey extension, well within a statutory exception for structures "less than 2 metres above ground level". Of course I did argue that, vigorously, suggesting that ‘ground level' could, and in this case did, mean the level at which the particular structure was grounded, that is, on the roof. I supported that argument with principles and authorities, argued dictionary definitions and legislative intent, and made (I think) a very good case. But I still lost, because some contentions are beyond even my legal ingenuity to establish, and the proposition that ‘ground level' starts twelve feet up in the air proved to be one of them. And any competent lawyer could have told you that, even before the tribunal gave its ruling.

It is only in practical terms that you need a tribunal to say that specious crap like mine is wrong - because the whole point of having laws at all is so that we can require unwilling people to abide by it. My client didn't want to do what the planning statutes required, so he asked me to argue the (almost) unarguable to get him out of it. Religion isn't supposed to work like that. If I genuinely think that the Bible is God's final word, and am firmly resolved to obey its commands, I may need help in discerning the meaning, but I don't need a coercive judicial authority to shoot down whatever nonsense I invent to weasel out of obedience - as soon as I try that, I'm already being disobedient. I don't need a definitive opinion before I can start trying to obey rather than take advantage.

I can't deny, of course, that people have founded all sorts of self-serving nonsense on the text of scripture, but my point is that this is their fault. The human capacity for self-deception is vast, but it is also a defect for which we are morally responsible. God's plan (if it is his plan) to give us access to infallible guidance is not frustrated because we choose to screw it up by treating his word as we would an inconvenient statute.

Legal final authority, of course, is different from infallibility: It is not a meaningless statement that the Supreme Court got the law wrong. A Court requires only "functional infallibility", the same sort of "umpire's infallibility" that's needed against McEnroes of this world. That is a because, as a matter of public policy, it is better to have a system that finally decides disputes, even at the cost of getting some of them wrong, than not to have a system at all. It is not necessary to accept, or even pretend to accept, that a Court always gets it right.

Sometimes we need functional authority in religion. If we need a ruling on what's needed to make a priest, it is arguably better to have rules that everyone understands and accepts, than it is to keep on and on arguing without a decision in the hope of getting the very best rules that there could possibly be. There are some questions were having a decision made at all is worth taking the risk of making it wrongly.

That doesn't apply to matters of truth. Functional authority, umpire's authority doesn't tell do anything to tell me what is true. The umpire's call doesn't change by a millimetre where the ball actually fell - it only says I should play on as if the ball were in or out. A Judge's decision won't raise or lower the actual height of my client's fence by a millimetre - it only says that it is to be treated as if this particular planning law applies or not. The RCC's authority I understand is claimed as a matter of truth. God is not alleged to have said: "play on as if what this man says is true, and I'll forgive you if he gets this wrong, because someone has to make the call and he is to be obeyed". He is alleged to have said "What this man says, in these circumstances, is about as true as if I myself had said it. You can be confident that he isn't wrong, and he is to be believed and obeyed". I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that accepting only the RCC hierarchy's functional authority would make me a faithful Catholic. I would have be believe that they are (usually, and within certain limits, always) objectively right on matters of faith and morals.

To summarise all that: I agree that a legal text would be impotent without a binding final authority on what it means. I don't agree that a sacred text requires this. The law doesn't require anyone to agree with it, or to submit in their hearts to what the law-makers intention was, or to try to interpret its meaning without self-interest. Religion asks all of that. There is an obligation on Courts to decide the cases before them. It is sometimes OK for the faithful mind to say "I don't know" and leave questions unresolved.

quote:
It's a lot like marrying someone. While there certainly is plenty to think about, and prudence should play a role, this cannot be reasoned out completely. Marrying someone should appear as a great good, but our mind cannot give us ultimate assurances that it will be. At some point it must be a motion of our will that commits us to actually marry this person now. That decision should not be against the best of our reason, but will step beyond it.

Yes, and again I can see that as a good illustration, but not as a demonstration.

When I got married, I was promising a commitment which I knew went beyond anything that could be reasonably defended as prudent. I had, intellectually and emotionally, reached the conclusion that this was the woman I had rightly chosen as the one who could make me happy, and with whom I could build a life together, but I was promising to stay with her even if that turned out to be wrong, and we hurt each other badly, and got to the point where we had nothing but that mutual promise to give as a reason to keep going.

If you had asked me on my wedding day if I expected that to happen, I'd have said no. If you had asked me if it could happen, I'd have told you that it was a risk which I was willing to take. I would not have said that my intended was infallible. I would not have said that I trusted her always to be right. I didn't think that I was marrying a goddess. I was marrying a human being, one that I thought (and still think) was a fine example of a human being, but distinguished primarily from all other women by the fact that she was the one I loved and had chosen. No one has the right to say that I made the wrong choice.

The RCC is not, by its own claims, one potential marriage partner amongst many - it claims to be different in quality to all other churches, to be objectively and exclusively the only true spouse on the dating site. That claim needs more that "I have chosen you..." as a reason. Not least because, in the case Christians of other denominations, the RCC requires of us not only a marriage, but also a divorce.

quote:
That is simply a misrepresentation. I know no Roman Catholic who "trusts absolutely" every word spoken by the RC hierarchy and is in "absolute submission" to anything but (hopefully) the bare essentials of faith.

Then I'm not sure I understand. I know that the Pope's personal views aren't supposed to carry the same weight as ex cathedra declarations, but when he actually defines something as Catholic turth, isn't that supposed to be both final and true? That's what I mean by absolute submission - not treating every casual utterance as a oracle, but being fully prepared to surrender entirely one's own beliefs and convictions to the Church's authority, if the Church chooses to exercise that authority.

quote:
But I think you are simply on the wrong track if you believe that you can be 'tradition-based' about Jesus and 'skill-oriented' about church. There is no tradition to be had about Jesus other than through the church, i.e., other people that are following Jesus (and this is not as such a statement against Protestant mistakes about the authority of scripture, scripture also comes to Protestants through the agency of the Protestant church). If you go 'skill-oriented' on church, you will end up 'skill-oriented' about Christ.

I can see your point here. But the alternative, fully trusting the Church to be right even when it seems utterly wrong to me, is only sensible, only possible, once I'm persuaded that what the Church says must be true. "Tradition based" church is the way to follow Jesus only if church tradition is an infallible to what Jesus wants. If it is merely a good guide, the skill-oriented approach is actually more likely to get things right, not because it is free of mistakes, but because it doesn't start from a false premise and doesn't have an untrue bias already built in, AND, because it can still get guidance from tradition, and therefore none of the good things preserved by tradition are inaccessible to it. Of course if tradition is infallible, then tradition-based Christianity is better (nothing is missed), but if it is not infallible then it is worse. Potentially, catastrophically worse (serious mistakes are unchallengeable).

Is the argument that an infallible tradition would have been best, therefore we trust God to have done what is best, and therefore that the RCC is infallible?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So I'm rather confused why you are confused.

I imagine it's due to the fundamental differences in how we even approach the question, never mind the answer.

quote:
All the rest of the faith, as it is being proposed to the faithful, requires their sincere favour rather than their absolute trust and submission. Basically, if you wave aside anything that the Church proposes at the doctrinal level with a mere "oh well, I don't believe in that", then that is not Catholic. And it will never become Catholic, even if you claim that you have thought long and hard before arriving at this stance. Rather, you must always feel a tension when going against the Church's teaching, a pull back to what she says. Thinking long and hard about an issue may allow you to suffer that tension and resist that pull, for the time being, but it cannot ever allow you to shake it off. (Unless of course the Church comes to agree with you. That happens occasionally...)

You seem to me to be saying that, excepting the sine qua nons, it's OK to disagree with the church so long as you feel bad about doing so. But to me, if dissent on an issue is permitted then it should be welcomed and the issue should be left open to interpretation.

The halfway-house approach you describe seems to me to be a way of compelling obedience while maintaining a means of claiming to leave it to individual conscience.

quote:
So in summary: submit to the essentials of faith, grant favour to all teachings the Church officially proposes and respectfully listen to what your (local) hierarchy says about their application in the world. That's Catholic. It's not the same as simply obeying every word that drips from every bishop's mouth. Bishops can talk a lot of bull, and do a lot of nonsense, like all human beings.

Yes, bishops can talk a lot of bull. In my current church I'm free to say so in whatever terms I like, even while they're still in the pulpit saying it. In the RCC, apparently, I have to grant favour to them and listen respectfully even though it's all bull.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
It seems like you were issuing a challenge to someone to take all your objections to the RCC seriously; for him or her to refute them point by point and thus, possibly, just possibly, convert you to the aforesaid Church's position. Your being both the prosecuting counsel and sole judge without jury.

I think the simple Zen style question would be "Why?" or "Whatever for?"

The dice does seem loaded. Your reasons for playing the game seem as much psychological, and, dare I say it, possibly subconscious as religious.

I'm not sure I can add very much to speculation about motives, except to re-state that what I am taking seriously and wish to test are the Catholic claims, not the specifics of my objections. My objections obviously have importance to me, and only I can ultimately decide whether they do in fact present me with sufficient reason not to accept the Catholic claims, but what I want to examine is the case on the other side. My personal difficulties are the tools I use to poke at that, becuase they are the tools I know. But the purpose of poking at a wall with a screwdriver is to test the soundness of the wall, not the strength of the screwdriver. If I discover only that one of my tools is faulty, I'll have learned something of some minor value, but not what I was setting out to find.

quote:
One of the matters you bring up constantly is contraception, which, as others have attempted to point out, here and elsewhere, is not a key doctrinal issue.

But concerning ‘key doctrine', I'm already convinced. I could certainly be a Catholic on the basis of 'key doctrine'. And I could equally well be a Baptist. Key doctrine gives me no reason at all even to consider converting. It is Catholic-specific doctrine and practice that matters when making Catholic-specific claims.

And what I care about in particular are truth claims. If the Catholic Church is right about contraception, I don't care whether it is key doctrine or not. I want to know about it, and I want, consistently with my other moral duties, to obey it. If the Catholic Church is wrong about contraception, I want to know why that shouldn't lead me to doubt all the other equally well-established Catholic-specific teachings which it proposes with similar authority. Contraception (as I've said explicitly) is not a deal-breaker for me, and wasn't even before seeing IngoB's eminently practical, realistic and faithful suggestions on how it might be approached as a pastoral concern. But following it would be a sufficient burden that I would need to know that the teaching is actually true. I would willingly try to follow the teaching if I thought it true, but not if I thought (as I do) that it is false.

I can see some sort of distinction between accepting and believing here, and I agree with that to an extent. I don't have to be personally persuaded of the rightness of every specific command in order to accept the commander's general authority. But that only fully works as a matter of discipline, not of truth. In order to be persuaded on matters of truth, one's confidence in the commander's authority needs to be very high indeed. I'm not presently under Catholic discipline, and the only thing that could induce me to place myself under it is a conviction that the Catholic Church is really, objectively, factually right about all of the important stuff that I would have to adhere to. I don't need to be persuaded sufficiently about contraception to get there. I do need to be persuaded that there are compelling reasons to trust that the Catholic Church is a sufficiently solid guide to moral truth that it is reasonable for me to take on trust, against all of my moral intuition, that Catholic teaching on the ethics of contraception is at least very likely to be true.

But this isn't a contraception thread. There's a reason why the thread is titled "the authority of the Catholic Church" - that's what I want to know about.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You seem to me to be saying that, excepting the sine qua nons, it's OK to disagree with the church so long as you feel bad about doing so. But to me, if dissent on an issue is permitted then it should be welcomed and the issue should be left open to interpretation.

This is not an insult against your capacity to make up your own mind. This is what you are supposed to have made your mind up for. Just like when you have decided to marry a woman, she then deserves your absolute commitment concerning the essentials, e.g., fidelity. And she deserves your favour, even where it is not about essentials. If she tells you that she really wants this or that, then you listen to her, sincerely, and if you can give her what she wants, then you do. That's not saying that she can't be a right bitch sometimes. That's not saying that she is never wrong. That's not saying that you can never resist her demands. But it is saying that you have dedicated yourself to her, and that those promises you have made have practical consequences.

There is no acceptable place for "dissent" here. Not in the sense that it cannot happen or is never justified. But in the sense that it always is something painful, to be overcome sooner rather than later. Just like a severe quarrel in a marriage is not something one wants to perpetuate beyond what is truly necessary.

The Church is not a series of proposals, like a party platform. The Church is the body of Christ. She is how we genuinely can be with Christ, by partaking in her life.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The halfway-house approach you describe seems to me to be a way of compelling obedience while maintaining a means of claiming to leave it to individual conscience.

This is not about tricking you into obedience. If the Church could be what she should be, and if you could be what you should be, then the issue of obedience would not even arise. You would simply be one with the Church in doing what should be done. Unfortunately, it is not like that. And so one has to talk about disagreement and how it should be handled. But not from a "neutral" point of view, but from wishing that it could be as it should be.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, bishops can talk a lot of bull. In my current church I'm free to say so in whatever terms I like, even while they're still in the pulpit saying it. In the RCC, apparently, I have to grant favour to them and listen respectfully even though it's all bull.

That's correct. A bishop isn't just some party hack trying to get your vote. He is a living symbol of that which you love, Christ's church. If he is not particularly attractive and compelling in his own right, spiritually speaking of course, then that's regrettable. But he simply is more than himself. I don't know if the UK monarchy has any particular place in your heart, but if so, then that is vaguely similar. Of course, QEII is a lovely lady in her own right, by most accounts. But that's not why you stand up for her and bow to her and sing that God may save her.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Church is not a series of proposals, like a party platform. The Church is the body of Christ. She is how we genuinely can be with Christ, by partaking in her life.

The problem with this, though, is that a non-Catholic won't view solely the Catholic Church (I assume that's what you mean by 'The Church' in your comment I've quoted) as being the Body of Christ. If I changed churches I wouldn't consider there to have been a change in my status as a member of the Body of Christ.

Hope I've understood you correctly, IngoB, but this cuts to the heart of the issue, I think. The Catholic Church makes some kind of claim to be unique in its status with God, a claim that (ISTM) most other churches / denominations don't make.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Cara and Eliab, I apologise but I've had a bad cold for about three weeks and I am just beginning to get over it, so my powers of reasoning and explaining things are pretty limited.

My own return to the RCC having been fairly recent and after a long period, during which I married and had a family, all now adult, renders me unsuitable to say very much on the practical challenge contraception places to living a Catholic life.

It is a real problem and one both of you have raised openly and honestly.

It would seem to me to be difficult to embrace a religion, whose perceived ethos you could not fully support, especially if you have a partner who could not join fully into the spirit of things.

I'm certainly not trying to pull off a conversion or reversion because I think real convincement comes from within the person themselves. There seems also the matter of appropriate timing. I think people need to be fully convinced and arrive at the right time to do things.

To me discrete "problems" or "sins" are not really what approaching the Christian life are about. There used to be a sort of "Queen's Regulations" approach to Catholicism in this country in the 1960s which saw priests as the equivalent of Brigade of Guards RSMs enforcing strict adherence to same under threat of stern punishment. Fortunately, the Second Vatican Council tossed this approach out and took a more "What is this really about?" approach.

My feeling is that what it is really about is a process of complete transformation of self. This occurs at a very deep level and is often more easily seen in literature, in the work of those like Graham Greene or Dante, who saw behind the surface and mere repetition of simple actions or statements.

I doubt this approach has much to give you and feel a little sad but that is all I personally seem able to offer.

Justinian, from what you said previously, here and on other threads, you appear to view the whole RCC approach to sexuality as hopelessly flawed and the cause of many evils occurring both in the Church and the world. I don't feel called on to "defend" the organisation because I think your views are set in concrete. Nothing I could do would change them.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

Yes, Sir Pellinore (Ret'd), I am in full agreement with you. It's that process of hoped for transformation and the sacramental aspect of it that keeps us within the RCC. It is always the spiritual aspect of the RCC that I find most attractive boiled down to simple things such as prayer as a natural, unselfconscious activity.

Fortunately the top down approach, the excessive legalism and the fulminations of bishops as well as the scandals have little effect on the person in the pew though they can frustrate the parish priest. We might pray for the Pope at every Mass but most of us have no knowledge of him at all! And as for Papal Infallibility, nobody even thinks about it.

Catholic devotion is centred on Christ, not the Pope or the Church.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Hope I've understood you correctly, IngoB, but this cuts to the heart of the issue, I think. The Catholic Church makes some kind of claim to be unique in its status with God, a claim that (ISTM) most other churches / denominations don't make.

Although addressed to IngoB, I'd respond by saying that you have understood correctly.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

All I now, presently know is, that if an RC church were the only show in town, I would HAVE to attend, submit in all my invincible ignorance, confess that fully and accept the consequences.

After all, that's what I do in the charismatic, Evangelical Anglican church I attend, even though there was an Orthodox one 100 yards away.

I'm not at home even with my mother, let alone my grandmother.

To be honest, I have shared recently with my wife, who feels even less at home with Mother, that we would be MORE welcomed by our Grandmother I reckon. Invincibles and all ...

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Fuzzipeg, I think the number of occasions a Pope, any Pope, has pronounced infallibly are limited and are restricted as to when he is speaking as head of the whole Church on matters of faith and morals and binding all the faithful (over a billion of them).

Most of the time the Pope is the very busy head of an administrative setup. Many of the communiques coming out of the Vatican and definitely not infallible are from members of the Curia.

It would be a very hard and lonely job. Some Popes have been murdered in office. There was an attempt on the life of John Paul II. Much of the opposition to the papacy has been of a political nature viz. Communism.

I think the horrors of the abuse scandals (abuse in general, not just child sex abuse) and the rather stilted and bureaucratic response has shown the Church much that needs rectifying. Renewal and internal reform need to be continuous.

You are quite right, the Catholic Church needs to change lives in Christ. I don't think the present incumbent of the papacy would gainsay you there.

The RCC did accept and take on board the apparitions of Fatima and the secrets and act on them. To me this would show that the RCC is still open to the miraculous intervention of the Almighty and accepts that it need not necessarily come through the hierarchy. I am unsure of any other Church where this would happen in the same way.

The Catholic Church is an amazing collection of saints and sinners and those in between. Most are just trying to find the life and soul saving truth in it. Genuine religion and genuine spirituality require enormous effort, dedication and grace both to find and to retain. They have to be refound by every individual and every generation. Ecclesia semper reformanda.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Still a little puzzled about the nature of the authority that Eliab expects to find in the Catholic church.

I don't remember where I read it, but I recall something about there being 4 kinds of power & authority:

- the authority of force (You say what I want you to say because I'm holding a gun to your head. Or because I will hand you over to the torturers if you don't)

- the authority of official position (You act as if the boss or the referee is right in what he says because that's one of the rules of the social organisation that you want to be part of. The alternative is not being part of that organisation - not having the job, not playing in the match)

- the authority of expertise (You believe the senior IT guy at work when he tells you what's wrong with your computer, even though that may conflict with your intuition, because you know that he's seen it all before and understands these things better than you do. You don't believe the junior IT guy in the same way, because he's obviously just running through checklists he's been given of the things that most commonly go wrong.)

- the authority of charisma (You believed the salesman when he told you that the car was very reliable, because his manner, tone of voice and body language were consistent with an honest and knowledgable person).

Is there another kind of authority, speaking in general ?

Which kind are we talking about when discussing the Catholic Church ? Or is that a special-pleading kind which is not like anything else in human experience ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Perhaps, Russ, the "authority" involved is speaking with real authority, not like the Scribes and Pharisees?

How would you expect a Church, any Church, to "display" this "authority"?

When would "enough" be seen as "enough"?

Or would the process of questioning go on and on and on like Vogon poetry? [Devil]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Perhaps, Russ, the "authority" involved is speaking with real authority, not like the Scribes and Pharisees?

That's it.

Unpacking that a bit - the moral right to be obeyed in what it commands and believed in what it teaches.

As a Christian, I am committed* to being a disciple of Jesus. I want to know whether that commitment, properly understood, obliges me to accept the claims of the Catholic Church, and whether it is right that the Catholic Church speaks with Jesus' authority in a way that no other Christian organisation does.

(*This is a statement of allegience, rather than fervour. There are times when I am very unethusiastic about being a disciple of Jesus, with occasional doubts, and frequent disobedience. None of this changes the fact that I promised to trust in him, which includes both obedience and belief).

quote:
How would you expect a Church, any Church, to "display" this "authority"?

By being like Christ, I suppose.

And Catholics are, sometimes, very like Christ, and, sometimes, very like Scribes and Pharisees. That could be said of any church, of course.

I don't really know what it would mean for the Catholic Church as a whole to be more Christ-like than any other. It isn't a claim based on any qualities of the hierarchy or the personal sanctity of the Pope. It seems to be, in essence, a claim to identify promises and commands which Protestants read as being addressed to all Jesus' disciples as applying in a special sense to one specific institution. I can't see that the truth of that is being ‘displayed' at all - and I genuinely don't know whether the Catholic claim implies that it ought to be visibly displayed.

quote:
When would "enough" be seen as "enough"?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here? If the implication is that if I'm not prepared to settle the matter finally, there's somehow less reason to consider it fully, then I disagree.

A conviction that X is true will be (and ought to be) re-examined whenever a new case can be made that X is not true. One's reasons for believing X obviously determine what would be a challenge to X.

If you persuaded me that faith in Jesus was inseparable from obedience to the Pope, then my belief in Catholicism would be settled until I saw good reason to think that Jesus and the Pope were at odds, or to doubt my faith in Jesus altogether. If you only managed to persuade me that the Catholic Church looked at the moment like the most faithful and holy of all the demoninations, my belief in Catholicism might be challenged by every screw-up by a Catholic, and every act of holiness by a Protestant.

Since what I am looking for here are truth claims, ‘enough is enough' for as long as I can be persuaded that Catholic teaching is the best guide to truth. The serious argument in favour of that is IngoB's (which I hope to summarise without unfairness), being that Jesus would have left behind some guarantee of authentic teaching**, since our human capacity for self-deception and misinterpretation pretty much ensures we would screw up anything which was not divinely instituted, and that the best candidate for an institution having that guaranteed authenticity is the Catholic Church.

The argument, not being based on a defence specific controversial Catholic teachings, but on general principles, is insulated to a degree from challenge on the basis of disputed teachings. As long as it is possible to believe that Catholic doctrine X might have been revealed by God, hiowever unlikely that might seem, someone accepting IngoB's argument would naturally conclude that X was revealed by God. It would be a robust position, in that sense - but it would still be falsifiable if the Catholic Church ever taught something at the highest level of authority which proved to be wrong.

(**and it's this part of the argument that I'd challenge: on the grounds that:
1) I can see no compelling case that God would have wanted to give us an infallible teaching authority rather than leave us to work some stuff out for ourselves. I don't see that God's purpose is served (and, indeed, it seems to me that it is frustrated) by excluding from one communion Christians who disagree about a lot of the stuff the Catholic Church teaches;
2) When it comes to the key doctrines which I agree needed to be preserved for a functional Christianity, it seems to me that Protestantism has preserved them;
3) The Catholic Church seems to have taught some things which were plainly wrong, some of which (such as religious intolerance) it seems to accept were wrong.)

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

My reading of the Gospels is that the scribes taught with reference to the sayings of the great rabbis , like lawyers citing precedent, whereas Jesus spoke from first-hand knowledge of God. He referred to Scripture as if He had written it, rather than as one passing on what he had learnt.

His plan for passing on His Way to subsequent generations of followers seems to be the Holy Spirit rather than any text or organisational structure.
Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

A German dramatist of the Age of Enlightenment tells the story of a wise Jew who has a young Christian ward in his house who is asked by a Moslem sultan why he does not convert her to Judaism or why if he thinks Christianity is better does he not convert to Christianity himself.

The wise Jew replies that we normally receive our religious knowledge from loving parents and that if we respect our parents we will respect what their religion was.He,the wise Jew, is content to leave everything else to God who will reveal himself fully in due course.

Some Catholics will still talk about the 'one true Church' but most of us,following the teaching of the Catechism,will accept that 'the sole Church of Christ is that which our Saviour,after his Resurrection,entrusted to Peter's care,commissioning him and other apostles to extend and rule it.....This Church,constituted as a society in the present world subsists in the Catholic Church.
In fact,the Catechism goes on,in this one Church from its very beginnings there arose rifts...and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic church - for which often men of both sides were to blame. However one cannot charge with sin those who are born into these communities and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... they have a right to be called Christians and with good reason they are accepted as brothers in the Lord ... Furthermore many elements of truth and sanctification are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic church and Christ's Spiriot uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation.

If Eliab cannot or will not accept the claims of the Catholic Church he should not worry that he will be judged as unfaithful on the Great Day of Judgement or at least that is the teaching of the Catholic Church.He should remain true to what his conscience tells him.

Most ,but not all Catholics,receive their religious understanding and beliefs from those around them.Most of us are aware,only too aware of our own imperfections.It is the task of the leaders of the Church to put before us an ideal.Why put so much weight on the possible impefections of the sexual side of our beings when much more important are other imperfections in our dealings with others and the many questions of the unjust divisions of the goods of this world,our pride and arrogance at some times,our coldness and indifference to others ?

It is within the Church as a community,as the children of God, that we are helped on our way through the journey of life.For the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout the world that journey is made within the framework of the Catholic Church,but for those outside there is no reason to feel marginalised,they are just as much loved by God,whether they are other Christians or other religions or are indeed unable to believe in a Divine Being.

Certainly the Catholic Church keeps her Sacraments for those who are indeed in full communion,but to me that is only natural.Other Christians have different understandings of sacraments and some Christians claim to have no need of sacraments.

In case of real need the Catholioc church does make her sacraments available to others outside the visible communion who share approximately the same faith.To join in with the Catholic church,as is the story of the young man in Paris,just because one would otherwise feel an outsider,while in one way seems absurd,is in another way a recognition of what the Church is - the family of the Children of God - when mentioning that he is gay there should be no barrier simply because of this.When we enter the Church just as when we enter marriage or a new chapter of our earthly pilgrimage we do not know what all lies before us.We know that we may slip back into our imperfections,but with God's help we can lift ourselves up,dust ourselves down and continue on our way.

From the days of the Apostles'creed Christians have said I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.
If we can say that every Sunday then it is know different to say I believe all that the Catholic church teaches.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Eliab,

It sounds from your last post as if the question you"re asking is not so much an "is" question about the authority the Catholic church has or claims to have, but is more an "ought" question about how much authority you should give it over your life.

Sam Harris notwithstanding, philosophy seems to say that these are non-equivalent questions.

A man under authority has in effect no moral principles.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

A man under authority has in effect no moral principles.

Sorry, what I meant to say is that a soldier who is truly under orders will shoot any innocent bystander that his commander tells him to. This doesn't seem to be a morally admirable stance.

Not saying that soldiering is a dishonourable profession; rather that when you give someone else authority over certain aspects of your life it should be within limits. And those limits are to do with what you see as moral.

It's much the same argument as I was having with Triple Tiara on another thread. The reason that Cardinal Brady is seen as lacking in moral judgment is that covering up child abuse should have been outside the limits of the obedience he owed his bishop, and it wasn't.

If you see what I'm getting at.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Thread bleed, but nevertheless: Russ, of course I disagreed with your description of the case of Cardinal Brady on the thread you mention, and I will restate that disagreement here. Brady was not required by some higher authority to "cover up" anything. The specifics have been gone over very finely in that thread. I would agree with you that if he was given a specific instruction to prevent justice from being done then he would be under a moral obligation to disobey such an instruction. But this thread is about a wholly different kind of authority - the authority the Church has in terms of establishing doctrine.

On the actual subject of this thread, I am very late to the party! I cannot see if it has been mentioned already, but a very good starting point, easily accessible in its language and concepts, is the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. It sets out the Catholic stall on this matter in a kind of building-blocks way. I would suggest, Eliab, that you read up to paragraph 26 (you could read the rest as well, of course, but that would be for pure enjoyment rather than relating to this topic heheh).

As to the three objections with which you concluded your last post:
1. Your presumption here seems to be that the various forms of Christianity all emerged at the same time and therefore have an equal claim to validity. Thus the Catholic Church is being mean to the others by saying they are not equal. By your reading the Catholic Church is trying to impose beliefs that are its alone, unfairly, on those churches. I suppose looking from outside you are bound to see the Catholic Church's positions from the perspective of how they impinge upon you. But that's not how the Catholic Church works - it isn't like Anglicanism trying to seek a consensus which will allow all parties to live happily together, even if there are contradictory views. The Catholic way is coherence rather than consensus, and I'm pretty sure (no, I am absolutely certain) that it doesn't develop new teachings just to confound and upset the protestants!

From a Catholic perspective, the Churches of the Reformation have broken unity, not only in terms of ecclesial communion but also in terms of doctrine. While hoping and praying and seeking an end to that breach, the Catholic Church has to continue to proclaim that Truth which she believes to be Divinely revealed. From antiquity the pole of unity has been the Bishop of Rome, so he's a pretty fundamental part of it. This proclamation of the Truth, defined negatively, is framed in the concept of "infallibility". However, all discussion in the Catholic Church about this negative framing begins with the positive, drawing on John 16:13 "the Lord Jesus wishes to lead his Church into all truth". Defined negatively, he wishes to preserve her from error, defined positively, he wishes to lead her into Truth.

2. The Catholic Church would agree with you, but it would probably say your definition of what the key doctrines are is incomplete. Ecclesiology is, for us, a key issue. I am not saved alone.

3. There have been a lot of policy shifts down the centuries on a variety of subjects, that's true enough. But on settled dogma, no.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I would agree with you that if he was given a specific instruction to prevent justice from being done then he would be under a moral obligation to disobey such an instruction.

Thanks for that, TripleT.

quote:
Brady was not required by some higher authority to "cover up" anything.

You may well be right; I'll leave it there so as not to hijack this thread.

quote:
this thread is about a wholly different kind of authority - the authority the Church has in terms of establishing doctrine.

How is it different ? One of the questions I asked earlier was whether there is a different kind of authority from the four kinds that I described (and do understand at some level).

quote:
Your presumption here seems to be that the various forms of Christianity all emerged at the same time and therefore have an equal claim to validity.

I'd argue that validity does not depend on date of emergence. Validity is about being true to the message.

quote:
I'm pretty sure (no, I am absolutely certain) that it doesn't develop new teachings just to confound and upset the protestants!

The Catholic Church sometimes gives the impression that it takes no account of protestantism at all, and is just waiting for it to wither away.

But I don't think that impression is accurate. Seems to me that at Vatican II the Catholic Church took a sizable step closer to the protestants, without ever admitting that perhaps it might have been wrong earlier.

quote:
From a Catholic perspective, the Churches of the Reformation have broken unity, not only in terms of ecclesial communion but also in terms of doctrine.

If we can agree that unity has been broken (and suspend for a while the discussion as to the distribution of blame for that event) that would be a good start.

quote:
While hoping and praying and seeking an end to that breach, the Catholic Church has to continue to proclaim that Truth which she believes to be Divinely revealed.

Perhaps we could agree that there is a tension there, that is a form of the universal tension between getting on with others and being true to one's own principles.

quote:
From antiquity the pole of unity has been the Bishop of Rome

From here that seems a pretty slanted view of history. The split between the Orthodox and the Western Church was more about the authority of the Pope than about any doctrine about Christ. The role of the Pope is probably the biggest single obstacle to reunion with the protestants. In terms of whatever label you wish to give to that wider body whose unity has been broken, it would be truer to say that the Pope is a symbol of division.

quote:
Drawing on John 16:13 "the Lord Jesus wishes to lead his Church into all truth". Defined negatively, he wishes to preserve her from error, defined positively, he wishes to lead her into Truth.

That's where we all wish to be.

quote:
Ecclesiology is, for us, a key issue. I am not saved alone.

Yes, we're not saved alone and being part of the body of believers is an important part of being Christian. That does not itself justify putting a proposition about how that body should organise itself up there as the Eleventh Commandment.

Don't get me wrong; saying that the Catholic tradition sees some such propositions as more fundamental than the protestants do is a helpful part of seeing the other person's point of view.

I'd be interested to know how much is how fundamental in your view.

Seems to me that the Catholic Church has for centuries faithfully preserved the notion of Christian leadership, that the Pope is the servant of the servants of God. And throughout history, to a greater or lesser extent, failed to live up to that ideal.

The difficulty some of us have, in knowing how to respond to a Vatican document or Catholic person's viewpoint, is "how much of this is coming from that deposit of faith and how much from the power complex - the culture of failing to live up to the ideal" ?

If you see what I'm getting at.

Gotta go.

best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Thanks for that response Russ.

A few things.

quote:
How is it different ? One of the questions I asked earlier was whether there is a different kind of authority from the four kinds that I described (and do understand at some level).

I suppose I would draw this out by reference to the limits of authority rather than the source of that authority. Cardinal Newman's famous discussion with the Duke of Norfolk concerning conscience addressed the question directly: there are some areas in which the Pope is not competent by reason of his office to command. Likewise a bishop. For example, I might submit entirely to a bishop's instruction as to where I shall be working, or what liturgy I must use, but I would not obey a bishop's instruction as to whom I should vote for. (I live in a properly democratic country, of course)

quote:
I'd argue that validity does not depend on date of emergence. Validity is about being true to the message.

Yes, okay. The suggestion was, however, that the Catholic Church excluded from communion those Christians who had in fact changed the "message". I was trying to say that it was not as if the various denominations all originated at the same time and just had different perspectives on the same message. Rather, the Catholic Church's perspective is that the one faith was in fact altered at a much later date. And message and ecclesial communion always go together. At the moment there is a tension between the Catholic Church and the Society of St Pius X. The Pope wants them back in communion - they think they are being true to the "message" (to use your word), which the Catholic Church has transgressed and thus cannot concede anything. They therefore prefer to remain on the ecclesial outside. To Catholics that is a scandal.

quote:
The Catholic Church sometimes gives the impression that it takes no account of protestantism at all, and is just waiting for it to wither away.

But I don't think that impression is accurate. Seems to me that at Vatican II the Catholic Church took a sizable step closer to the protestants, without ever admitting that perhaps it might have been wrong earlier.

One of the fundamental and oft ignored ecclesial teachings of Vatican II is that the Church is the sacrament of unity - not just for Christians but for the whole world. Maintaining unity and communion, and seeking to restore it where it is broken, is therefore always a primary concern for the Catholic Church. "Father, may they be one .... so that the world may believe". But that is never at the cost of doctrinal laissez-faire. Doctrinal unity counts for much.

quote:

From here that seems a pretty slanted view of history. The split between the Orthodox and the Western Church was more about the authority of the Pope than about any doctrine about Christ. The role of the Pope is probably the biggest single obstacle to reunion with the protestants. In terms of whatever label you wish to give to that wider body whose unity has been broken, it would be truer to say that the Pope is a symbol of division.

Actually, I would say the view you express is a slanted view of history. It is a common-place of a certain type of polemics that the Pope expanded his authority and eventually the Orthodox said "no more!" The truth is the Pope was constantly trying to limit the ever-expanding authority being claimed by the Bishop of Constantinople. Read, for example, Pope Gregory the Great's dispute with John the Faster, Bishop of Constantinople. Certain Orthodox and Protestant polemicists use Pope Gregory's words as if the Pope himself was denying Papal Authority. Pope Gregory famously said: "I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Bishop, is in his elation the precursor of the Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others" (Epistles 7:33) Well, that sounds like a condemnation of papal authority. In fact that way of using the Pope's words only works if one relies on a particular translation. "Universal Bishop" is a translation of the Greek "Ecumenical Patriarch". The Bishop of Constantinople had assumed this title and had assumed authority to depose bishops. The ensuing centuries of dispute were not about an expanding Roman authority but an expanding Constantinopolitan authority, which Rome was intent on limiting in order to preserve the rights of all the bishops which Constantinople was presuming to govern. It has to be said this tension over the rights of Constantinople continues in the Orthodox world! The Bishop of Rome's authority was always accepted - and proclaimed - as a guarantor against such ambition by other Bishops.

quote:
That does not itself justify putting a proposition about how that body should organise itself up there as the Eleventh Commandment.

Well, not an eleventh commandment, no [Smile]

However, it's not just about how the body organises itself. It's part of the DNA of the body. The how can, and does, change. The Successor of Peter is Bishop of Rome and thus the how has been thoroughly Italianate for a long time, including the outfits! This is often a cause of frustration to others within the Catholic Church. There is constant pressure for the Roman Curia to be reformed more thoroughly than the ways in which successive Popes have done. I happen to like the Italian way so I am not one of those who have such a desire [Cool]

quote:
Seems to me that the Catholic Church has for centuries faithfully preserved the notion of Christian leadership, that the Pope is the servant of the servants of God. And throughout history, to a greater or lesser extent, failed to live up to that ideal.

Yup. Starting with Peter and the Apostles that has been true. I uphold a vision and view of priesthood - and constantly fail to live up to that myself.

quote:
The difficulty some of us have, in knowing how to respond to a Vatican document or Catholic person's viewpoint, is "how much of this is coming from that deposit of faith and how much from the power complex - the culture of failing to live up to the ideal" ?

If you see what I'm getting at.

I do. And I agree. Often realpolitik is in operation. However, I don't start from a presumption of bad faith. And where there is bad faith, that can, should be and usually is challenged, even and perhaps especially from within the Catholic Church itself. But if your metanarrative is always "power politics" I think you will always miss what is also true within documents/rulings from the hierarchy.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
On the actual subject of this thread, I am very late to the party! I cannot see if it has been mentioned already, but a very good starting point, easily accessible in its language and concepts, is the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. It sets out the Catholic stall on this matter in a kind of building-blocks way. I would suggest, Eliab, that you read up to paragraph 26

OK, I've read it. And yes, it's a clear statement of what the Church's position is, but it's very weak as to why I, as an outsider, ought to believe that (possibly because it wasn't written for that purpose).

My (very brief) commentary would be:

LG: This is what the Church is for and what it's meant to be ...
E: <nods in agreement>
LG: And by 'Church' we mean 'us'...
E: Hang on a minute!
LG: ...at least in the full sense of 'Church'.
E: Did I accidentally scroll past the bit where you argued for that? Let me read back...no, it's not there. Why do you say that?
LG: Moving on. We do accept that other denominations are Christian and sort-of Church too...
E: Nice of you.
LG: And other religions also have their share of truth.
E: I agree.
LG: But we're the real deal.
E: Why? Why? WHY???
LG: And so when we do this God stops us from getting it wrong.
E: OK, but that all depends on WHY you get to be so special, doesn't it?
LG: Moving on. Now we'll talk about priests and deacons...

quote:
As to the three objections with which you concluded your last post:
1. Your presumption here seems to be that the various forms of Christianity all emerged at the same time and therefore have an equal claim to validity. Thus the Catholic Church is being mean to the others by saying they are not equal.

No, not really. "Christianity" emerged at one time. We all trace our heritage back that far, and every different tradition has done some stuff since then. Equal validity isn't part of my argument - I'm quite prepared to admit the possibility of me being wrong and even more willing to notice when someone else is wrong - but I do think that the validity of truth claims ought to be assessed on the merits.

Example: Eucharistic theology. Transubstantiation isn't in the Bible. Memorialism isn't either. Both of these theologies have been worked out, at least in their current detailed versions, after the apostolic age. If I have to pick one, I'll take transubstantiation, because it seems to me that it is the better and more natural development of ideas which certainly are present in the earliest records we have (the NT) that the apostles thought that 'the breaking of bread' was of enormous spiritual significance, not just a regular reminder. I have a reason to prefer it, because it seems truer to the understanding of the eucharist implied in the earliest records of the one who instituted it.

But that point does not depend on me knowing which institutions came up with which idea. It so happens that the Catholic Church's official line looks better to me than the one taken by some Protestants, but I can conceive of an alternative history in which the Catholic Church went for memorialism, and the transubstantiationists split off in disgust, and if that had happened, the argument that transubstantiation was truer to apostolic tradition would have been exactly as good. The Protestants, after all, were right about indulgences - no one can seriously suggest that the apostolic church knew anything of that innovation.

That is to say, there is no necessary connection between the emergence of an institution and claims to have valid authority. I accept that you have a very strong claim to institutional continuity from the apostles, and I'll even concede that this gives you first dibs on the name "Catholic", but I don't see at all how it automatically makes the distinctives of Catholic theology any truer.

quote:
I'm pretty sure (no, I am absolutely certain) that it doesn't develop new teachings just to confound and upset the protestants!

OK, I accept that. But still, if you teach that you are the one true Church, and that to join you I would have to say that I accept what you teach, then those teachings which I cannot accept are going to be a cause of division, whether you meant them to be or not.

And I don't think all teachings are equal. Would Jesus want his followers to be disunited because they couldn't agree that the Holy Spirit is God? I think it's strongly arguable that that is important enough to make into a doctrine and say the Church believes this, and not compromise on the point by admitting that the contrary view is acceptable Christian teaching. Would Jesus want his followers to be disunited because they couldn't agree what happened to his mother's body at the end of her life? Because they couldn't agree about contraception? I'm pretty sure that his command to be united trumps that sort of disagreement. And it's that sort of thing - not the stuff about the incarnation or the Trinity - that keeps people like me from being united with you.

That's the sort of thing where I'm looking for a reason why you are right. For me, it's a point against that the practical effect of Catholic teaching is as if you had insisted on them as conditions of unity. For me, it seems obvious, unarguably obvious, that this isn't the sort of thing that we were ever meant to fall out over. We ought to be able to disagree about 'meat offered to idols' questions and still remain in one church. The fact that the Catholic Church has called it wrong on the practical importance of these secondary questions diminishes my confidence that she is to be trusted absolutely when deciding the answers to them.

quote:
From a Catholic perspective, the Churches of the Reformation have broken unity, not only in terms of ecclesial communion but also in terms of doctrine. While hoping and praying and seeking an end to that breach, the Catholic Church has to continue to proclaim that Truth which she believes to be Divinely revealed. From antiquity the pole of unity has been the Bishop of Rome, so he's a pretty fundamental part of it.

Yes, but we are where we are. Neither you nor I nor the Pope nor anyone now living is responsible for the Reformation. It happened, and we are stuck with the consequences. It seems to me to be completely unrealistic for the Catholic Church, 1,000 and 500 years after the big schisms, to "continue to proclaim" what she thinks true as if her authority to do so were not in issue amongst Christians. It is no longer reasonable to expect that Christians automatically accept the Pope as an authority - that doctrine needs to be argued for in a way that outsiders can engage with, if that truth is ever to be made accessible to us.

quote:
2. The Catholic Church would agree with you, but it would probably say your definition of what the key doctrines are is incomplete. Ecclesiology is, for us, a key issue. I am not saved alone.

OK, and I could almost agree except that Catholic ecclesiology seems to me to get bound up with everything else. In theory, yes I can see you have fundamentals of faith, defined infallibly, and (as IngoB says) likely I agree with or don't care about most of them. But those aren't the points we're divided over. It's things like contraception, and divorce, and women priests, and confession, and the like that divide us: things important enough that it is unrealistic to demand 'religious submission' from people who think that the teaching is completely misguided, but not important enough that we should continue to be in schism because we disagree.

quote:
3. There have been a lot of policy shifts down the centuries on a variety of subjects, that's true enough. But on settled dogma, no.

But it's the teaching on that 'variety of subjects' that is keeping me out, and it is that teaching that makes it hard to accept the ecclesiology which you say is a key doctrine. If it is the case that Catholic teaching on contraception, say, might just conceivably be wrong, and change in the future, then why insist on it as if it were certain? Why not allow the disagreement on matters which are not infallibly settled?

It seems to me that, for example, the Catholic Church used to think that it was OK to have people imprisoned, tortured and killed for secretly observing Jewish customs. It set up an organisation in Spain with essentially that as its main purpose. And we all now agree that it was wrong*. It wasn't a matter of settled dogma, of course. It was never taught as infallible. It didn't change what the Church taught about the truth of the gospel. But it was wrong, and wrong about something very important. I think you could fairly say that this example isn't evidence one way or another against the truth of those doctrines taught as infallible for all time - those have a divine guarantee of freedom from error, and mistakes made on matters outside that guarantee don't detract from it. It is, though, relevant when I am asking whether I should accept the Church's authority as a whole, non-infallible teaching included. Because it seems to me that the unless you invoke the divine guarantee of infallibility, the fact that something is taught by the Catholic Church is no indication of its truth, because everyone agrees that the Catholic Church has been seriously wrong before.

(*Yes, I know that Protestants at the time were capable of being just as nasty. This isn't an argument that the Catholics were any worse than anyone else, just an argument that they, like everyone else, were capable of being badly wrong).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...the Pope is the servant of the servants of God.

What a load of bollocks.

Seriously, what a massive steaming pile of horseshit-encrusted bollocks.

In what way can the Pope - the man who is in charge of the whole worldwide Catholic church, who sits right at the very top of its leadership structure, who lives in a freakin' palace in the middle of his own country - be said to be a servant?

It's just barmy. You can't be the one giving out the commands to everyone else and be a servant of everyone else. The two roles are fundamentally irreconcilable.

It's not just the Pope who's guilty of such an absurd claim, of course - all religious leaders claim to be the servants of their people while actually being their overlords - but he's the one being discussed here.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Example: Eucharistic theology. Transubstantiation isn't in the Bible....

Said Luther to Zwingli, "Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est corpus meum, hoc est..."

quote:
But it's the teaching on that 'variety of subjects' that is keeping me out, and it is that teaching that makes it hard to accept the ecclesiology which you say is a key doctrine.

You need to give some thought to where your get your objections to Roman Catholic moral teaching. If you believe the Bishop of Rome in the Magisterium teaches authoritatively on morals, then you ought to be a Roman Catholic. If you believe the Bible speaks authoritatively on morals, then you are a Protestant. If you don't believe the Bible speaks authoritatively on morals, well...

That is the real difference, so far as I see it at any rate. To a certain extent, contraception and marriage and all that ARE distractions from the real issue, or more precisely the differences are the result of the real issue of the sources moral authority.

[ 31. July 2012, 14:24: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote: (Tripe Tiara)
3. There have been a lot of policy shifts down the centuries on a variety of subjects, that's true enough. But on settled dogma, no.

Eliab said:
But it's the teaching on that 'variety of subjects' that is keeping me out, and it is that teaching that makes it hard to accept the ecclesiology which you say is a key doctrine. If it is the case that Catholic teaching on contraception, say, might just conceivably be wrong, and change in the future, then why insist on it as if it were certain? Why not allow the disagreement on matters which are not infallibly settled? END QUOTE

Exactly, Eliab. "...why insist on it as if it were certain? Why not allow disagreement on matters which are not infallibly settled?" For me, that is the crux.

Of course some issues are seen by the church as less important than other issues, but still, there are "the rules" about them. There is that insistence.

And so one has to say either,
a) I will become a Catholic, but--according to my conscience-- not necessarily follow all the rules and teachings, even though I know this makes me an unfaithful Catholic in the Church's view".

Or, b) I will choose a church where disagreement is allowed on these less crucial matters, so I can still be considered faithful.

I prefer b).

It would be interesting to hear from two kinds of Catholics.
First, from those who have chosen a): why have they chosen to be Catholic, even if it means they are knowingly and voluntarily "breaking the rules" or being "unfaithful" or "disobedient" when it comes to matters like contraception?

And secondly, from those who have chosen the Catholic church and who follow to the best of their ability all the rules. (I think from what you have said, Ingo, that you are one of these?)
Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone has said clearly and concisely WHY, intellectually, he/she accepts the authority of the Catholic Church and is sure it is the One True Church.

Let's face it, it's harder to be a faithful Catholic in today's world than to be many other types of Christian. So, those who follow that route must be pretty sure it is "worth it," sure that it is the real true route. How do they know?

In the end, I think it comes down to faith. As I think I said earlier, the movement from not-sure to certainty in a conversion is often untraceable and unintellectual. People think and think and mull--and then, somehow, they just know.

And so, unless that faith comes to you, Eliab, I personally don't feel you can reach it intellectually.

Cara

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You need to give some thought to where your get your objections to Roman Catholic moral teaching. If you believe the Bishop of Rome in the Magisterium teaches authoritatively on morals, then you ought to be a Roman Catholic. If you believe the Bible speaks authoritatively on morals, then you are a Protestant. If you don't believe the Bible speaks authoritatively on morals, well...

That is the real difference, so far as I see it at any rate. To a certain extent, contraception and marriage and all that ARE distractions from the real issue, or more precisely the differences are the result of the real issue of the sources moral authority.

Or there is a middle way. You can believe the source of moral authority is a combination of the Bible, plus Christian tradition from the beginning, plus reason--all infused with the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit, through whom our understanding can develop and change.

(Sorry for the double post but I wanted to respond separately to the different points.)

Cara

[ 02. August 2012, 12:27: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The Roman Catholic Church incorporates all those elements, Cara. Magisterial authority is founded on Scripture, which at a certain point is impossible to really distinguish from tradition. A Catholic applies these universally relevant ethical norms to concrete ethical decisions using reason.

With Roman Catholic moral teaching, conscience is not a vague intuition about right and wrong, and I very much agree with it on this point. Conscience is the ability to use reason to apply universal ethical norms to concrete situations in one's life.

Furthermore, your "third way" is just the Protestant way I was talking about. A Protestant needs reason and tradition to both interpret the Bible and to apply that to his everyday life. If you want ethical norms apart from the Bible, then Roman Catholic moral teaching is more your friend than you think, since it believes the moral norms discerned through reason alone are compatible with the moral teachings of the Bible.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...the Pope is the servant of the servants of God.
What a load of bollocks.

Seriously, what a massive steaming pile of horseshit-encrusted bollocks.

In what way can the Pope - the man who is in charge of the whole worldwide Catholic church, who sits right at the very top of its leadership structure, who lives in a freakin' palace in the middle of his own country - be said to be a servant?

It's just barmy. You can't be the one giving out the commands to everyone else and be a servant of everyone else. The two roles are fundamentally irreconcilable.

It's not just the Pope who's guilty of such an absurd claim, of course - all religious leaders claim to be the servants of their people while actually being their overlords - but he's the one being discussed here.

Clearly you have a very quaint idea of what service means. Presumably you imagine someone doffing the cap and saying "Ooh arr, yes m'Lord". Does the Queen serve the country? Does the local policeman serve the community, or is he just the long arm of the law? Personally, I think the Pope served the Catholic community of this country very well indeed when he came to visit - and not once did he dish out any commands.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
OK, I've read it. And yes, it's a clear statement of what the Church's position is, but it's very weak as to why I, as an outsider, ought to believe that (possibly because it wasn't written for that purpose).

My (very brief) commentary would be:

LG: This is what the Church is for and what it's meant to be ...
E: <nods in agreement>
LG: And by 'Church' we mean 'us'...
E: Hang on a minute!
LG: ...at least in the full sense of 'Church'.
E: Did I accidentally scroll past the bit where you argued for that? Let me read back...no, it's not there. Why do you say that?
LG: Moving on. We do accept that other denominations are Christian and sort-of Church too...
E: Nice of you.
LG: And other religions also have their share of truth.
E: I agree.
LG: But we're the real deal.
E: Why? Why? WHY???
LG: And so when we do this God stops us from getting it wrong.
E: OK, but that all depends on WHY you get to be so special, doesn't it?
LG: Moving on. Now we'll talk about priests and deacons...

I was trying to have a bash at this when talking about all churches having equally valid claims to authority - I should not have spoken of validity because of the triggers that has, especially for Anglicans, and I should have realised this.

Again, I think you are perhaps reading LG from the perspective of "this is one Church among many, all claiming authority". The Catholic perspective is that there is only ONE Church, but it is divided. It's not engaged in a contest as to which is the best Church. So the opening paragraphs of LG are speaking of that one Church. That is not the same as the arguments about which is the "one true Church" that get bandied about. It is NOT Catholic belief that it is the ONLY Church. However, it does lay claim to being the Church which is historically, theologically and ecclesiologically contiguous with the Church established by the Lord and built upon the Apostles. The ecumenical impetus of all Catholic engagement is a return to unity as one Body of Christ. Naturally in that she has certain propositions which she believes are necessary to establish that unity. In the meantime, she does not say "you are not Christians at all, all the rest of you. You are not even in the Church". Rather she proposes her belief that all other Christian bodies derive their authenticity from the fullness of unity and faith of the One Church of Jesus Christ - as you say " "Christianity" emerged at one time. We all trace our heritage back that far, and every different tradition has done some stuff since then". That stuff done since then is the problem, and the Catholic Church's position is some of that stuff has gone too far from the common root. Of course, I understand that the same applies in reverse as well!

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

And I don't think all teachings are equal.

Indeed not - there is a hierarchy of truths. I guess it depends on the way in which you rank that hierarchy.

Cara challenges Catholics to say how they manage to submit to things they don't themselves believe. Heck, I personally sometimes find belief in God impossible. I struggle intellectually with some teachings - sometimes doubting more than at other times. I personally think there is a lot of theological work and reflection still needed on human sexuality, starting with the foundations of the teaching rather than the conclusions. I find the utterances of some prelates on the issue of homosexuality excruciating, and certainly think we are more in the business right now of "correcting error" rather than proposing helpful, healthy and positive guidance to homosexuals. I think that is shameful myself. So how do I reconcile all this with commitment to the Catholic Church? John 6:67-68 "So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" ". The things I find difficult are as nothing compared with the things I believe to be true. I find unconvincing the foundations of any of the other churches. I would probably simply be a lapsed Catholic before I could ever be an Anglican or Orthodox Christian because of that.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Clearly you have a very quaint idea of what service means.

The word used was "servant", not "service". A CEO could be said to provide a service to the company s/he runs by managing the managers of the employees, but nobody would call a CEO the "servant of the servants of the employees". In no other relationship on earth would the person wielding the power claim to be a servant of the person who does not.

If religious heirarchies (and this really is about all of them, not just the Pope) were truly "the servants of the servants of the people" then we would be telling them what to believe and how to behave, and commissioning them purely to run our services. As this is clearly not the case (excepting congregationalist denominations, of course), the claim is false.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Indeed, Marvin. The bishops of the Church are only teaching authoritatively when they teach according to Holy Scriptures, which is the Church imposing the the bishops standards of doctrine and behavior.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Indeed, Marvin. The bishops of the Church are only teaching authoritatively when they teach according to Holy Scriptures, which is the Church imposing the the bishops standards of doctrine and behavior.

But no bishops, nor anyone for that matter, teaches 'according to Holy Scriptures'. We all teach according to our interpretation of Holy Scriptures. It seems the Catholic Church doesn't accept this caveat, though...

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
But no bishops, nor anyone for that matter, teaches 'according to Holy Scriptures'. We all teach according to our interpretation of Holy Scriptures. It seems the Catholic Church doesn't accept this caveat, though...

The Bible is not up for individual interpretation. Even in the Protestant tradition the interpretation of the Bible happens in the community of the Church. In the Catholic tradition the bishops have a particular place in the work of interpretation, though the traditions and Scriptures reflect the experience of the entire community. Even in the Protestant tradition, varying interpretations are not necessarily equally valid. The interpretation of a person properly educated in sound exegetical techniques is more valid than that of one not so educated, for example.

What seems to be the objection here is that the interpretation of the Church, from the day of Jesus Christ, has no binding authority on a Christian that has a vague intuition (or a secular one) that the Christian Community errs in its teaching. That I, personally, do not believe.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Roman Catholic Church incorporates all those elements, Cara. Magisterial authority is founded on Scripture, which at a certain point is impossible to really distinguish from tradition. A Catholic applies these universally relevant ethical norms to concrete ethical decisions using reason.

With Roman Catholic moral teaching, conscience is not a vague intuition about right and wrong, and I very much agree with it on this point. Conscience is the ability to use reason to apply universal ethical norms to concrete situations in one's life.

Furthermore, your "third way" is just the Protestant way I was talking about. A Protestant needs reason and tradition to both interpret the Bible and to apply that to his everyday life. If you want ethical norms apart from the Bible, then Roman Catholic moral teaching is more your friend than you think, since it believes the moral norms discerned through reason alone are compatible with the moral teachings of the Bible.

Fair enough, Zach. But you said to Eliab, "if you believe the Bishop of Rome in the Magisterium teaches authoritatively on morals, then you ought to be a Roman Catholic." So you emphasised the authority of the Pope himself, and the Bishops (who together with the Pope, as I understand it, form the Magisterium) as a source of moral authority. This is the bit that is a stumbling-block for many--Papal authority is founded on Scripture IF you interpret Jesus's words to Peter a certain way; episcopal authority is definitely scriptural, but are the Catholic bishops the only bishops with true moral authority in the whole of Christendom? I guess that brings us to the question of apostolic succession....

Ok, so the "third way " IS what you meant by the Protestant way, because the Protestant does bring tradition and reason to bear on the Bible. But the "tradition" a Protestant brings is Christian tradition--the tradition of the church at large (though there are separate mini-traditions and emphases not shared by everyone, of course). So really, we all use a combination of Scripture, tradition, and reason.

BUT the Catholic Church gives a much larger role than other Christians do to the authority of the Catholic Church herself.

Here's a quote from Fr William G Most, from a passage on the Magisterium, taken from the Basic Catholic Cathechism (I admit it, this comes up near the top when you Google "Magisterium" !!):

QUOTE: Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."
END QUOTE.

The Magisterium, as I understand it, means the Pope and the Catholic Bishops. Only them, not the whole Christian CHurch.

Earlier in the paragraph, we find this:

QUOTE: Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : "He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10. 16). Now of course the promise of Christ cannot fail: hence when the Church presents some doctrine as definitive or final, it comes under this protection, it cannot be in error; in other words, it is infallible.
END QUOTE.

This again, or so it it seems to me when it's read in context, only applies to the Catholic church, not the Christian Church at large.

So, as someone said much further up, it is all a bit circular.
Jesus said he would be with His church; the Catholic Church believes it is the true church of Jesus; therefore, Jesus is always with it, and it cannot be in error on definitive doctrine (or on pronouncements about morality, Father Most says further down).

I respect the certainty of the faith that Catholics have in the Catholic Church--I was brought up in it, after all--but for myself I cannot feel this certainty that only the Catholic Church is the real deal.

And, Eliab, I think that particular certainty can only come with the eyes of faith. Catholic converts in the past have called it a place of rest, firm ground, release from doubts and worry--because they can relax in the knowledge that they have come home to God's true church, and She possesses the Truth.

Is it partly a question of temperament?

Cara

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
BUT the Catholic Church gives a much larger role than other Christians do to the authority of the Catholic Church herself.

Does it? The Bible is the experience of the Church, and its moral authority is the experience of the Church speaking universal ethical norms.

You may doubt the unique identity of the Roman Catholic Church and the place of the Bishop of Rome in Church teaching- I sure do- but Roman Catholic moral teaching may be your friend more than you think. It teaches (after St Thomas Aquinas) that the moral norms of human reason are compatible with the moral norms found in the Bible, so non-Catholics and even non-Christians can indeed be righteous. Though it believes itself uniquely qualified to teach morality, it still believes ethical dialogue with others can be worthwhile.

Yet the Protestant tradition (after St Augustine) has generally believed that real righteousness comes from faith in Jesus Christ alone. As Karl Barth wrote, "faith cannot argue with unbelief- it can only preach to it." There is far less room for secular ethical dialogue with that line than the Roman Catholic Church believes possible.

I make no secret that I believe the latter quite strongly.

However, it is unfair to think Catholicism offers certainty and easy answers. Either way, one is stuck trying to apply these norms to one's own life, which is all frightening and fraught with the possibility of error. A bishop is no less free in such a situation than a Catholic layman or Presbyterian.

[ 02. August 2012, 16:22: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The ecumenical impetus of all Catholic engagement is a return to unity as one Body of Christ. Naturally in that she has certain propositions which she believes are necessary to establish that unity. In the meantime, she does not say "you are not Christians at all, all the rest of you. You are not even in the Church".

Hmm - as referred to above, the infallible claim that those who reject the Marian doctrine have made a shipwreck of their faith is rather close to that statement. Given the way that Paul regards such people as almost beyond hope, the attitude of Rome to those of us who reject this doctrine is... confused; in reality you don't really believe that we've made a shipwreck of our faith. I would remind you of the scandal of Taize, where Catholic religious were permitted to be under the authority of a Reformed pastor.

And once it is clear that you have abandoned your commitment to the infallible teaching of the church in this respect, the rest of the claims to authority collapse in a heap...

But for me it comes down to the simple observation that God has been at work outside the Catholic church as much as within it over the past 300 years: Wesley and Booth being the least controversial examples. Given that, it is crackers to argue that God's opinion is that Protestantism is beyond the pale, so who are you to presume to say otherwise?

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

Cara challenges Catholics to say how they manage to submit to things they don't themselves believe. Heck, I personally sometimes find belief in God impossible. I struggle intellectually with some teachings - sometimes doubting more than at other times. I personally think there is a lot of theological work and reflection still needed on human sexuality, starting with the foundations of the teaching rather than the conclusions. I find the utterances of some prelates on the issue of homosexuality excruciating, and certainly think we are more in the business right now of "correcting error" rather than proposing helpful, healthy and positive guidance to homosexuals. I think that is shameful myself. So how do I reconcile all this with commitment to the Catholic Church? John 6:67-68 "So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" ". The things I find difficult are as nothing compared with the things I believe to be true. I find unconvincing the foundations of any of the other churches. I would probably simply be a lapsed Catholic before I could ever be an Anglican or Orthodox Christian because of that. [/QB]

Thank you, TT, for this response to the challenge!

Your first "answer," that Jesus has the words of eternal life and so there is nowhere to go but him, would of course "work" for any Christian, Catholic or not. It's the answer to why one is a Christian, not why one is a Catholic.

It's the second bit that's the crux.
"I find unconvincing the foundations of any of the other churches."
That's why, despite your quarrels and struggles with the Church, you could never be an Anglican or Orthodox Christian.

This is a very helpful answer, clear and concise, about what the problem is with the other churches, from the Catholic point of view.

Somehow, this discussion reminds me of when a nun asked C.S. Lewis why he wasn't a Catholic. Good question, thought I, as a cradle Catholic first reading this; why wasn't he? He answered something like, "Why should I be?"

Extraordinary! He turned it all upside down!! Only those also brought up Catholic will feel why this answer was so completely bouleversant for me--I had never seen it that way around!! I was always taught--or I just imbibed, absorbed--that it was non-Catholics who had to justify and defend their strange choice not to join the One True Church...

Cara

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Even in the Protestant tradition the interpretation of the Bible happens in the community of the Church.

Oh yes, but few Protestant churches would hold their interpretation to be authoritative in the way the Catholic Church holds its interpretation. That's the point, isn't it?

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What seems to be the objection here is that the interpretation of the Church, from the day of Jesus Christ, has no binding authority on a Christian that has a vague intuition (or a secular one) that the Christian Community errs in its teaching. That I, personally, do not believe.

Again, the point is that (IMO) there is no
interpretation of the Church; there are many interpretations. And it's always been this way, hasn't it? The only way you can possibly say 'this is the interpretation of the Church' is to define the Church as your particular institution, be that the Catholic Church, the Baptist Union of Great Britain, New Frontiers, Westboro Baptist Church or whatever*.

And that's what at issue here - why should I, Eliab or anyone else who's not a Catholic accept the Catholic Church's apparent claim to be the guardian of God's pure, unadulterated truth? After all, the Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide organisation makes precisely the same claim, doesn't it?

*No parallels intended here, just saying the institution could be worldwide, an individual local congregation or anything in between.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Using the Bible as the basis of universal ethical norms is already enshrining the traditions of a particular institution as applicable to all people, whether they believe or not. The Bible simply is the tradition of the Christian Church. Protestants have a slightly different understanding of how moral teaching is received, but are saying basically the same thing as the Catholics to non-Christians. "We have the truth you ought to life by."

I would think that most Roman Catholic theologians would agree that the most any individual could do is prayerfully examine the Holy Scriptures and decide for himself whether the claims the Roman Catholic Church makes for itself are true or not.

[ 02. August 2012, 17:37: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Using the Bible as the basis of universal ethical norms is already enshrining the traditions of a particular institution as applicable to all people, whether they believe or not. The Bible simply is the tradition of the Christian Church. Protestants have a slightly different understanding of how moral teaching is received, but are saying basically the same thing as the Catholics to non-Christians. "We have the truth you ought to life by."

I think this ignores the fact that most Protestant churches will be tolerant of a lot more disagreement that the Catholic Church. Do you think that's fair comment?

It seems to me that most Protestant churches will have a statement of faith that all members will be expected to (literally or metaphorically) sign up to. But beyond this statement, plenty of disagreement is accepted - because most Protestant churches don't consider their theological pronouncements to be beyond dispute.

But if I want to be a Catholic, don't I have to give my assent to anything on which the Catholic Church has made a clear pronouncement? And doesn't this mean the Catholic Church is claiming to have an infallible hotline to God - until it changes its mind on any given issue, of course...

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

But for me it comes down to the simple observation that God has been at work outside the Catholic church as much as within it over the past 300 years: Wesley and Booth being the least controversial examples. Given that, it is crackers to argue that God's opinion is that Protestantism is beyond the pale, so who are you to presume to say otherwise?

God has been at work in Hinduism, atheism, Islam, Juadaism, Zoroastrianism ...... you name it he has been present. He isn't just at work where Jesus is invoked and absent everywhere else. I'm not at all sure where you got your idea of what I presume. Especially since I never presume to speculate on "God's opinion".

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

It seems to me that most Protestant churches will have a statement of faith that all members will be expected to (literally or metaphorically) sign up to. But beyond this statement, plenty of disagreement is accepted - because most Protestant churches don't consider their theological pronouncements to be beyond dispute.

But if I want to be a Catholic, don't I have to give my assent to anything on which the Catholic Church has made a clear pronouncement? And doesn't this mean the Catholic Church is claiming to have an infallible hotline to God - until it changes its mind on any given issue, of course...

See what you did there? You said disagreement happens within Protestantism outside of their statements of faith: "But beyond this statement, plenty of disagreement is accepted" but then you object when the same thing is also true within the Catholic Church. There is plenty of discussion and disagreement on a whole range of subjects. What the Catholic Church does sometimes do is make it clear, when someone presents their opinions, that what they say is not consonant with the Catholic Faith, if that is the case. There's no claim of a hotline to God - that's just your parody.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Thank you, TT, for this response to the challenge!

Your first "answer," that Jesus has the words of eternal life and so there is nowhere to go but him, would of course "work" for any Christian, Catholic or not. It's the answer to why one is a Christian, not why one is a Catholic.

Yes, I realise that - I was using the reply of Peter by extension. Why don't I leave the Catholic Church when I find a teaching hard? Well, where would I go? I believe the Church has the means of salvation and the words of eternal life.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
See what you did there? You said disagreement happens within Protestantism outside of their statements of faith: "But beyond this statement, plenty of disagreement is accepted" but then you object when the same thing is also true within the Catholic Church. There is plenty of discussion and disagreement on a whole range of subjects. What the Catholic Church does sometimes do is make it clear, when someone presents their opinions, that what they say is not consonant with the Catholic Faith, if that is the case. There's no claim of a hotline to God - that's just your parody.

Guilty as charged about statements of faith, but I think for most Protestant churches the statement of faith will be far, far smaller than the equivalent for the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, most (or at least many) Protestant churches will happily release someone who decides they can't assent to that particular church's statement of faith, without considering the person to be schismatic or in heresy. How does the Catholic Church view someone who decides they can no longer assent to its statement of faith, and goes off to join another church?

To repeat, most Protestant churches don't consider themselves to have a monopoly on the truth about Jesus in the way (ISTM) the Catholic Church does.

EDIT - as illustrated by your reply to Cara: 'I believe the [Catholic] Church has the means of salvation and the words of eternal life.' Do other churches not have the means of salvation and the words of eternal life?

[ 02. August 2012, 18:10: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

You are dealing with two different things: what would be termed "dissent" and engaging in a formal schismatic act by leaving the Church. The two need not be linked.

Hans Kung, the darling of liberals, is the celebrated example of the first: he is a priest in good standing, with full faculties to celebrate the sacraments. Many of his theological views, however, are not consonant with the Catholic Faith and have been censured. So he does not have the faculties to teach as a "Catholic theologian". He has chosen to set his own ideas above those of the Church - that's his business. But he cannot then expect to be regarded as teaching on behalf of the Church - he teaches on behalf of himself. He is not, however, excommunicate.

Some people leave for reasons far beyond doctrinal disagreement. I know a number of priests who became Anglicans because they wanted to marry, for example.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
To repeat, most Protestant churches don't consider themselves to have a monopoly on the truth about Jesus in the way (ISTM) the Catholic Church does.

EDIT - as illustrated by your reply to Cara: 'I believe the [Catholic] Church has the means of salvation and the words of eternal life.' Do other churches not have the means of salvation and the words of eternal life?

I'm not sure having a "monopoly on the truth about Jesus" is something the Catholic Church would say about itself. Again, that is your parody.

Regarding your edit: I believe access to salvation and the words of eternal life are available to everyone. I suspect I would be open to the possibility of eternal salvation for far more people than most protestant Christians would be. You are putting weight on the wrong part of my statement about not leaving the Catholic Church: where else would I go when I believe the Catholic Church actually has all that is necessary? And yes, I do believe there are deficiencies in other churches - but that's not a complete denial of any good in them.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

The problem seems to me to be most acute for the person in another denomination who comes to believe, rightly or wrongly, that only the Roman Catholic Church possesses the means to salvation, but who is unable to accept Roman teaching on some arguably less important matter, such as whether using contraception is a mortal sin, or whether the Pope is able to make infallible truth-claims. Are they then to forgo their chance of eternal life, and stay in the CofE, for example, or should they join the RCC, but keeping their (private) reservations about certain aspects of church doctrine? Surely one must say the latter.

Posted by Nenuphar (# 16057) on :

I have hesitated to add to this thread since I wasn't sure whether my personal reason for having to become a catholic would feel at all relevant to you, but anyway, here goes. It's turned out longer than I expected, I'm afraid. I know it's not an original discovery, but for me, it all boils down to who has the authority to teach (or alter, or develop) the teachings Christ gave to His disciples.

I was raised a Methodist (well, sent to Methodist Sunday school by my non-churchgoing parents) but this was good, because of their emphasis on scripture reading (and exams!). When I was 15 I became an Anglican, drawn by the liturgy and sacraments. But from the time I was 18, and had left home for Uni, the Catholic church called insistently to me (somehow an inner longing). I struggled against it, studied (what I thought were) her doctrines, but found, to some relief! that I had difficulty with the 4 most recent dogma - the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Pope, and the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. With hindsight, I know I didn't study hard enough and never understood properly the scriptural basis of all these, the development of doctrine, and the belief and teaching of the Church Fathers.

I remained a practising ("Catholic") Anglican until the women priest issue. I would be happy to have women priests if the Orthodox and Catholic Churches also all adopted them,(i.e. the majority of the world's Christians) but I just couldn't believe that the Holy Spirit would inspire one (relatively small ) section of the Universal Church to make such a momentous change on its own. Exactly who did have the authority to teach the truth of Christianity? (as in "Go and teach all nations..."). Where was the church Christ set up? So it was back to studying the Catholic Church, including those four dogma, since she made that claim, as well as reading the scriptures of course. I believed already that Scripture is inspired by God (He is the primary author), inerrant in matters of faith and morals, and the most straightforward meaning was normally the most reasonable to adopt (though now I would use the Catholic terminology and say of the four senses of scripture, the literal predominates - it's the same thing, I think).

The turning point for me was Matthew 16:16 - 19, where Peter makes his famous declaration, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God," and Jesus replies, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Together with the other scriptures such as Luke 22,32 and John 21,16, Christ seemed to me to be pretty clearly appointing Peter to lead His Church for all time, a successive office of prime minister to be handed down in a continuing church to other "popes" (cf the steward of the household, Isaiah 22.22) (I know they didn't use the term "pope" then!) Christ promised that whatever Peter bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. This was breathtaking. God Himself would abide by the decisions of his earthly vicar: he (the latter) must in some special way be completely protected from pronouncing error for God to pronounce Himself bound by it - and of course there are other scriptures which also support this (e.g. Luke 10,16 - "He who hears you, hears Me.")

If I accepted that Scripture was true, that Jesus meant what He said - and I certainly always had believed this - then the Church led by Peter's successor must be the Church founded by Christ as He wanted it (I do realise human error and sin have crept into some behaviours and periods of course - we're not in the new Jerusalem yet)! Her fundamental teachings must be what Christ intended them to be - even if I had trouble understanding how they all could be. So a year later I had to stand before my new congregation and say, " I believe and profess all the Catholic Church teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God." (This the profession of faith required by adult converts to Catholicism). I confess I didn't understand it all, but I would try: if that was what He wanted, that was what I had to do.(After all, I accept the laws of physics, and I certainly don't understand most of them!)

There are still things I don't understand properly - I go round and round the teaching on contraception, for example - but I try to accept in faith that the Church knows better than I do; I believe She is divinely protected from error, so I have to do my utmost to understand and obey Her teaching, which is not just hers, but protected by Christ. Gradually things become clearer. I found Augustine, who said, "Crede ut intelligas" (believe in order to understand) - faith opens the way to step through the door of truth - but also, and inseparably, "intellige ut credas" - understand in order to believe - in order to find God and believe, you must scrutinize truth.

On the evening of the Easter Vigil 1994, when I (and my husband) were received, I was filled with joy which has never left me. "I have come home!" I fervently and joyfully declared. Fellow Catholics, you can have a little laugh at me here - I've since found out this is so common an experience as to be almost a cliche (can't work out how to do an acute accent on the e). And the more I study and discover, the more I have to echo Newman in saying, "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant". The things I have learnt have been so exciting - how things occurring over at least four thousand years, experienced by people most of whom never met each other, all fit together like a master 3D jigsaw puzzle, particularly the OT and the NT. Only now can I be truly certain that I receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, surrounded by the angels from heaven. It was the best thing I've ever done, I've never for one second regretted it, and my love for, and devotion to, Our Lord grow every day. I hope wherever your path leads you, you find the same joy and peace as well.

I apologise for posting a few references without linking to the texts: I am only a novice sailor and I need to go and learn how to use the UBB practice thread.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

Wow, Nenuphar. Thank you. I think this is hugely relevant to the discussion at hand, as well as interesting and moving.

It is relevant to the OP because Eliab's question was about the question of the Catholic Church's authority, and this is exactly what your conversion turned upon--"it all boils down to who has authority to teach (or alter, or develop) the teachings Christ gave to his disciples," you say.

Your path is so interesting--those four recent dogmas, by the way, are surely problematic for many many others. They are for me.

I know the post is long but for me it is so worth it to see your steps on the way to conviction and conversion.

And the last part of your post is crucial, and illustrates exactly what I've been saying--in the end it comes down to faith. You got almost all the way by study and thought, but then we come to this:

QUOTE FROM NENUPHAR:
There are still things I don't understand properly - I go round and round the teaching on contraception, for example - but I try to accept in faith that the Church knows better than I do; I believe She is divinely protected from error, so I have to do my utmost to understand and obey Her teaching, which is not just hers, but protected by Christ. Gradually things become clearer. I found Augustine, who said, "Crede ut intelligas" (believe in order to understand) - faith opens the way to step through the door of truth - but also, and inseparably, "intellige ut credas" - understand in order to believe - in order to find God and believe, you must scrutinize truth. END QUOTE

Most especially: "I try to accept in faith that the church knows better than I do; I believe She is divinely protected by error, so I have to do my utmost to understand and obey her teaching..."

There it is. Accepting in faith that the [Catholic] Church is right.

This step of faith is just that--faith; it can be reasonably deduced, as you've shown, from Scriptures, up to a certain point and reading a certain way--but obviously it cannot be proved beyond a doubt, or most of us would be Catholics. It's a leap of faith.

Thank you for this. Surely even those who have traced the same thoughts and Scriptures and have come to a different conclusion, those who simply cannot accept that "the [Catholic] Church is divinely protected form error" on doctrinal questions, can respect your decision, and the serious inquiry and spiritual yearning of your path.

As for me, I envy the joy with which you say, "I have come home!"

Cara.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

As a Protestant at a Catholic seminary, I can confirm that there is plentiful and vigorous debate in Roman Catholic theology. In fact, my strict insistence on faith in Jesus Christ as the only real source of righteousness usually makes me come across as an arch-conservative in these debates.

The Church puts up with far more dissent than you think. What it does not put up with (and really I think the Anglican Church needs to put its foot down more often too) is theologians who preach heresy while saying they preach the Roman Catholic faith.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You are dealing with two different things: what would be termed "dissent" and engaging in a formal schismatic act by leaving the Church. The two need not be linked.

Hans Kung, the darling of liberals, is the celebrated example of the first: he is a priest in good standing, with full faculties to celebrate the sacraments...

Oh right, I didn't realise this was an option. So people in this situation - publicly espousing views contrary to the official Catholic position - are still considered to be 'good Catholics', fully able to take Communion etc.?

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I'm not sure having a "monopoly on the truth about Jesus" is something the Catholic Church would say about itself. Again, that is your parody.

Apologies - I meant no parody or mockery at all with this comment. I thought it was a perfectly straight inference from your comment, 'I believe the Church has the means of salvation and the words of eternal life'. If you didn't mean 'I believe only the Catholic Church...' then I apologise again as I've misunderstood you.

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You are putting weight on the wrong part of my statement about not leaving the Catholic Church: where else would I go when I believe the Catholic Church actually has all that is necessary?

I'm not particularly saying you should go elsewhere. It's rather that I'm trying to work out and get my head around exactly what the Catholic Church claims regarding its authority.

I guess my reference point is the Watchtower, the Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide institution. I'm pretty sure they claim to be God's sole agent on earth and consider all the other churches to be agents of the devil. Obviously the Catholic Church doesn't hold those views, but still it seems to me that the Catholic Church's view is pretty exclusivist. I know individual Catholics may well not fully agree with the official position but the latter is what I'm personally most interested in.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

originally posted by Triple Tiara

The things I find difficult are as nothing compared with the things I believe to be true.

The thing is I could be a Catholic on that basis and so I expect could Eliab. It's what you have to do with the difficult bits that I don't quite understand, the submission of one's own beliefs to the church's teaching if that is the right expression. I know intellectually that the Catholic church is more likely to be right about things than I am, since they have spent more time than I have working out their answers and the people doing the working out are cleverer and more spiritual than I am, but I still don't know how to accept their teaching if I don't believe it.

I understand how to keep quiet about what I don't agree with, which I have to do at work sometimes, but I think the church is asking for something more than that.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I'm not sure having a "monopoly on the truth about Jesus" is something the Catholic Church would say about itself. Again, that is your parody.

You REALLY REALLY don't want to engage with the reference to those who reject the Marian dogma as having 'made a shipwreck of their faith'. That's what the Pope has declared infallibly. Yet you don't really believe it, do you? But it is surely only on the basis of having the monopoly of the truth that the RCC can make its claims that everyone else has made a shipwreck of their faith.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I am sure even TT could not exhaust everything an Anglican or Baptist has right about the Christian Faith, Ender's. What he does not believe is that their Churches possess all the marks of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Maybe I am going too far in saying that on TT's behalf, but it's how I look at the issue anyway. What did Jesus Christ found? Which community carries all of the marks of that community of the apostles? I think those marks are preaching the faith, celebrating the sacraments, and apostolic orders, and I think TEC has all those marks. Is unity with the Bishop of Rome one of those marks? I don't think the Bible says so, but Roman Catholics believe it does. Which is why they are Catholics and I am an Anglican.

[ 02. August 2012, 22:00: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Thank you Zach - I would concur with you.

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
You REALLY REALLY don't want to engage with the reference to those who reject the Marian dogma as having 'made a shipwreck of their faith'. That's what the Pope has declared infallibly. Yet you don't really believe it, do you? But it is surely only on the basis of having the monopoly of the truth that the RCC can make its claims that everyone else has made a shipwreck of their faith.

Um, no. The Pope was not addressing Christians of other churches when he wrote Ineffabilis Deus. He was addressing a disputed doctrine within the Catholic Church, and making a formal declaration. Here is the full context of the phrase which causes you such anguish:

quote:
Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

You might think he was trying to cock a snook at protestants. In fact he was calling Catholic theologians to line up behind that which was now defined and not go trundling down their own paths. Context is everything.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

I have held off from making any comment here for some time, as I have been attempting to make sense of my own relationship with the Catholic Church. Fr TT is fortunate that he grew up in England, where by necessity the (Roman) Catholic Church did not control matters of social policy. It most certainly did in Ireland during my lifetime, where the hierarchy under the imperious John Charles McQuaid, aided and abetted by a zealously right wing and active professional class laity ensured that the social teaching of the Church was enshrined in the law of the land, right up to the 1990s.

I stopped practicing in the 1990s for a number of reasons, which were a cumulation of many things over a number of years. A number of members of my family were "encouraged" to contract marriages when they got pregnant, leading to all but one of the marriages collapsing and in one case by suicide. Unbelievably, contraception was still illegal at the time these events happened, and it was a tooth and nail fight to get that mad law reversed over a twenty five year period. Ne Temere's implementation in Ireland was only very slightly lessened by the Hierachy in 1970.

The nadir for me and the breaking point was the effective takeover of my parish by a zealous group of laypeople who promoted Medjugorje/the Divine Mercy and the cause of Mary Mediatrix as a new Marian dogma, all of which I believe to be nonsense, and divisive nonsense at that.

I do not share Fr TT's sanguine view of Fatima. The older generation of Irish Catholics that I knew had a highly apocalyptic view of faith and of Christ's heavy arm waiting to punish the world, only held back by the intercession of the BVM. I grew up with the absolutely terrifying ream of prayers based around the "trimmings" of the rosary. All of this contributed to the "Hotel California" school of Irish Catholicism, where "you can check out anytime you like but you just can never leave". Most Irish Catholics when they lapse go nowhere else and abandon faith entirely, because we have never been given the tools to analyse the Faith in a critical way.

I found, as a guest at different times, in Anglican and Methodist churches, reverent worship, devotion to the Eucharist, decent singing and a sense of continuity of belief, which are often absent from an Irish Catholic Church. The overriding sense in an Irish Catholic Church is either one of performing one's duty on a Sunday, or sailing on the wider fringes of folk Catholicism during the week.

Fr TT is dismissive of liberals and Fr Kung, but I hold on in the hope that Rome will sweep the ban on contraception, mandatory clerical celibacy, Ne Temere and Apostolicae Curae, among others, into the dustbin of history where they belong. "Woe to you, you Pharisees, you lay burdens on men's backs but you do nothing to lift them" resonates with me.

For what it's worth.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Actually I have a great deal of sympathy for your position, as I have often thought that the Catholic Church is at its absolute worst where it is in a position of power. Quite often our worst enemies are our own hierarchy who lose sight of the primary vision. I get disheartened by daft statements from bishops and the over-zealous rants of the ultra-Catholics. They often, it seems to me, grab hold of the lesser tenets and exalt them to the highest level of importance.

But then I hear the opposite trend and I am equally disheartened - the wet tendency, the relativists, the liturgically naff.

Both extremes, it seems to me, do damage to the beauty which is at the core of the Catholic Faith. I am not a knee-jerk conservative, though some think I am. But neither am I a wet liberal for whom everything is up for grabs. I probably do not just dismiss the things I don't like, but rather listen attentively and then assign a lesser level of importance to them and try to face the Lord once again and keep moving forward.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You are dealing with two different things: what would be termed "dissent" and engaging in a formal schismatic act by leaving the Church. The two need not be linked.

Hans Kung, the darling of liberals, is the celebrated example of the first: he is a priest in good standing, with full faculties to celebrate the sacraments...
Oh right, I didn't realise this was an option. So people in this situation - publicly espousing views contrary to the official Catholic position - are still considered to be 'good Catholics', fully able to take Communion etc.?

Yes and no. The Church has long since realised that the best way to deal with the likes of Kung is to the deny them the oxygen of publicity they so desperately crave, i.e. not taking overt public action against them but rather letting them and their ideas slide into obscurity and irrelevance.

Though of course the hammer does come down sometimes where behaviour leaves no other option, such as in the case of Milingo.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

You are engaging in false comparisons. Milingo was excommunicated because he engaged in a schismatic act by ordaining bishops without an apostolic mandate from the pope - same reason as Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated.

If you want to make a comparison with Kung (and the description you give is entirely your own reading of the situation) then you would be better to cite the example of Fr Tissa Balasuriya

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I was trying to have a bash at this when talking about all churches having equally valid claims to authority - I should not have spoken of validity because of the triggers that has, especially for Anglicans, and I should have realised this.

It's not a trigger for me. I'm a fairly MOTR Anglican - High enough to understand what the debate about validity of orders and sacraments means, and Low enough not to care particularly what other churches think of ours.

quote:
Again, I think you are perhaps reading LG from the perspective of "this is one Church among many, all claiming authority".

Well, yes. Of course I am. The Catholic Church IS one church among many, claiming authority. That much, surely, is beyond dispute. The question of me is whether it is right.

quote:
The Catholic perspective is that there is only ONE Church, but it is divided. It's not engaged in a contest as to which is the best Church. So the opening paragraphs of LG are speaking of that one Church.

Yes, and I agreed with them. I'm a member of that one Church. At least, I think I am, and the CCC seems to say that, too.

quote:
It is NOT Catholic belief that it is the ONLY Church. However, it does lay claim to being the Church which is historically, theologically and ecclesiologically contiguous with the Church established by the Lord and built upon the Apostles.

And that's what my "WHY???" is all about. LG doesn't answer that question. It says there's a Church, and the fullness of it subsists in this one institution. It doesn't say why, or why it can't also subsist elsewhere.

The closest I can get to it, from you and IngoB, is that you seem to take it as axiomatic that there must be this one, authoritative, spirit-led Church identifiable as an earthly institution, which is preserved from error on all (the important) points. And, if that's where you start from, it looks to me to be a toss up between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (because, by definition, you need a Church which institutionally goes all the way back). But I don't see why the Church, in the Jesus-founded, Spirit-inspired sense, has to be institutional in that way at all. It might be, but it's not in the least a necessary consequence of Jesus being who he claimed to be. And a reason for thinking that it isn't a likely consequence is that, nice idea though it is, for it to have the ‘lead you into all truth' effect, it's only useful for God to preserve his One Church from error if he also preserves it from schism. Otherwise you get the situation of about half the Christian world not having that divine guarantee of truth, anyway, and having to be disciples of Jesus without it. And then you have to say that either the Spirit isn't leading that lot into truth (absurd) or that God doesn't need the institution to do it (true).

quote:
The ecumenical impetus of all Catholic engagement is a return to unity as one Body of Christ. Naturally in that she has certain propositions which she believes are necessary to establish that unity.

But those "certain propositions" are, in practice, just about everything.

I've been reading a book of testimonies from prominent UK Catholics about ‘Why I am a Catholic' (that being the book's title). One was by Ann Widdecombe, and what struck me about her account was how seriously she took her declaration of acceptance of Catholic teaching. She said that she delayed asking to received into the church for several months because she had difficulty accepting the doctrine of purgatory.

As it happens, the doctrine of purgatory per se isn't a problem for me*. But it's hardly a key doctrine. There's the barest reference to some images that might optimistically be imagined to be purgatory in the Bible, and while that doesn't absolutely prove that the apostles didn't know about it, it demonstrates at least to my satisfaction that they didn't think it a key part of the gospel. It is not a proposition which seems to me to be remotely necessary for Christian unity. If the Catholic Church is indeed the indispensible bit of the Body of Christ, it strikes me as scandalously irresponsible to keep from that Body those Christians who cannot sincerely declare that they accept this teaching. I cannot understand why you would even want to. If purgatory is not an issue that we can agree to disagree on, and still be one communion, what is?

(*the superstructure of belief about temporal punishments, and indulgences and so on that accompanies it is another matter. Someone has just made that up as far as I can see)

quote:
In the meantime, she does not say "you are not Christians at all, all the rest of you. You are not even in the Church". Rather she proposes her belief that all other Christian bodies derive their authenticity from the fullness of unity and faith of the One Church of Jesus Christ - as you say " "Christianity" emerged at one time.

I know that. It's one of the points most in your favour.

If the Catholic Church said the rest of us weren't Christian, I'd know that I could safely ignore everything else that it said. What it does say about us, though, makes perfect sense given how it sees itself. We fit very neatly into that scheme, in a way that does not detract from the truth of our own experiences, and places us in a real, but somewhat strained, relationship with the Church of Jesus. It means that I could convert to Catholicism without feeling that my Anglicanism was a waste of time, and without being asked to doubt what I encountered of God outside the Catholic Church. That one, you got right.

quote:
We all trace our heritage back that far, and every different tradition has done some stuff since then". That stuff done since then is the problem, and the Catholic Church's position is some of that stuff has gone too far from the common root. Of course, I understand that the same applies in reverse as well!

Yes, exactly. Which gets us back to the authority question. You've done stuff, we've done stuff, so we're about equal unless you really are the highest earthly authority capable of judging that you are right and we are wrong.

quote:
So how do I reconcile all this with commitment to the Catholic Church? John 6:67-68 "So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" ".

It's possible to hear those Words in Anglicanism, Methodism, Pentecstalism, Orthodoxy...

quote:
I find unconvincing the foundations of any of the other churches. I would probably simply be a lapsed Catholic before I could ever be an Anglican or Orthodox Christian because of that.

I am stunned by that. I don't get it at all. OK, I can sort of imagine believing that you can hear Jesus better through the Catholic Church than any of the others, even believing that the others have distorted the message, but I don't see how, on any view, not listening to Jesus as a nominal Catholic is better than actually trying to follow him as a Baptist.

Are you saying that if you didn't have a plausibly infallible Church, you wouldn't see the point of being any sort of active Christian? Because that just sounds crazy to me. Have I misunderstood you completely?

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Actually I have a great deal of sympathy for your position, as I have often thought that the Catholic Church is at its absolute worst where it is in a position of power. Quite often our worst enemies are our own hierarchy who lose sight of the primary vision. I get disheartened by daft statements from bishops and the over-zealous rants of the ultra-Catholics. They often, it seems to me, grab hold of the lesser tenets and exalt them to the highest level of importance.

But then I hear the opposite trend and I am equally disheartened - the wet tendency, the relativists, the liturgically naff.

Both extremes, it seems to me, do damage to the beauty which is at the core of the Catholic Faith. I am not a knee-jerk conservative, though some think I am. But neither am I a wet liberal for whom everything is up for grabs. I probably do not just dismiss the things I don't like, but rather listen attentively and then assign a lesser level of importance to them and try to face the Lord once again and keep moving forward.

Indeed. Thank you as ever for a considered response. Am fully with you on liturgical naffness, seeing as one of my Anglican ports of call has been All Saints Margaret Street, and one of my points of return has been the high quality of worship and preaching at St John the Evangelist in Bath.

If Irish Catholicism could even remotely understand the importance of beauty in worship it would truly help in its healing.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
highlights I have added show the real logic. There is no claim here at all that the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is totally central to the Catholic Faith by virtue of its content. One does not fall away from the Catholic Faith because one does not find this teaching obvious by and in itself. Rather, the pope is here saying: I will now make a statement concerning faith in the fullness of the power granted by God to my office: I will here make use of my infallibility to define a truth of faith, and I will unequivocally demand the full assent of faith to this of all the Church.

And I think that you've read the pope's mind admirably. A Boston, Catholic-raised friend years ago said that this pope was bound and determined to emit another dogma. When it turned out to be merely the Assumption, theologians heaved a great sigh of relief. They were afraid that it would be Our Lady Co-Redemptrix.

I have more trouble with its being a dogma than with the belief per se. It is a venerable and admirable pious opinion. Consider the precedents. Scripture itself would have us believe that two Old Testament figures were assumed bodily into heaven. So why not Our Lady, who must have been at least as dear to God as they? You'd think fundamentalists would be the last to doubt this. [Biased]

The larger issue, as you have pointed out, is the dogma of papal infallibility, on which the Assumption as a dogma depends. The circumstances surrounding its emission are too suspicious to encourage confidence. First we have the fact that the pope was smarting from his sudden and decisive loss of power as a secular prince. The acknowledgement of this spiritual authority (and, by extension, that of the Roman Catholic church as a whole) would make a great psychological consolation prize. Second, the acoustics of St. Peter's Basilica, in which the council deliberated, made it virtually impossible for delegates to understand what was happening. Some complained about this afterwords. Third, the idea horrified knowledgeable and devout Catholics such as Lord Acton and even John Henry Newman. One can suspect that it was railroaded through without adequate discussion.

Congratulations, Eliab, for a very articulate O.P. Your fourth point is an absolute red herring IMHO, unless liability insurance rates for Catholic churches and institutions are higher than those of any other denomination. Insurers have more at stake than anyone else: their very solvency depends on good actuarial work. They must soberly get the statistical facts straight and keep them straight, regardless of popular pressure or journalistic sensationalism. Perhaps the scandals in the RCC tend to have a particular character, but in the eyes of courts and juries, they are less than those of other churches in other respects, so that the financial impact (i.e., the bottom line-- and who would dare to argue with the bottom line? [Biased]

seems to be balanced. Journalists will pick easy and well-known targets for opportunistic reportage that's good for ratings and sales.

Otherweise, you have described my own position and reservations very well.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

And I think that you've read the pope's mind admirably. A Boston, Catholic-raised friend years ago said that this pope was bound and determined to emit another dogma. When it turned out to be merely the Assumption, theologians heaved a great sigh of relief. They were afraid that it would be Our Lady Co-Redemptrix.

I have more trouble with its being a dogma than with the belief per se. It is a venerable and admirable pious opinion. Consider the precedents. Scripture itself would have us believe that two Old Testament figures were assumed bodily into heaven. So why not Our Lady, who must have been at least as dear to God as they? You'd think fundamentalists would be the last to doubt this.

The larger issue, as you have pointed out, is the dogma of papal infallibility, on which the Assumption as a dogma depends. The circumstances surrounding its emission are too suspicious to encourage confidence. First we have the fact that the pope was smarting from his sudden and decisive loss of power as a secular prince. The acknowledgement of this spiritual authority (and, by extension, that of the Roman Catholic church as a whole) would make a great psychological consolation prize. Second, the acoustics of St. Peter's Basilica, in which the council deliberated, made it virtually impossible for delegates to understand what was happening. Some complained about this afterwords. Third, the idea horrified knowledgeable and devout Catholics such as Lord Acton and even John Henry Newman. One can suspect that it was railroaded through without adequate discussion.

Congratulations, Eliab, for a very articulate O.P. Your fourth point is an absolute red herring IMHO, unless liability insurance rates for Catholic churches and institutions are higher than those of any other denomination. Insurers have more at stake than anyone else: their very solvency depends on good actuarial work. They must soberly get the statistical facts straight and keep them straight, regardless of popular pressure or journalistic sensationalism. Perhaps the scandals in the RCC tend to have a particular character, but in the eyes of courts and juries, they are less than those of other churches in other respects, so that the financial impact (i.e., the bottom line-- and who would dare to argue with the bottom line? seems to be balanced. Journalists will pick easy and well-known targets for opportunistic reportage that's good for ratings and sales.

Otherweise, you have described my own position and reservations very well. [/QB]

I should think that if Mary as Co-redemptrix was ever promulgated as a dogma then I believe that it would be my duty to leave, immediately. Where is the parallel in Orthodoxy or indeed anywhere else in non RC Christian belief? Truly, as CS Lewis would say, not just nonsense but damned nonsense. "Do what He tells you" was Mary's response at Cana to a question addressed to her.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I hope I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that one of the defining features of Catholicism is that it is, in a way, monolithic. Every bit of the doctrinal system relates to every other bit, and none can be dislodged without upsetting the whole thing.

So wrote Evelyn Waugh in Brideshead Revisited. Likewise, Chesterton in Orthodoxy, comparing the faith to Christ's seamless robe. But with the dogma of the Assumption, Ingo claims that it would be better to ignore this view for the moment. I'm not really sure why.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Oh yes, but few Protestant churches would hold their interpretation to be authoritative in the way the Catholic Church holds its interpretation. That's the point, isn't it?

They might not explicitly say that their interpretation is authoritative, but they do believe that their interpretation is correct. If, say, a baptist pastor doesn’t hold his interpretation of a certain text to be correct, why would he teach it? If I had an interpretation of a text that I didn’t believe was correct, but might be, I might share it with someone, but I probably wouldn’t teach it. I also disagree with the postmodern implications that is often drawn from the ‘all we have is interpretations’ mindset. Of course all we have is interpretation. But that doesn’t have to entail any postmodern conclusion unless we assume that no interpretations are authoritative and/or that all interpretations are equal.

And one more thing is important to note: The text which we interpret didn’t fall down from the sky. It was written within a certain tradition (first Israel, later the Church), by concrete individuals. And then, on a later occasion, the Church discerned which texts was inspired, canonized them and compiled them. They had certain criteria that helped them making the decision, but there are texts that, although ‘scoring’ on all the points, where never considered inspired, and thus was never canonized. One fairly obvious example is the third epistle to the Corinthians (see 1Cor 5:9). As far as I’ve been told, the reason we no longer have it, is probably because it wasn’t canonized.

My point is that while we all interpret Scripture, we still rely on certain individual’s decision as to what texts are to be considered Scripture.

And as Zach has pointed out, it really makes no sense to say Scripture or Tradition. The term ‘tradition’ is derived from the latin noun traditio (‘that which is handed over’) which is derived from the latin verb trado (‘to hand over, deliver’). (Or it could be that the verb derives from the noun. I forget.) Scripture is handed over in the Church, from the Apostles. The disagreement is whether or not something more was handed over, and if this is authoritative in some way.* In most Lutheran churches, Scripture is primarily authoritative, but the creeds, confessions, catechism, etc. are authoritative too, to a lesser degree.** Scripture is norma normans (‘the norming norm’), creeds and confessions are norma normata (‘the normed norm’). The same, I believe, is true of Reformed churches, with their texts being the normed norm. (Tradition is that which is handed over, and which is authoritative, to lesser or higher degrees.)

Just as in the Catholic Church, we see in protestant churches as differanziation between Tradition and tradition(s).

* Just because it irritates me when I am meet this kind of language in debates, I would like to point out that texts or interpretations are authoritative; persons have authority.

** AFAIK, in most Lutheran churches this means the Book of Concord, but some churches doesn’t regard the whole books as authoritative. In the Church of Denmark and the Church of Norway (primarily because the King didn’t want to take part in the conflicts on the continent), the only authoritative extra-biblical texts (within a specific sense of ‘authoritative’) are the three ancient symbols (Apostolicum, Nicenum, Athanasianum), the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Oh yes, but few Protestant churches would hold their interpretation to be authoritative in the way the Catholic Church holds its interpretation. That's the point, isn't it?
They might not explicitly say that their interpretation is authoritative, but they do believe that their interpretation is correct.

Indeed they do believe their interpretation is correct but I still maintain most Protestant churches have an approach a whole lot softer than that of the Catholic Church.

For example, my church (and I'm sure it's not unique in this) does not believe it has superior status than any other. We do not believe God is working through us in a way He isn't through other churches. We do not believe our sacraments are superior or more valid than those of other churches.

Unless I've wildly misunderstood things, this puts my church (and all other churches that could state the same things) in a very different position to the Catholic Church.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I don't know, SCK. A few years ago a priest of TEC was dismissed from her ministry for refusing to recant her statements to papers that she could be a faithful Christian priest and a Muslim at the same time. The man a diocese elected bishop was refused sufficient consents for, ostensibly, dabbling in Zen Buddhism. We have drawn our lines too, and the RCC makes more allowances than some people think.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Guilty as charged about statements of faith, but I think for most Protestant churches the statement of faith will be far, far smaller than the equivalent for the Catholic Church.

Which doesn’t really make any principled difference. And if you asked protestant pastors about many of the beliefs of the Catholic Church (the ever-virginity of Mary, for instance),* some would probably say that you couldn’t believe them and be part of their church, making non-belief in certain doctrines part of the requirements.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Furthermore, most (or at least many) Protestant churches will happily release someone who decides they can't assent to that particular church's statement of faith, without considering the person to be schismatic or in heresy.

Is that only your assumption, or a fact? If, say, a person who was a member of the (lutheran) Church of Norway (of which I am a member) didn’t believe that Christ was divine, I would consider him a heretic. If he split with the Church,** I would consider him to be in schism. (The latter doesn’t really adress the question of which side of the schism is correct, though.)

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
To repeat, most Protestant churches don't consider themselves to have a monopoly on the truth about Jesus in the way (ISTM) the Catholic Church does.

But what, exactly, do you mean by ‘monopoly,’ and in what way do you believe the Catholic Church claim it? You seem to be using a deliberately polemic term without explaining what you mean by it.

* I chose this example deliberately, as this is a belief that has been controversial, but which (contrary to the belief of many), has been traditionally held by Lutherans. To quote from the Smalcald Articles, from the Book of Concord: “That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary...” (1:4)

** I wouldn’t considering moving to Sweden or England and joining, respectively, the Church of Sweden or the Church of England to be schismatic. But they are in communion with the Church of Norway.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
If you asked protestant pastors about many of the beliefs of the Catholic Church (the ever-virginity of Mary, for instance), some would probably say that you couldn’t believe them and be part of their church, making non-belief in certain doctrines part of the requirements.

I expect some would say this, but I'd be surprised if it's anything like a majority. Speaking from my own experience, I belong to a Vineyard Church and, while I've not checked, I'd be surprised if our statement of faith (local church or national umbrella body) has any mention of Mary's sexual experience, barring the virgin birth. And I'd be stunned if one's views on this matter (again, barring the virgin birth) were considered important by my church leadership.

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
If, say, a person who was a member of the (lutheran) Church of Norway (of which I am a member) didn’t believe that Christ was divine, I would consider him a heretic. If he split with the Church, I would consider him to be in schism.

Something as fundamental as this, probably yes - such a person wouldn't be considered in my church for leadership positions and so on, and perhaps wouldn't be thought of as a Christian (I'm less sure of the latter point). But the body of beliefs which would bring such questions into play is far smaller with most Protestant churches than with the Catholic Church, ISTM.

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
But what, exactly, do you mean by ‘monopoly,’ and in what way do you believe the Catholic Church claim it? You seem to be using a deliberately polemic term without explaining what you mean by it.

I meant no polemic, honestly! I've just scanned through the Catechism of the Catholic Church and this is roughly what I had in mind:

quote:
III. The Interpretation of the Heritage of Faith

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practising and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

The key quotation, for me, is that final sentence: '[T]he task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.'

So what does that say about bishops and others not in communion with the Pope? Are they (we) not capable of interpreting the Bible? I can't see how the Catholic Catechism says otherwise, meaning the official teaching of the Catholic Church is that it alone is capable and authorised to interpret the Bible. Show me where my argument is wrong...

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...
So what does that say about bishops and others not in communion with the Pope? Are they (we) not capable of interpreting the Bible? I can't see how the Catholic Catechism says otherwise, meaning the official teaching of the Catholic Church is that it alone is capable and authorised to interpret the Bible. Show me where my argument is wrong...

The problem of a Protestant interpretation of the Bible, as against a Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) interpretation of the Bible is that Catholics (and Orthodox) could not see the Bible being interpreted outside the Church's continuing Tradition (which actually predates and is seen to include the New Testament). The concept of sola scriptura - relying only on the Bible - which is very much the Reformation mindset would be quite foreign.

At the Reformation, the Bible, particularly as understood by the Reformers, was seen as the key to creating new doctrinal statements of belief which were believed to supersede the old, corrupt Roman ones.

It would be strange then if the Roman Catholic Church (or Orthodox) were to discount Tradition; history and the guarantee given to Peter that the Church would never stray from the essential deposit of Faith.

The Roman Catholic Church's attitude to biblical exegesis outside it would be to wish the exegetes well but not necessarily take said exegesis on board. Some commentary, such as by Bishop Tom Wright, which is essentially scriptural and in keeping with what are normally regarded as traditional Christian belief until the Nineteenth Century and the rise of Modernism, would be fairly highly regarded. Some more contentious approaches, which would cast doubt on traditional Christian beliefs, as defined by the Councils of the Early Church; the Creeds or certain official doctrinal statements by the Popes would not be taken on board as they would be regarded as heretical.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The problem of a Protestant interpretation of the Bible, as against a Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) interpretation of the Bible is that Catholics (and Orthodox) could not see the Bible being interpreted outside the Church's continuing Tradition...

Which Church though? That's the problem; according to the Catechesis this seems to mean 'the Catholic Church's continuing Tradition', i.e. that only the Catholic Church is the guardian of accurate Christian tradition. This is setting out the Catholic Church to be qualitatively different from all other expressions of Christianity, ISTM.

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
It would be strange then if the Roman Catholic Church (or Orthodox) were to discount Tradition; history and the guarantee given to Peter that the Church would never stray from the essential deposit of Faith.

That's an interesting phrase - 'never stray from the essential deposit of Faith'. I wonder what all the various horrors committed and taught by the Catholic Church over the centuries do to this belief. I'm thinking of positions the Church has taught and actions it has carried out which it would now strongly turn its back on; things like the Inquisition and the sale of indulgences for obvious starters.

Not that churches of all other stripes haven't also strayed hideously from Jesus' example and teaching, but when the church doing it is apparently the inheritor of the 'guarantee given to Peter that the Church would never stray from the essential deposit of Faith'... That seems like a problem to me. How do Catholics deal with this?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Most Catholics deal with the above problems by simply ignoring them.Not only Catholics,of course,do this.Most of us try to ignore unpleasant parts of the history of our nation,our family and often our own personal failings,as we usually undertsand why we have done what we have done.

I agree with a number of the Catholic contributors here that the Catholic community does better on the whole when it has no real power.

The history of Ireland and its relationships with the other parts of the British Isles are the reasons for the absolute dominance of the Catholic church when Ireland became an independent nation state.Catholics recognise,I think, that the Church,like Christ' has two natures,the divinely appointed ideal and the human fallibilities of its members.Almost all religious communities,not only Catholic communities,will have their religious zealots ,who are committed to a close following of religious rules,sometime man made,particularly the difficult ones.Fortunately in most religious communities there are many people who live on the fringes of the community and who do not allow the religious zealots always to have their way.

It is easier for many of us to follow external religious rules like going to Mass,saying the Rosary,not eating meat on Fridays,but also reading the Bible,making sure that one does not do anything on Sunday,not mixing with those who do not accept our rules -it is easier in a way to do all these things than actually to get on with loving God and loving our neighbour as we do ourselves.

Most of us,but certainly not all of us,have our experience of religion,within the context of the family and the local community.We are aware often of the weaknesses and imperfections of others and sometimes aware of our own weaknesses and imperfections,but more often than not we will stick with that community,because we have a knowledge also of the benefit of the community.

My only connection with Ireland is my Irish grandmother (who died in 1941),but I am indeed aware of the situation of Irish Catholicism.For all its weaknesses and for all its good points it is essential to remember that it is not the only 'authentic' Catholicism.

An expression which almost all English speaking Catholics will know is 'Holydays of Obligation',reminding Catholics that certain days,not normally holidays in wider society were days on which Catholics should fulfil an obligation to observe the holiness of the day.In most other European countries although the expression 'Holyday of obligation' might be used in technical Catholic language such as in Italian 'festa di precetto' almost no Italian would use such an expression.It is simply 'festa' a day on which one has freedom from work and time to enjoy the family and hopefully to thank God also.I find that in Ireland the word 'obligation' was perhaps overused.
Most Catholics have little difficulty with doctrines such as the Immaculate conception or the Assumption,long standing traditions even if the Assumption was only formally defined by Pius XII in 1950.They are theological propositions which by earthly standards can neither be proved nor disproved..They are just like the doctrine of the Trinity which can neither be proved nor disproved nor even understood by most people.If one accepts that the Catholic church has the divine command to teach all nations,it is only natural to accept its teachings on points like this.It is not so much the idea that Almighty God is obliged to following the teaching of the Catholic church,but rather that the Catholic church in its established teaching is preserved by God from teaching error.

As a catholic I find it easy to see the hand of God working in those of other Christian confessions,in the community of my Moslem brothers and sisters and others of different and no faith.I am happy to be able to participate in their religious worship and to have some insight into their beliefs,from which I learn so much.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Forthview:

quote:
I agree with a number of the Catholic contributors here that the Catholic community does better on the whole when it has no real power.

I think this is true of any branch of the Church, as well as any individual Christian. As I've said elsewhere, at length, most people seem to become bastards when they become Bishops. There are glorious exceptions but they are very much exceptions, IMNSVHO.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Forthview:
quote:
I agree with a number of the Catholic contributors here that the Catholic community does better on the whole when it has no real power.
I think this is true of any branch of the Church, as well as any individual Christian. As I've said elsewhere, at length, most people seem to become bastards when they become Bishops. There are glorious exceptions but they are very much exceptions, IMNSVHO.

I have heard this that Kierkegaard said, "Christianity needs fresh air; it needs persecution."

Moo

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
You REALLY REALLY don't want to engage with the reference to those who reject the Marian dogma as having 'made a shipwreck of their faith'. That's what the Pope has declared infallibly. Yet you don't really believe it, do you? But it is surely only on the basis of having the monopoly of the truth that the RCC can make its claims that everyone else has made a shipwreck of their faith.
Um, no. The Pope was not addressing Christians of other churches when he wrote Ineffabilis Deus. He was addressing a disputed doctrine within the Catholic Church, and making a formal declaration. Here is the full context of the phrase which causes you such anguish:

quote:
Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.
You might think he was trying to cock a snook at protestants. In fact he was calling Catholic theologians to line up behind that which was now defined and not go trundling down their own paths. Context is everything.

Thanks for a fascinating reply - a totally new understanding of the material that has left me very surprised. I don't think it's a sustainable interpretation - but it's 'interesting'! Thanks.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

Example: The papal teaching defining the Assumption of Mary ...

... is aptly referred to as an assumption.
*

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thanks for a fascinating reply - a totally new understanding of the material that has left me very surprised. I don't think it's a sustainable interpretation - but it's 'interesting'! Thanks.

I am puzzled by your response. If you go and read the whole Decree - here - you will see how Pope Pius IX builds up to the point of defining the doctrine by calling upon the witness of history, piety, papal precedents, the Council of Trent, the ancient belief of the Roman Church (meaning the Church of the City of Rome, not the way Anglicans use that term). There is a whole section devoted to earlier papal sanctions against those who taught otherwise . It's all of a piece. I cannot at all see why you think he was aiming at the likes of you, who do not hold to the authority of the Bishop of Rome!

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

[QUOTE]I find unconvincing the foundations of any of the other churches. I would probably simply be a lapsed Catholic before I could ever be an Anglican or Orthodox Christian because of that.
I am stunned by that. I don't get it at all. OK, I can sort of imagine believing that you can hear Jesus better through the Catholic Church than any of the others, even believing that the others have distorted the message, but I don't see how, on any view, not listening to Jesus as a nominal Catholic is better than actually trying to follow him as a Baptist.

Are you saying that if you didn't have a plausibly infallible Church, you wouldn't see the point of being any sort of active Christian? Because that just sounds crazy to me. Have I misunderstood you completely?

Eliab, I think this is the crux of it all. The question of the foundations of all other churches. These foundations seem unconvincing, as TT says, to many (most? all?) Catholics. The other churches seem to be founded by breaking away from the core, by diverging from the true faith, by changing and altering the deposit that came down from Jesus and the apostles, by being in schism, and so on.

Those of us who, like me, left the Roman Catholic Church to join another one (in my case the Episopal Church/Anglican communion) have to work out for ourselves how we can feel assured our new chosen church is in fact just as "valid" as Catholicism.

It was ingrained in us that other churches were invalid--and in my childhood a nun even told a classroomful of girls that non-Catholics cannot get to Heaven. (I know this is not the teaching now, I just use it to illustrate the difficulty of overcoming the mindset one was brought up with.) In the generation before mine, Catholics weren't even supposed to set foot in a non-Catholic church--or perhaps they could to look at the building architecturally! But couldn't attend worship there....

But after a lot of thought I decided I could believe the Holy Spirit could be active in all the churches; and could even have had something to do with the emergence of the Anglican church...it wasn't all about Henry VIII's desire to divorce his wife and take another, as I'd been taught.

It's true, a divided Christian church does not seem to be in line with what Jesus wanted. But then, the abuses of the pre-reformation Church (though of course it had so much that was wonderful as well) were hardly what jesus wanted either....

I think there's more that unites all the Christian denominations than divides them (obviously); I love all ecumenical initiatives and endeavours, eg Taizé, the work of Abbe Paul Couturier, etc etc;
I think we are getting appreciably closer to each other.

So, Eliab, I think TT and Nenuphar (among others) have pretty much whittled it down to the essence: is the Catholic Church founded on firmer ground than the others? Has it preserved from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit? Is the authority of the Pope what Jesus meant by "Upon this rock," etc? an other Christian churches claim true apostolic succession? And does the foundation and authenticity and inerrancy of the Catholic church truly give it the authority it claims?

Whatever the answer, I for one am so glad there is so much more dialogue nowadays, and easing of the terrible inter-denominational hostilities of the past. Which of course, to balance what I said above, were not all on the Catholic side, I realise--as is well-known, many Anglicans and others were in, eg, the 19th century, deeply hostile to "Popery" and anything seeming to smack of it, and Catholics were prevented from getting anywhere academically, politically, and,often, socially.

Astonishingly, some of that deep hostility survives in some quarters, as witness the thread started by The Silent Acolyte.

Cara

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

[QUOTE]I find unconvincing the foundations of any of the other churches. I would probably simply be a lapsed Catholic before I could ever be an Anglican or Orthodox Christian because of that.
I am stunned by that. I don't get it at all. OK, I can sort of imagine believing that you can hear Jesus better through the Catholic Church than any of the others, even believing that the others have distorted the message, but I don't see how, on any view, not listening to Jesus as a nominal Catholic is better than actually trying to follow him as a Baptist.

Are you saying that if you didn't have a plausibly infallible Church, you wouldn't see the point of being any sort of active Christian? Because that just sounds crazy to me. Have I misunderstood you completely?
Eliab, I think this is the crux of it all. The question of the foundations of all other churches. These foundations seem unconvincing, as TT says, to many (most? all?) Catholics. The other churches seem to be founded by breaking away from the core, by diverging from the true faith, by changing and altering the deposit that came down from Jesus and the apostles, by being in schism, and so on.

Those of us who, like me, left the Roman Catholic Church to join another one (in my case the Episopal Church/Anglican communion) have to work out for ourselves how we can feel assured our new chosen church is in fact just as "valid" as Catholicism.

It was ingrained in us that other churches were invalid--and in my childhood a nun even told a classroomful of girls that non-Catholics cannot get to Heaven. (I know this is not the teaching now, I just use it to illustrate the difficulty of overcoming the mindset one was brought up with.) In the generation before mine, Catholics weren't even supposed to set foot in a non-Catholic church--or perhaps they could to look at the building architecturally! But couldn't attend worship there....

But after a lot of thought I decided I could believe the Holy Spirit could be active in all the churches; and could even have had something to do with the emergence of the Anglican church...it wasn't all about Henry VIII's desire to divorce his wife and take another, as I'd been taught.

It's true, a divided Christian church does not seem to be in line with what Jesus wanted. But then, the abuses of the pre-reformation Church (though of course it had so much that was wonderful as well) were hardly what jesus wanted either....

I think there's more that unites all the Christian denominations than divides them (obviously); I love all ecumenical initiatives and endeavours, eg Taizé, the work of Abbe Paul Couturier, etc etc;
I think we are getting appreciably closer to each other.

So, Eliab, I think TT and Nenuphar (among others) have pretty much whittled it down to the essence: is the Catholic Church founded on firmer ground than the others? Has it preserved from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit? Is the authority of the Pope what Jesus meant by "Upon this rock," etc? an other Christian churches claim true apostolic succession? And does the foundation and authenticity and inerrancy of the Catholic church truly give it the authority it claims?

Whatever the answer, I for one am so glad there is so much more dialogue nowadays, and easing of the terrible inter-denominational hostilities of the past. Which of course, to balance what I said above, were not all on the Catholic side, I realise--as is well-known, many Anglicans and others were in, eg, the 19th century, deeply hostile to "Popery" and anything seeming to smack of it, and Catholics were prevented from getting anywhere academically, politically, and,often, socially.

Astonishingly, some of that deep hostility survives in some quarters, as witness the thread started by The Silent Acolyte.

Cara

When you have had it drummed into your head since you can reason that Grace does not exist outside the (Roman) Catholic Church then it certainly sets up a major conflict, as it did for me, that it most certainly does.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thanks for a fascinating reply - a totally new understanding of the material that has left me very surprised. I don't think it's a sustainable interpretation - but it's 'interesting'! Thanks.
I am puzzled by your response. If you go and read the whole Decree - here - you will see how Pope Pius IX builds up to the point of defining the doctrine by calling upon the witness of history, piety, papal precedents, the Council of Trent, the ancient belief of the Roman Church (meaning the Church of the City of Rome, not the way Anglicans use that term). There is a whole section devoted to earlier papal sanctions against those who taught otherwise . It's all of a piece. I cannot at all see why you think he was aiming at the likes of you, who do not hold to the authority of the Bishop of Rome!

I'll take your word for it that the intention is not to target Protestants; I don't have the enthusiasm to plough through the logic of piece. The question is whether it is theologically coherent to describe a person who was in communion with Rome but rejects this doctrine as having made a ship wreck of their faith, but to argue that a person who wasn't as not having done so. This is especially so given the language employed - referring to such persons as 'having separated from the church' and 'made a shipwreck of their faith'.

Perhaps it helps if we put this into real life. Sean and Seamus are two brothers who've been considering being received into the CofE for some time from Rome. Both of them reject the belief in the Assumption. The day before encyclical is published, Sean is received into the CofE. He's merely a schismatic. But Seamus - he's not over the line in time; the CofE bishop was ill, so the service was postponed. Suddenly he's made a shipwreck of his faith as well. And note that this categorisation applies to ALL who leave the RCC in fact, unless they continue to believe the doctrine of the Assumption...

You see the problem, TT, is that the sort of language in the encyclical is rather similar to the language that Rome has always used against schismatics. Historically you had the courage of your convictions and would have argued quite freely as in Regnans in Excelcis that we were heretics; none of this pussy footing about us as 'schismatics'.

And of course that act encouraging Catholics to reject their lawful vows was an encouragement to the attempted terrorism of the Gunpowder plot...

And it's because of this history of misleading the people of God so grossly, that the authority of the RCC to say anything is, sadly, really completely devalued. Contraception? So is this a bull like Regnans, or the ones encouraging the Crusades, or the Inquistion? Your pope got it so so wrong in the past, no sensible person should buy into that busted flush of total authority these days these days if they've got a quantum of historical sense.

Of course this is nothing new. The history of the attitude of the church to Origen is a running gag of flip flopping from one view to the other; on his death bed he was assured that he was totally sound. A bit later he was roundly condemned. Now he's back in fashion.

AFAICS, in practice, Rome is the school bully; when he can get away with it, he lords it over his fellows, making them do exactly what he says. But when he's lost his power to rule, he gets all soft and smiley and tries to pretend to be everyone's friend - until he gets another chance to be the bully. Given the chance, Catholics will persecute Protestants to this day; examples still exist in the Philipines and even Europe where Anglicans were labelled a sect in Belgium when a whistle blower at the European Commission proved to be an Anglican. I'm allergic to bullies, and AFAICS, the RCC is a classic example. There is, no doubt, some good in there, but there's too much noise in the output for it to be taken as authoritative per se.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think, South Coast Kevin, Roman Catholic and Orthodox biblical scholarship are very similar in many ways as the basic beliefs underlying both Churches are based on the same historic formulations of doctrine which tend to go back well before the putative date of the Great Schism in 1053/4.

My contention would be that other Christian confessions tend to rely, to a very great extent, on confessions which go back to the Reformation and which are, in many ways, substantially different.

The various "horrors" perpetrated by various Christian denominations on each other and on those who are not Christian are probably best left to stand as witness to the capability of human beings to do this sort of thing.

In this regard I am sorry to see Ender's Shadow raising the sad flag of sectarianism. I thought most sensible Christians had moved beyond that. Perhaps they have. [Votive]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The various "horrors" perpetrated by various Christian denominations on each other and on those who are not Christian are probably best left to stand as witness to the capability of human beings to do this sort of thing.

I don't think churches that claim they are, in some sense, God's chosen church can get away this, sorry. Such churches have to explain (a) how they have got things badly wrong in the past (e.g. the Inquisition), and (b) why people should put their complete trust in what the church teaches today, given the previous errors.

Churches that neither claim specially favoured status nor imply those in other churches are missing out on something just don't have these issues, ISTM. And besides, I suspect God cares far less than we do about what church institution we belong to!

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
In this regard I am sorry to see Ender's Shadow raising the sad flag of sectarianism. I thought most sensible Christians had moved beyond that. Perhaps they have.

The problem is that the way in which the RCC formulates it claim to power makes it subject to this sort of criticism, whereas a Protestant approach makes it easier in practice to walk away when you've made an idiot of yourself (e.g. the Protestant support for Prohibition and Appeasement). This thread is about the authority of the RCC; therefore it makes sense to look hard at what it does say - and challenge it firmly as it is, IMNSHO, fundamentally flawed.

And I also feel it is healthy to bring out some of our suspicions and claims on these occasions. I've been very impressed by TT's explanation of the 'Shipwreck' clause; it has genuinely deepened my understanding of the issue, and that's only been possible because I hauled it out into the light. I do genuinely want an explanation of how the other issues I raised can be squared with the modern policies of the church; there is MUCH good stuff from Catholics; unfortunately they've also got some bad habits... And at the heart of the 'purgatory' approach is to give everything a good airing and see what doesn't stand up!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I don't think churches that claim they are, in some sense, God's chosen church can get away this, sorry. Such churches have to explain (a) how they have got things badly wrong in the past (e.g. the Inquisition), and (b) why people should put their complete trust in what the church teaches today, given the previous errors.

Churches that neither claim specially favoured status nor imply those in other churches are missing out on something just don't have these issues, ISTM. And besides, I suspect God cares far less than we do about what church institution we belong to!

Even Protestants believe that the Church has a special relationship with God- one not shared by non-Christians no matter how saintly they might be. It is, furthermore, the case that having faith in Jesus Christ means having faith in His Church. We know of Jesus Christ because he was proclaimed by the Apostles, so believing in him means believing in the reliability of that community that proclaims him.

I think the case from the Bible is that God does care which institutions we belong to- insofar as He wills all to be one in His Church. I think I am saved because I am baptized into an institution.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In what way can the Pope - the man who is in charge of the whole worldwide Catholic church, who sits right at the very top of its leadership structure, who lives in a freakin' palace in the middle of his own country - be said to be a servant?

It's just barmy. You can't be the one giving out the commands to everyone else and be a servant of everyone else. The two roles are fundamentally irreconcilable.

What I'm saying is that this idea - "servant of the servants of God" describes the Christian model of leadership.

This is what any Christian holding any sort of official authority should be aiming for.

Did not Jesus say something like "you see how the pagans lord it over each other when they get the chance - let it not be so among you" ?

Make no mistake, this is a tall order. Humans as social animals have an inbuilt tendency to defer to the alpha male. Falling into the old unredeemed power-relationships is so easy.

It should be pretty obvious that the papacy has failed to live up to that ideal. Through a large part of Christian history the Pope has been seen as a monarch of the spiritual realm, parallel to the kings and queens in the temporal realm. Or the spiritual equivalent of the Holy Roman Emperor.

Seems to me that "kinging it" is "lording it" squared, and though there may be no verb "to emperor", acting like an emperor might be "lording it" cubed.

So on the one hand the institution of the Catholic church has faithfully preserved the ideal down the centuries. And on the other hand, like every other individual and institution, it has failed to live up to the ideal.

(Recognizing that some individual Popes have come much closer than others).

So that there is in Catholic thought not only many treasures, but also this culture of Roman power.

The wheat and the tares grow mixed.

Triple Tiara is quite right to say that if every Vatican communication is seen only in the light of political power-play then much that is good will be missed.

But the converse is that if every Vatican communication is seen only as holy wisdom, then much that is wrong with the Catholic church will go unchallenged and Roman Catholicism will sink further into siege mentality.

So there seems to me a necessity for discernment, a willingness to learn and be taught alongside a willingness to criticize and dissent.

Although some would call this heresy.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thanks for a fascinating reply - a totally new understanding of the material that has left me very surprised. I don't think it's a sustainable interpretation - but it's 'interesting'! Thanks.
I am puzzled by your response. If you go and read the whole Decree - here - you will see how Pope Pius IX builds up to the point of defining the doctrine by calling upon the witness of history, piety, papal precedents, the Council of Trent, the ancient belief of the Roman Church (meaning the Church of the City of Rome, not the way Anglicans use that term). There is a whole section devoted to earlier papal sanctions against those who taught otherwise . It's all of a piece. I cannot at all see why you think he was aiming at the likes of you, who do not hold to the authority of the Bishop of Rome!
I'll take your word for it that the intention is not to target Protestants; I don't have the enthusiasm to plough through the logic of piece. The question is whether it is theologically coherent to describe a person who was in communion with Rome but rejects this doctrine as having made a ship wreck of their faith, but to argue that a person who wasn't as not having done so. This is especially so given the language employed - referring to such persons as 'having separated from the church' and 'made a shipwreck of their faith'.

Perhaps it helps if we put this into real life. Sean and Seamus are two brothers who've been considering being received into the CofE for some time from Rome. Both of them reject the belief in the Assumption. The day before encyclical is published, Sean is received into the CofE. He's merely a schismatic. But Seamus - he's not over the line in time; the CofE bishop was ill, so the service was postponed. Suddenly he's made a shipwreck of his faith as well. And note that this categorisation applies to ALL who leave the RCC in fact, unless they continue to believe the doctrine of the Assumption...

You see the problem, TT, is that the sort of language in the encyclical is rather similar to the language that Rome has always used against schismatics. Historically you had the courage of your convictions and would have argued quite freely as in Regnans in Excelcis that we were heretics; none of this pussy footing about us as 'schismatics'.

And of course that act encouraging Catholics to reject their lawful vows was an encouragement to the attempted terrorism of the Gunpowder plot...

And it's because of this history of misleading the people of God so grossly, that the authority of the RCC to say anything is, sadly, really completely devalued. Contraception? So is this a bull like Regnans, or the ones encouraging the Crusades, or the Inquistion? Your pope got it so so wrong in the past, no sensible person should buy into that busted flush of total authority these days these days if they've got a quantum of historical sense.

Of course this is nothing new. The history of the attitude of the church to Origen is a running gag of flip flopping from one view to the other; on his death bed he was assured that he was totally sound. A bit later he was roundly condemned. Now he's back in fashion.

AFAICS, in practice, Rome is the school bully; when he can get away with it, he lords it over his fellows, making them do exactly what he says. But when he's lost his power to rule, he gets all soft and smiley and tries to pretend to be everyone's friend - until he gets another chance to be the bully. Given the chance, Catholics will persecute Protestants to this day; examples still exist in the Philipines and even Europe where Anglicans were labelled a sect in Belgium when a whistle blower at the European Commission proved to be an Anglican. I'm allergic to bullies, and AFAICS, the RCC is a classic example. There is, no doubt, some good in there, but there's too much noise in the output for it to be taken as authoritative per se.

Ignorant post. Ever heard of formal schism and material schism?

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The various "horrors" perpetrated by various Christian denominations on each other and on those who are not Christian are probably best left to stand as witness to the capability of human beings to do this sort of thing.
I don't think churches that claim they are, in some sense, God's chosen church can get away this, sorry. Such churches have to explain (a) how they have got things badly wrong in the past (e.g. the Inquisition), and (b) why people should put their complete trust in what the church teaches today, given the previous errors.

Churches that neither claim specially favoured status nor imply those in other churches are missing out on something just don't have these issues, ISTM. And besides, I suspect God cares far less than we do about what church institution we belong to!

I wasn't aware that God guaranteed that the persons who run the Church on Earth would always and forever by purer than the driven snow. Please point out a man free from the fallen state so we can make him a bishop.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think, Ender's Shadow, you have probably said far too much on a certain subject.

Those of us with any sense need to scroll past any further attempt by you to justify your appalling insensitivity and tastelessness.

Have you no shame? [Disappointed]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Even Protestants believe that the Church has a special relationship with God- one not shared by non-Christians no matter how saintly they might be. It is, furthermore, the case that having faith in Jesus Christ means having faith in His Church.

I don't share this view - if that means I'm not a Protestant then so be it! In any case, what do you mean by 'Church'? The only sense in which I might agree with you is if you mean the Church invisible, i.e. all those who are following Jesus and seeking to be his disciple. I think the church is tremendously important, and I think it's vital for Christians to be in community with other Christians, but it's people that either are or are not in line with God's will, not institutions IMO.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the case from the Bible is that God does care which institutions we belong to- insofar as He wills all to be one in His Church. I think I am saved because I am baptized into an institution.

I'd say I was baptised as a public declaration of my faith in Jesus Christ, not into an institution. And God willing all to be one in his church doesn't, in my view, mean he wants one worldwide institution. I think it's much more organic than that.

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
I wasn't aware that God guaranteed that the persons who run the Church on Earth would always and forever by purer than the driven snow. Please point out a man free from the fallen state so we can make him a bishop.

BUt CL, that's not the point. The Catholic Church is, ISTM, claiming it has something that other churches don't; namely guardianship of the truth about God and some kind of status as the institution in which the fulness of salvation and harmony with God is to be found.

Is the Catholic Church's official position that all Christians would be better off in some way if they left their current church and joined the Catholic Church? And does the Catholic Church claim an inherent superiority when it comes to doctrinal matters?

My church and, I think, most Protestant churches would claim neither of the above things, and that's important IMO. Obviously, any teaching is believed to be true by the one who is giving the teaching (assuming good faith of course). But ISTM the Catholic position is significantly more dogmatic than this, on matters which there is an official Catholic position.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Ignorant post. Ever heard of formal schism and material schism?

Obviously not; I don't claim to be an expert, and if that provides an explanation, fair enough. But it's not a sin to be ignorant; it is a sin to reject new knowledge - I am genuinely seeking to be educated as to how this logic works. It is unhelpful to hide such knowledge behind jargon phrase. Please feel free to explain.

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think, Ender's Shadow, you have probably said far too much on a certain subject.

Those of us with any sense need to scroll past any further attempt by you to justify your appalling insensitivity and tastelessness.

Have you no shame?

We've all got our dirty linen. If communication is to be honest and genuine, then issues of 'shame' are meaningless; if we are to break through from being polite to one another, but with no actual trust, to the point where we actually get to the point where we can actually work together for the glory of God, then these issues need to be thrashed out. That I've not heard a coherent defence of the RCC position on these issues AND AM WILLING TO LISTEN is a vote of confidence in TT, surprisingly. I do genuinely want to hear what he says in response to these questions...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Just had my first Roman rite service ever in San Pedro de Alcántara. I was amazed at how High Anglican it was [Biased]

Change the language all to English (one reading was) and quarter the 200 congregation and you could have been in sunny Leicester cathedral.

I didn´t take the host of course. And I did have Tom Lehrer running through my head at one point. Que Dios me perdone.

The authority was certainly no less than Canterbury or Constantinople. I look forward to more authority emerging in all of these bishoprics.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
At the moment there is a tension between the Catholic Church and the Society of St Pius X. The Pope wants them back in communion - they think they are being true to the "message" (to use your word), which the Catholic Church has transgressed and thus cannot concede anything. They therefore prefer to remain on the ecclesial outside. To Catholics that is a scandal.

Dear TripleT,

You seem to be saying:

- The SSPX don't want to concede anything for the sake of unity, and that's a scandal.

- The Protestant Reformers didn't want to concede anything for the sake of unity, and they are thus the wreckers of the unity of Christendom.

- The Catholics don't want to concede anything for the sake of unity with the Protestants, but that's "being true to the Faith" which is a virtue.

Is there a hint of a double standard here ?

Of course, you could make a similar point the other way around... (Am I unbiased ? No. At a minimum I have a culturally-English sympathy for the small man against the wielders of power.)

I don't know the answer - I can see no principle to determine when it is morally right to compromise on what one believes in for the sake of good relationships with others. (And if I could, would that then be one of my principles which I might be called to compromise on ?)

But can you see how some of what you say might come across as an exercise in special pleading ? Which devalues the case you're trying to make - that there really are reasons why one ecclesial institution is more to be trusted than others.

Trying to focus on the main issue, I suppose the question I want to ask is this:

Leaving aside papal infallibility, and focussing only on the "ordinary" teachings of the Pope - the level at which issues such as Eliab's example of contraception are dealt with;

the Catholic position seems to be that whatever past popes may have done wrong in their official capacity, the doctrine they have taught has always been true; you're saying not to judge one by the other.

So how does an outsider (someone with no detailed knowledge of the ins and outs of Church history and Vatican politics) tell the difference between

a) words of a Pope that teach moral "doctrine"

b) words of a Pope that merely set forth a moral position (e.g. on whether people should be tortured, whether governments should be obeyed, whether people should read the Bible in their own language, whether interest may be charged on a loan etc).

If category a) has this special authority and must be believed by faithful Catholics, but category b) hasn't and has with hindsight clearly been wrong in the past, is there genuinely "clear blue water" between the two categories ? Where's the big difference ?

With best wishes and much appreciation for your clarity and patience,

Russ

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
At the moment there is a tension between the Catholic Church and the Society of St Pius X. The Pope wants them back in communion - they think they are being true to the "message" (to use your word), which the Catholic Church has transgressed and thus cannot concede anything. They therefore prefer to remain on the ecclesial outside. To Catholics that is a scandal.
Dear TripleT,

You seem to be saying:

- The SSPX don't want to concede anything for the sake of unity, and that's a scandal.

- The Protestant Reformers didn't want to concede anything for the sake of unity, and they are thus the wreckers of the unity of Christendom.

- The Catholics don't want to concede anything for the sake of unity with the Protestants, but that's "being true to the Faith" which is a virtue.

Is there a hint of a double standard here ?

Of course, you could make a similar point the other way around... (Am I unbiased ? No. At a minimum I have a culturally-English sympathy for the small man against the wielders of power.)

I don't know the answer - I can see no principle to determine when it is morally right to compromise on what one believes in for the sake of good relationships with others. (And if I could, would that then be one of my principles which I might be called to compromise on ?)

But can you see how some of what you say might come across as an exercise in special pleading ? Which devalues the case you're trying to make - that there really are reasons why one ecclesial institution is more to be trusted than others.

Trying to focus on the main issue, I suppose the question I want to ask is this:

Leaving aside papal infallibility, and focussing only on the "ordinary" teachings of the Pope - the level at which issues such as Eliab's example of contraception are dealt with;

the Catholic position seems to be that whatever past popes may have done wrong in their official capacity, the doctrine they have taught has always been true; you're saying not to judge one by the other.

So how does an outsider (someone with no detailed knowledge of the ins and outs of Church history and Vatican politics) tell the difference between

a) words of a Pope that teach moral "doctrine"

b) words of a Pope that merely set forth a moral position (e.g. on whether people should be tortured, whether governments should be obeyed, whether people should read the Bible in their own language, whether interest may be charged on a loan etc).

If category a) has this special authority and must be believed by faithful Catholics, but category b) hasn't and has with hindsight clearly been wrong in the past, is there genuinely "clear blue water" between the two categories ? Where's the big difference ?

With best wishes and much appreciation for your clarity and patience,

Russ

Comparing the relationship of the SSPX to Rome and that of Protestants to Rome is a canard. The SSPX are merely in a canonically irregular situation which could (and will, please God) be solved with the stroke of a pen.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Some rancour creeping in here, which I hope subsides.

I think the nexus of the question is posed by Russ: how does one know what weight an instruction from the top carries. It is in fact, quite simple, but one needs to know the key. I guess this is where the problem lies. So I will try to give a handy guide.

Every Papal Document carries a title of it's specific type. One might miss this if one simply sees them all as of equal importance because they come from the Pope.

However, take a look at these three links to documents emanating from Pope John Paul II:

Scripturam Thesauras - in which the Vulgate is declared the "typical" edition of the Scriptures for the Catholic Church.

Novo millennio ineunte on the Jubilee Year 2000

Fides et Ratio on the relationship between Faith and Reason.

I give these as links because each of them is specifically given a heading: the first is an Apostolic Constitution, the second is an Apostolic Letter and the third is an Encyclical Letter. Clearly, three different types of document. There are in addition documents known as Apostolic Exhortations, and then there are letters Motu Proprio. Finally there are of course speeches and homilies. Quite a variety! How does one navigate through all that?

Actually it's quite simple once you know what is what, so here's the handy guide:

1. Apostolic Constitution - the most important document in which the Pope defines a teaching (very rare - the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined by the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus and the Assumption by the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus.)

An Apsotolic Constitution is also employed when the Pope makes formal rulings such as the erection of a new diocese or a new structure within the Church - hence the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus [Biased]

2. Encyclicals - this is a term which is often mistakenly applied to all Papal Documents. An Encyclical is a Letter expressing the mind of the Pope on a specific subject. An Encyclical can be either to the entire Church or to a Church in a specific territory. Thus Pope Pius XI wrote to the Church in Germany his famous Encyclical Letter Mit brennender sorge (unusual in that it has a German rather than a Latin title). An Encyclical carries the weight of the papal office, and therefore is solemn and needs to be heeded. But it would not be used to define a doctrine. Here is where there is debate amongst some about the prohibition of contraception: that was not done via an Apostolic Constitution but via an Encyclical Letter, Humanae Vitae. This is where the fun and games happens within Catholic theological circles - determining the weight of a particular teaching based on the way in which the Pope has formulated and declared it.

3. Apostolic Letter - this is less solemn than an Encyclical Letter, but is usually written for the encouragement of the Church on a particular theme - something the Pope wishes the Church to think about. Other uses of Apostolic Letters are to declare someone a saint, or make a reform within the Roman Curia, or adjust Church law.

4. Apostolic Exhortation - this is usually written by a Pope after a meeting of the Synod of Bishops, and reflecting upon their recommendations. Or it could be something like Vita Consecrata, written by John Paul II to try and chivvy up the religious in the observance of their vows.

Of course Popes produce far more words than just those documents - far, far more! Speeches, homilies and so on are worth listening to because they often contain quite good indicators of Papal thought. Benedict XVI delivers rather startlingly beautiful homilies and speeches, well worth reflecting upon. They are unlikely to contain any doctrinal error, but they are not definitive doctrinal statements either.

A final description to note is a document given Motu Proprio. This can be of any of the types listed (but is usually an Apostolic Letter), and indicates a very specific act by a Pope, issued at his own initiative (as opposed to one in response to a particular request). These carry the force of law within the Church. Thus Pope Benedict's famous Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum allowing for a relaxation on the restrictions of the celebration of the older form of the Roman Rite.

All these Papal documents come under the umbrella term of the "ordinary Magisterium" of the Holy Father. That is, by virtue of his office the Church needs to pay heed to them and fall in line behind them. This does not always happen! Quite often they provoke a huge amount of discussion rather than simple compliance. Very few "ordinary" members of the Church ever read any such "ordinary Magisterium" documents. They might hear about one if something controversial is written, but I know very few people who have actually read such papal documents in full.

Now, as to infallibility, a Pope needs to make it abundantly clear that he is invoking this specific privilege. This has only been done ONCE. This is how Pope Pius XII made it clear that he was defining dogma and not simply engaging in his ordinary teaching office:

quote:
For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honour of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

You won't find that kind of language in other documents. And these are really the only things which are binding and irreformable - though Popes tend not to try and contradict their predecessors!

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
...You won't find that kind of language in other documents. And these are really the only things which are binding and irreformable...

So what happens if he later turns out to have been wrong? Are you just stuck with it, and have to teach it regardless?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Well, you are presenting a Catch-22 situation, aren't you? How is something going to be shown to be wrong if it is defined infallibly? And how are we going to know it's wrong until we get to heaven? I mean, how do we know the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Ascension are true?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Chalk.

Oranges.

They´re apostolically canonical.

Posted by Nenuphar (# 16057) on :

This is my 5th attempt at getting a reasonably formatted reply: it gives a whole new meaning to "purgatory"!

Triple Tiara said:

quote:
Now, as to infallibility, a Pope needs to make it abundantly clear that he is invoking this specific privilege. This has only been done ONCE. This is how Pope Pius XII made it clear that he was defining dogma and not simply engaging in his ordinary teaching office.

Thank you for that very helpful explanation of the "levels" of papal pronouncement. However, embarrassed as I am to admit my ignorance, I had thought there were 4 relatively recent dogma proclaimed - the Immaculate Conception, the infallibility of the pope, and his universal jurisdiction, as well as the assumption which you mention. Did these not also formally become dogma as well?

I offer my humble apologies if you have already covered this and I missed it.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Good post(s) TT.

The Pope saying "I want Cornflakes for breakfast" is made in his own personal capacity and therefore need not detain us here.

Bringing up the "sins" of the Roman Catholic Church, aforesaid "sins" being sins, crimes etc committed by individuals and often admitted as such and dealt with seems to me to be a poor way of going about things.

I found most real questions raised were dealt with well and succinctly long ago. My gut feeling is that the thread is now into its 998th cut.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

What about my question regarding what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about who can give Christian teaching (italics mine):

quote:
III. The Interpretation of the Heritage of Faith

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church...

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

This looks like it means theologians, leaders, authors etc. who are not in the Catholic Church shouldn't be trusted to teach on any matters regarding Christianity. ISTM the Catholic Church is saying it alone is capable and authorised to interpret the Bible. If I'm wrong, what does the Catechism really mean here?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Dear Nenuphar

You are correct about those doctrines being formally declared as dogma. However, the one articulating the doctrinal authority of the Pope (the Infallibility of the Pope) was defined by a Council of Bishops (Vatican I), not by the Pope himself. It in fact came about 20 years after the Pope had defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, strictly speaking, a Pope has only formally invoked the formally declared infallible authority once - Pius XII in relation to the Assumption.

Just to be clear: both the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception were entirely unremarkable within the Catholic world. They were already held as beliefs, discussed and argued about, but more or less universally held. The Popes merely made a formal definition of them, they weren't introducing them as novel ideas.

SKC - concerning who has the right to teach authoritatively: one of the descriptors sometimes used for Bishops in the RC Church is "Guardians of the Deposit of Faith". They are, as it were, the Supreme Court who would be called upon to judge whether a particular theologian's ideas were in accord with the Faith or not. It does not mean anyone who is not a Bishop cannot read, meditate upon, study, draw conclusions from or teach the Scriptures. Indeed, one of the instruments the Catholic Church has for studying the Scriptures is the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which is made up of Biblical scholars who advise the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Biblical matters. There is even a "Bible University" in Rome, known as the Biblicum, which has a stellar cast of international Professors, including the distinctly Protestant Philip Towner. At the 2008 Synod of Bishops meeting in Rome, convened especially to consider the Bible, one of the people invited to address the Synod was the erstwhile Bishop of Durham, N.T.Wright. And excellent his intervention was too!

What the Catechism is in effect saying about the College of Bishops together with the Pope is that they have the right and the duty to decide on disputed matters. That stops madcap ideas having free rein, and also emphasises the unity in the faith - which is important.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Well, you are presenting a Catch-22 situation, aren't you? How is something going to be shown to be wrong if it is defined infallibly? And how are we going to know it's wrong until we get to heaven? I mean, how do we know the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Ascension are true?

So you're saying that you don't really know whether the Assumption is true or not, despite its having being defined infallibly? [Biased]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You are correct about those doctrines being formally declared as dogma. However, the one articulating the doctrinal authority of the Pope (the Infallibility of the Pope) was defined by a Council of Bishops (Vatican I), not by the Pope himself. It in fact came about 20 years after the Pope had defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, strictly speaking, a Pope has only formally invoked the formally declared infallible authority once - Pius XII in relation to the Assumption.

This is, strictly speaking, false. Vatican I could not possibly, and hence did not, give infallibility to the pope by its own power. Vatican I could not possibly, and hence did not, command God to give infallibility to the pope. What the council did was to tell Catholics that believing that God has granted infallibility to the pope (under specific circumstances) is an essential part of the Catholic faith. This it could do, and did do. The change this has brought is hence not that the pope suddenly acquired the new power of infallibility (under specific circumstances). The change this has brought is merely that a faithful Catholic since then cannot in the abstract reject the notion that the pope could ever speak preserved from all error, and in the concrete that the pope is doing so when the specific circumstances mentioned by Vatican I are fulfilled beyond reasonable doubt.

In consequence, we can be reasonably certain that the pope has formally declared dogma ex cathedra prior to Vatican I. In particular, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the way Vatican I set forth the specific circumstances of papal infallibility in 1870 was such as to make the declaration of the Immaculate Conception of 'Ineffabilis Deus' in 1854 an instance of papal ex cathedra definition. Both by the respective wordings of these dogmas themselves (the latter clearly referencing the structure of the former), and by the fact that the very same pope called that council together, it is obvious that Vatican I was basically saying: "Anything like 'Ineffabilis Deus' is an ex cathedra definition..."

It is less clear what other papal definitions must be considered ex cathedra. One thing Vatican I did was indeed to establish the kind of language that would henceforth make such definitions unmistakable. But that one can be more easily mistaken about prior definitions does not make them any less infallible. I think it is highly unreasonable to assume that this declaration of Vatican I points only to two (certainly not one!) papal pronouncements. That indeed would make it seem as if Vatican I created something new, which it could not do. Rather, Vatican I must be understood as a call for Catholics to go through past documents and identify what among them was ex cathedra with reasonable certainty. I would expect that such an effort should yield at least about a dozen cases, purely on a "rare, but not too rare" expectation (Wikipedia points to a list of seven dogmas provided by some theologian, I expect this to be minimalistic). I would also expect that as we go back in history such pronouncements become more frequent, based on the general slowing of the development of the faith with time. However, unfortunately the evidence we have of such pronouncements also becomes less clear as we go back in time. Hence I would not be surprised if several beliefs that Catholics hold "by tradition" now (supposedly as part of the "ordinary magisterium") were not originally decided by a pope in late antiquity ex cathedra (and hence really are of the "extraordinary magisterium").

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Before you rush in to correct me, dear boy, be sure that you have read correctly what I have written. I was very careful to say that Vatican I defined the doctrine, not that it gave the Pope Infallibility.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
SKC - concerning who has the right to teach authoritatively: one of the descriptors sometimes used for Bishops in the RC Church is "Guardians of the Deposit of Faith". They are, as it were, the Supreme Court who would be called upon to judge whether a particular theologian's ideas were in accord with the Faith or not. It does not mean anyone who is not a Bishop cannot read, meditate upon, study, draw conclusions from or teach the Scriptures.

Okay Triple Tiara, thanks; that's helpful for me. I'm still not happy with the idea of Catholic Bishops being the 'Supreme Court' of the Christian faith, but I see a bit better how it works in practice now. [Smile]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Before you rush in to correct me, dear boy, be sure that you have read correctly what I have written. I was very careful to say that Vatican I defined the doctrine, not that it gave the Pope Infallibility.

I'm by no stretch of imagination your dear boy, and you did say: "Therefore, strictly speaking, a Pope has only formally invoked the formally declared infallible authority once - Pius XII in relation to the Assumption." That is - strictly speaking - false.

Because at least 'Ineffabilis Deus' did formally invoke infallible authority as well, in the manner detailed by Vatican I. That Vatican I came later than 'Ineffabilis Deus' is irrelevant to this point, because Vatican I did not bring about the infallible authority or how it is executed, but merely declared this to all Catholics as a necessary belief.

When parliament establishes a new law, it comes into effect by its authority over the domain. When Newton writes down a new physical law (for the sake of analogy: correctly), then it doesn't come into effect at all. Rather, it has been in effect all the time, and the writings of Newton may now inform us about this law. The declaration of Vatican I is of the latter kind, not of the former.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

It is not strictly speaking false, it is strictly speaking true - since the formal declaration of the infallibility of the Pope, the privilege has only been formally invoked once.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It is not strictly speaking false, it is strictly speaking true - since the formal declaration of the infallibility of the Pope, the privilege has only been formally invoked once.

Now you have added a "since". That addition turns your previously false statement into a true one! If you claim to speak strictly, then you cannot complain about being held to strict standards. Furthermore, that added "since" does not change the misleading thrust of your statement to the naive reader. The timing of Vatican I is simply irrelevant to the actual number of ex cathedra dogmas.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Let's parse this shall we. I wrote: "Therefore, strictly speaking, a Pope has only formally invoked the formally declared infallible authority once - Pius XII in relation to the Assumption."

Pastor Aeternus, was the formally declared definition of Papal Infallibility, and there has only been one formal invocation of that formally declared authority, Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus.

I don't think any "naive" reader would be misled by that. With or without the use of "since".

This had nothing to do with how many ex-Cathedra dogmas there are but with the manner in which a Pope would indicate that he was invoking the privilege.

Now, if you had chimed in earlier and challenged me on the matter, you would have been correct. Nenuphar got there first, however, and I expanded on my original statement in order to be more precise: there has only been ONE formal invocation of the formally defined dogma.

You took exception to this reply, not to the initial statement.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Don't you think you're being a little pedantic, Ingo?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Even if he were being pedantic he would be wrong. He has entirely missed the important qualifier in my statement: "formally declared infallible authority".

Had I said "a Pope has only formally invoked the infallible authority once" he might have a leg to stand on.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

And how many is that ?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Even if he were being pedantic he would be wrong. He has entirely missed the important qualifier in my statement: "formally declared infallible authority".

Had I said "a Pope has only formally invoked the infallible authority once" he might have a leg to stand on.

Fair enough, but now that the precise intention behind what you said has been clarified, I can't see any reason to continue arguing about it.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Nenuphar got there first, however, and I expanded on my original statement in order to be more precise: there has only been ONE formal invocation of the formally defined dogma. You took exception to this reply, not to the initial statement.

Indeed. Since this statement is strictly speaking false, unless you mean by it that no papal document prior to Vatican I could contain a textual reference to this Vatican I document, i.e., in 'Munificentissimus Deus' we read

quote:
For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."[8] ...

8. Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor Aeternus, c. 4.

and a cross-reference like that could not have been written prior to 1870, by virtue of this document not existing before then. That is true, but utterly trivial and totally irrelevant.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Don't you think you're being a little pedantic, Ingo?

Not really, though I appreciate that my point is perhaps too technical for most. So let's try an analogy. Let us assume that Wikipedia is the decisive authority on games, and on the 3rd August of 2003 published a document on the game "Simon says". For whatever reason, since then you and some friends are the only people who have played "Simon says", namely once in 2008. Would it then be correct to say, as Triple Tiara does, "Therefore, strictly speaking, gamers have only formally played the formally declared game 'Simon says' once - namely Zach82 and friends in 2008"?

This is correct if, and only if, the Wikipedia article is prescriptive in nature. That is to say, if the game "Simon says" really only exists after Wikipedia has described it in 2003, then your game with friends in 2008 was clearly the only one. However, we all know that Wikipedia articles are descriptive in nature. That is to say, the game "Simon says" existed well before that article was ever written (indeed, all the way back to the Romans as 'Cicero dicit fac hoc'). All that has happened in 2003 is that thanks to the authority of Wikipedia we can now exactly identify what games of the past, present and future should be considered as "Simon says" games.

This is really a key point about Catholic dogma. The power of Councils and popes is descriptive, not prescriptive, in an ultimate sense. Yes, they can set norms, and so that involves some prescriptive power. In our analogy: Wikipedia could have excluded 'Cicero dicit fac hoc' from being a 'Simon says' game, if they had narrowly focused on the appearance of 'Simon'. However, Wikipedia did not "invent" this game, Wikipedia did not make people play such things. Wikipedia can (at least in this analogy) issue normative descriptions, but it cannot make play come into being in this way.

The point is that the power behind all this is God and remains God. A pope can formally invoke papal infallibility before it is formally defined by a Council. Just as people can play "Simon says" before it is formally described by Wikipedia. The only thing that really happened there is that now we know, on authority, what a certain thing is: here an ex cathedra of the successors of St Peter, there the game "Simon says".

I think that is important.

It is also interesting to see just how long I can string Triple Tiara along. [Razz]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I get the difference, Ingo, and it isn't too technical. The point is that the intention behind the post has been clarified and is now compatible with what you are arguing. The argument right now is about whether TT mistakenly implied something else. Seeing as this ain't a thread about grammar, and TT is on your side, maybe stringing him along is only clouding the issue.

[ 06. August 2012, 17:32: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Stringing me along on what thin fibre, I wonder.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The point is that the intention behind the post has been clarified and is now compatible with what you are arguing.

I'm sorry, but I must have missed that. Where did that clarification happen then?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think Zach82 is in his element with the minor adjustment cited. [Big Grin]

Is this thread degenerating into fine nuances?

They'd love that at the seminary you're such an ornament to, Zach.

It's good seeing the marks on individual trees. But what about the wood? There was much of real interest in the topic of this thread.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

He said "I was very careful to say that Vatican I defined the doctrine, not that it gave the Pope Infallibility," Ingo. He is clearly not arguing that the pope suddenly became infallible when the dogma was defined.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
He said "I was very careful to say that Vatican I defined the doctrine, not that it gave the Pope Infallibility," Ingo. He is clearly not arguing that the pope suddenly became infallible when the dogma was defined.

I sort of took for granted from the start that Triple Tiara is not openly heretic concerning the pope. Rather, he was a bit incoherent: what he said about Vatican I did not really fit what he said about the pope. Admittedly, I only have a case because he insisted that his statement was "strictly speaking", and because he has been incapable of admitting since then that - strictly speaking - his statement was false.

Triple Tiara represents the golden mean of Holy Orders personified, hence I've been waiting for him to channel St John Vianney and St Gregory the Great simultaneously in this matter, and humble himself to the core of his being by admitting that he could have expressed himself ever so slightly better... Do I hear the sound of trumpets in the distance?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Not legs.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...Triple Tiara represents the golden mean of Holy Orders personified, hence I've been waiting for him to channel St John Vianney and St Gregory the Great simultaneously in this matter, and humble himself to the core of his being by admitting that he could have expressed himself ever so slightly better... Do I hear the sound of trumpets in the distance?

Are you quite sure you should beatify him now?
[Big Grin]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Oh look - IngoB admits he isn't interested in what is right, he simply wants to show that I am wrong.

There, there dear boy. I'm sure even the "naive reader" will appreciate how important that is to you.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Angels.

Truly there are many ecclesiae in the Ecclesia Romana.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."

The next day Jesus gathered the apostles to Him and said, "Sorry chaps, I've just been speaking to my Father and it's bad news. Times are tough. The Holy Spirit's been let go. Instead you"re going to get the Conservative Spirit. He won't lead you into any truth at all, but he"ll stand behind you and make sure you don't backslide on whatever truth you already have."

If you"re going to give one man the power to make policy that is forever binding on the institution then it makes perfect sense to limit that power to proositions which most of the Church already holds to be true.

But this still seems to me pretty much like taking in vain the name of the third person of the Trinity.

Yours by turns mindboggled, understanding and disgusted,

Russ

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...

Yours by turns mindboggled, understanding and disgusted,

Russ

Reading the preceding bit of your post it appeared you might need to do a bit of intellectual sifting.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Oh look - IngoB admits he isn't interested in what is right, he simply wants to show that I am wrong. There, there dear boy. I'm sure even the "naive reader" will appreciate how important that is to you.

In showing that you were (strictly speaking) wrong, I've provided a considerable discussion about how "ex cathedra" decisions should be understood, rightly: here, here and here. Since you have had nothing to say on this substantial - and on-topic - content, I assume that you agree that it was right.

And just to repeat what I've said many times before: I'm on SoF for combative argument, because I like that per se, and because it helps me sort out my faith. I do not consider myself to be particularly good, moral or Christian. The only professional claim I'll make is that I'm a decent natural scientist.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Probably as many as there are angels dancing on the heads of pins.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Hehehe poor IngoB.

Nope, there is nothing in which you have shown me to be strictly speaking wrong. You have simply failed to comprehend English, as I explained here . The fact that you keep banging on about how you have proved me wrong is rather comical. I hope the "naive" reader is appreciating the spectacle.

Not really sure what that personal manifesto stuff at the end of your post has to do with anything either.

So, we can continue to play this game of ping-pong, but only till the weekend because I'm off to Australia on Monday.

Your serve.

[ 08. August 2012, 10:45: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You have simply failed to comprehend English, as I explained here.

The popes formally invoked the formally declared infallible authority before it actually was formally declared at Vatican I. Before. Temporally in advance of. There's no temporal paradox, because the Vatican I declaration was descriptive of what has been, is and will be the case not prescriptive of what shall be the case henceforth.

If we read, for example, Benedictus Deus, then we find that it starts with this: "By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: ..." Thus Pope Benedict XII in 1336 did exactly what he needed to do, according to the formal declaration in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I in 1870 (see Chapter 4, paragraph 9) to formally invoke infallible authority. It matters not that 534 years passed between the formal invocation and the formal declaration, the formalities were fulfilled.

If you try to argue that a "formal invocation" somehow requires an explicit reference to the Vatican I document, then on one hand such a condition cannot be found in the document itself and on the other hand it then would be more proper to say that a "formal invocation" has never happened. Because Munificentissimus Deus of 1950 does not make explicit reference to 'Pastor Aeternus' in the definition itself (see paragraphs 44 to 48). While being a lot more elaborate, the definition in 1950 by Pope Pius XII is no different to that of Pope Benedict XII in 1336 by the lights of 'Pastor Aeternus'.

Of course, there has been only one invocation since the declaration. That is, strictly speaking, true.

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Not really sure what that personal manifesto stuff at the end of your post has to do with anything either.

If indeed my only goal was to prove you wrong, with no interest concerning the wider truth - as you have claimed - then that would be par for the course on SoF as far as my claims about myself go. Whereas you perhaps have higher standards to live up to... That was my point there.

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So, we can continue to play this game of ping-pong, but only till the weekend because I'm off to Australia on Monday. Your serve.

It's been more the game of ping. I'm still waiting for any of my serves to be returned.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Nope. It's been a game of pong. Which part of "formally declared" are you not getting? The "formally" (i.e. by a competent authority) or the declared (i.e. by a definitive declaration)? The inherent truth of papal authority has never been under discussion from my part.

You keep pinging on a different table which you have set up yourself. You are only going to work yourself up into a lather by keeping on in that fashion. It's bonkers really.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Which part of "formally declared" are you not getting? The "formally" (i.e. by a competent authority) or the declared (i.e. by a definitive declaration)?

I still suspect that it is the "declared" part where we differ. Hence, what do you believe was different after 1870, compared to before 1870, by virtue of this Vatican I declaration? What precisely changed there how?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Different in what way? Effectively, theologically, actually - nothing whatsoever was different.

What was different was that there was now a formal definitive declaration of what pertained as far as the teaching Office of the Successor of Peter was concerned.

This has just reminded me of an incident when I was on a pilgrimage in the Holy Land with a group of priests. When we visited the Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem, I was persuaded to provoke one of our more theologically precise brethren by asking him "Is this where our Lady is buried?" Quick as a shot he replied "Not since 1950". 10/10 to him for wit and for turning the joke back on me.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

This naive reader is appalled actually - at himself of course, that he cannot find what he knows is there. Is here. He cannot see it. But it HAS to be here. I mean, these are two brothers in Christ being an example to me, a mere invicibly ignorant schismatic/heretic. Is this one of those Roman Catholic, i.e. Christian distinctives that ít´s impossible for me to see ? What do I have to do ? Can the Ordinariate help me ? The bible can´t I know. Nor the Holy Spirit. Or a dialectic. Is there a unquestionable tradition that explains all this ?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Don't worry Martin, it's just a game of ping-pong. Or rather, ping and pong. You need not be too engrossed by it.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I still suspect that it is the "declared" part where we differ.

I suspect the "formal", which is a word that is imprecisely used in modern English.

I might make some passing comment about an international sporting event being held in London at the moment. But if I didn't use the word "Olympic" you might truthfully say that I hadn't formally referred to the Olympics (as I hadn't used that particular form of words).

That usage of "formally" is thus equivalent to the "explicitly" with which you contrasted it earlier.

But if the majority view among (professional and amateur) canon lawyers is that there are potentially many papal statements that carry the weight of declared infallibility then that's worth knowing.

Not that such statements are thereby made true; what the declaration makes them is the official adopted position of the institutional Catholic church. To be accepted by faithful Catholics on pain of... ?

...being thought disloyal to Rome ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Different in what way? Effectively, theologically, actually - nothing whatsoever was different.

That's not quite correct. Prior to 1870, I conceivably could have argued in good faith as Catholic that for example 'Benedictus Deus' is not de fide (definita). After 1870, I cannot. That is effectively, theologically and actually different.

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
What was different was that there was now a formal definitive declaration of what pertained as far as the teaching Office of the Successor of Peter was concerned.

And does 'Benedictus Deus' formally invoke what now is formally declared, yes or no? If you say yes, then I rest my case. If you say no, then please explain in what manner precisely it fails to do so.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I mean, these are two brothers in Christ being an example to me, a mere invicibly ignorant schismatic/heretic.

IngoB, bringing the "right" in "righteous" to you since 2004...

I'm already offering my three legs of scripture, tradition and reason to your humping here. If you require a leg of saintliness as well, then try finding a holy quadruped.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's not quite correct. Prior to 1870, I conceivably could have argued in good faith as Catholic that for example 'Benedictus Deus' is not de fide (definita). After 1870, I cannot. That is effectively, theologically and actually different.

Really? So the Pope only became infallible in 1870?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

And does 'Benedictus Deus' formally invoke what now is formally declared, yes or no? If you say yes, then I rest my case. If you say no, then please explain in what manner precisely it fails to do so.

How could it invoke what was formally declared in 1870? Foreseeing the future is not a papal privilege. However, if you are asking me whether it invokes the principle of what is formally declared in 1870 you are asking a different question.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Really? So the Pope only became infallible in 1870?

Nope, and I didn't say that. But prior to 1870 I could have believed in Catholic faith that the pope is not infallible on his own, even if I believed in Catholic faith that councils are. That belief would have turned out to be false, of course, but prior to 1870 I could have made an honest mistake in this matter.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
How could it invoke what was formally declared in 1870? Foreseeing the future is not a papal privilege.

Exactly as has been done after 1870, namely by fulfilling the formal conditions listed in 1870. This could be done before 1870, and it has been done several times. This could be done after 1870, and it has been done once. Whereas there never has been an invocation in the sense of otherwise explicitly referencing the declaration of 1870. Also the definition in 1950 did not directly quote 'Pastor Aeternus' to identify itself as infallible, or anything like that. (There is a reference in the same text to 'Pastor Aeternus', but prior to the definition and not quoting what actually defines the conditions for an ex cathedra.)

"The Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA ... when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4, p. 9). That's it. That's all there is to it. How does a pope "formally invoke" this? Well, by explicitly saying that he is doing this. He sure does that in Munificentissimus Deus. But he also did that in Benedictus Deus in 1336, as already quoted above: "By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: ..."

Of course, there is no magic at work here. Vatican I defined as "ex cathedra" what was already understood as defining an "ex cathedra" precisely because the popes had been using this kind of language when they tried to nail down dogma beyond further discussion. So the popes did not predict what Vatican I would declare, Vatican I postdicted what the popes had been doing.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This could be done after 1870, and it has been done once.

Bing bing bing bing BINGO Ingo!

All that other stuff on which you choose to lecture is entirely irrelevant for this is the sole point I made. Which you have now yourself made. Thank you.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
All that other stuff on which you choose to lecture is entirely irrelevant for this is the sole point I made. Which you have now yourself made. Thank you.

Hmm. ... OK then, let's just leave it there.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Which one are you Triple Tiara ? And I´m overreacting, of course, to the point of ... tears last night, which is me I know, due to the desert of which I am a part. Can ANYTHING emerge from us ?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think the embers of this fire are going out, Martin.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Ashes to ashes Sir P, ashes to ashes.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Can ANYTHING emerge from us ?

What emerges from me most days is a pile of c**p, but that's a normal bodily function...

Sorry,

Russ

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"The Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA ... when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4, p. 9). That's it. That's all there is to it.

Dear IngoB - have I got this right ?

You're saying that the Vatican holds no official list of which papal statements are "ex cathedra" (and thus declared infallible by Vatican 1), but that individuals are left to apply for themselves the definition.

The definition seems to involve at least three conditions:

- that the statement concerns an issue of faith or morals

- that the doctrine is not novel (but rather represents a view or position long held by many in the Church)

- that the Pope intends the doctrine to be believed by all Christians (rather than addressing some particular group).

So that, if (just for the sake of having a clear example) Eliab wishes to become a Catholic but doesn't agree with everything in "Munificentissimus Deus", then he should not do so if he believes that "Munificentissimus Deus" is both ex cathedra and wrong, because such a position has been defined by the Catholic Church to be incompatible with Catholicism.

He may believe that MD is not ex cathedra.

For example his philosophy might be that the Assumption is not a matter of faith.
(Whether Mary died and was buried would seem to be a matter of fact, albeit a fact that may be difficult to ascertain at this remove in time. Given the premise that this did not happen and that she vanished from the earth, then whether she went directly to heaven, indirectly to heaven, or in the opposite direction entirely - that is a matter of faith).

He may believe that no serious philosopher within the church believed in the Assumption until date XXXX, where XXXX is recent enough for this to count as a novelty on a Catholic timescale.

Or he may believe that the Pope was not addressing all Christians (perhaps because he has it on Triple Tiara's say-so that this doctrine was not put forward with the Protestants in mind but was intended to comfort and reassure a particular sort of pious Catholic).

Were he to hold any of those three positions, it would seem logically to follow that he would list MD as "ordinary Magisterium" and thus open to the possibility that in the long term the consensus of the Church might fall the other way.

Or am I barking up completely the wrong tree ?

Or just barking ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Or he may believe that the Pope was not addressing all Christians (perhaps because he has it on Triple Tiara's say-so that this doctrine was not put forward with the Protestants in mind but was intended to comfort and reassure a particular sort of pious Catholic).

Just for clarification, that's not quite what I have said, and it is a conflation of something I said and IngoB said.

When I say that the Papal infallible decrees Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus were not aimed at Protestants, it is a response to the suggestion that they were written primarily to upset the Protestants. I do not mean the Catholic Church believes it's quite okay for non-Catholics to believe the BVM was a sinful woman whose body rotted away when she died. That would be a contradiction. You cannot have something that is true for Catholics but not for others.

[ 11. August 2012, 05:33: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

It doesn't seem to me a huge step from "any upset to Protestants was not the aim" to "any effect on Protestants was not part of the aim" to "the Pope's intention was addressed to Catholics".

It may be a step further than you're willing to take; that's fine - I'm not trying to misrepresent your view. I can see that the Pope may have intended Protestants to accept the doctrine without their reaction being a major part of his aim.

What I'm asking is whether an intention that did not include Protestants could conceivably be a reason for the document (or any part of it) to fail the test of being ex cathedra.

And beyond that I'm asking whether Eliab (or anyone else) having a reason to think (whether correctly or otherwise in your view) that a particular papal statement does not meet the stated criteria for being ex cathedra is therefore justified in treating it as having only second-level authority rather than first-level authority within the Catholic system of thought.

I think your final point is echoing my suggestion that some things are a matter of fact rather than a matter of faith; I agree that true facts are true for everybody.

If I've misunderstood any of this, please do explain how.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Dear IngoB - have I got this right? You're saying that the Vatican holds no official list of which papal statements are "ex cathedra" (and thus declared infallible by Vatican 1), but that individuals are left to apply for themselves the definition.

The problem is that you come to this with an attitude that is essentially non-Catholic. So I can't just say yes or no to this. Firstly, that there is no "official list" doesn't at all mean that these teachings are somehow up for grabs. Rather it simply means that this is not the level at which doctrinal rubber hits the road of lay Catholics. In reality, only very few Catholics study the "primary sources" of doctrine. Rather, most Catholics get their doctrines from their parents and priests. (Where the doctrines of the parents and their parents etc. got influenced by the priests along the way.) That, and secondary and tertiary literature produced for their religious education, like the Catechism. Most Catholics simply do not operate at the level of fine doctrinal distinction we are talking about here, but at a basically binary one: "what does the Church teach" vs. what not. And that is a good thing.

For secondly, the attitude that one tries to determine with precision what is "de fide" (like an "ex cathedra") and what not, so that one can maximizes one's distance to official teaching while formally remaining in good faith - that attitude is strictly anti-Catholic! A Catholic should be Catholic because he believes that the Catholic Church teaches the truth. And that's the end of it, really. Now clearly, there could be extraordinary circumstances that might make a Catholic doubt what the Catholic Church teaches. And there might be an extraordinary process in which this doubt is not removed by talking to the priest and studying secondary and tertiary literature. And this doubt may be pressing in such an extraordinary manner as to not being able to stay unresolved. And then in these extraordinary circumstances, a Catholic may end up studying primary sources, and their primary use among the hierarchy, to determine whether their doubt has them at odds with for example an ex cathedra. And in the most extraordinary development of them all, they may find it necessary to come to a conclusion on this themselves, rather than relying on official or theological authorities.

And in this totally remote scenario, we may have the situation that a Catholic may need to decide "individually" whether something is or is not an "ex cathedra" in order to guide their faith. However, to make this some kind of touchstone of Catholic faith, to consider this as some kind of reasonable approach towards Catholic faith, is just utter bollocks. This will not do, at all. The guardrails of a road are there to prevent horrible accidents, they are not there so that you can smack you car constantly against them in order to drive by hearing. When Catholics say that a "de fide" teaching must be believed, the point is not that you shouldn't give a damn about anything else. The point is not that you are in good shape as long as you hold on to these teachings. The point is that if you don't believe even in this, then it is really "game over".

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
- that the statement concerns an issue of faith or morals

Sure, but that is not to be considered as an occasion for sophistry about what is to be considered as "faith" or "morals". The point is simply that if the pope is talking about the weather or the latest football results, then we do not even have to start considering his statements as an ex cathedra.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
- that the doctrine is not novel (but rather represents a view or position long held by many in the Church)

This is not correct. In a principle sense, one can of course claim that no doctrine the Catholic Church has ever proposed to her faithful is "novel", because they all are mere developments of the "deposit of faith". But that doesn't mean that doctrinal development doesn't happen, and we may well want to use the word "novel" for when it does. In a practical sense, the last two "ex cathedra" were particularly (and likely intentionally) non-novel in content. However, this need not be the case. For example, the ex cathedras against the Jansenites were novel in the sense of making a clear decision against theological opinions that were being defended as very traditional.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
- that the Pope intends the doctrine to be believed by all Christians (rather than addressing some particular group).

That is true. But the normative group of Christians in this context are of course Catholic Christians. Protestants, for example, are heretics and schismatics. It is entirely irrelevant for the declaration of Catholic dogma what any group of heretics and schismatics believes about anything. There is no necessity at all to consider them, and there is no a priori expectation that these groups would pay attention to the proposed Catholic dogma either. Of course, "political / tactical" concerns may well play a practical role in what is said when and how. But that is a different matter. The primary thing the Catholic Church expects of Protestants is to become Catholics. Declarations of Catholic dogma define in part what that entails, they are not to be considered in separation.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So that, if (just for the sake of having a clear example) Eliab wishes to become a Catholic but doesn't agree with everything in "Munificentissimus Deus", then he should not do so if he believes that "Munificentissimus Deus" is both ex cathedra and wrong, because such a position has been defined by the Catholic Church to be incompatible with Catholicism.

Correct, but again: the idea that becoming Catholic merely means to get within the boundaries of Catholic "de fide"s is plain bullshit. That's like saying you will marry someone because you do not find them totally repugnant.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
He may believe that MD is not ex cathedra.

No reasonable doubt is possible that MD is an ex cathedra.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Or am I barking up completely the wrong tree?

Yep.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Most authoritative indeed ...

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

A Catholic should be Catholic because he believes that the Catholic Church teaches the truth. And that's the end of it, really.

This is the nub, and brings us back to Eliab's question about the authority of the Catholic Church.

The question is, where does that belief come from? How to get to the point where you believe the Catholic Church teaches the truth (and therefore others, eg Protestants, are, as Ingo says, heretics and schismatics)?

How to get to the point where you absolutely believe in the authority of the Catholic Church to teach the truth?

From this thread it seems to me there is no clear step-by-step way to get there, even when many of the steps on the way are spelled out, as by Nenuphar; for the last step, a leap of faith is required.

Triple Tiara (hope I'm remembering right that it was TT who said this) expressed a lack of conviction in the validity of the foundations of any of the other Christian churches. This is why TT could not imagine being anything other than a practising Catholic or a lapsed one, could not imagine finding a more valid or authoritative home in any other branch of christianity.

This is sort of the corollary of that belief in the Catholic Church as the one that teaches the truth--it's partly (wholly??) by virtue of being the church with the only authentic foundation.

As I said before, perhaps in the end it's a question of temperament as to whether one can make the last leap, from just thinking the Catholic Church might be the most valid/historic/authentic/closest to Jesus, to absolutely believing and trusting that it is.

The absolutism of the Catholic approach is far too black-and-white--indeed, dogmatic!--for me. (Ditto that of the Orthodox). Both have such a deep appeal, such a heritage of spirituality and Christian writing and experience and richness and beauty....but I -such is my temperament--can't cope with that absolute certainty that says--and both Orthodox and Catholic Churches say it, so one of them must be wrong!--"We are the only true Christian Church. Only we have the whole truth. Only we are truly orthodox. Only we are the true church of Christ. All others--Christians, good people, well-beloved by God as they may be--are in schism and heresy."

I trust I can benefit from the beauty and heritage of Christianity in the Anglican Communion as well. I feel every Christian church has a bit of the truth, no-one has a monopoly on it; and every church
gets some things wrong as well...so much is still mysterious...we are all struggling on blindly....seeing in a glass darkly.

quote:

Now clearly, there could be extraordinary circumstances that might make a Catholic doubt what the Catholic Church teaches.

Sorry, Ingo, but are these circumstances so very "extraordinary" ? Don't we know that a whole lot of Catholics doubt the church's teaching on contraception, just for a start and to pick the most obvious?

But I agree with your main point, that the ordinary lay Catholic does not usually get to the level of studying all the primary sources about a ruling, trying to understand if it is ex cathedra or binding or whatever, and that as you say, it would be a rather remote scenario:

quote:
And in this totally remote scenario, we may have the situation that a Catholic may need to decide "individually" whether something is or is not an "ex cathedra" in order to guide their faith.

And it's remote because most Catholics do, still, believe in the truth of the church's teachings, so they just relax into the knowledge of being in the right place, under the right instruction, and get on with trying to live there. (Or do they? Do other Catholics here agree with this? )

I wonder if this sense of coming to a safe haven--a place which one knows is right and true, so one's own ideas, if different, will have to be adjusted--is more common among converts to Catholicism than among cradle Catholics?

Might the latter (unless they leave) be, perhaps, more likely to feel, it's my family, and a bit mad, and I don't always agree with it, but it's my family so I'm loyal and I stay here anyway, because where else would I go?

Cara

[Edited to fix quotes and coding. Cara -- please check out the Styx thread that allows you to practice coding...it will make my life and those of the other Hosts a lot easier if you use the standard coding - JH]

[ 12. August 2012, 01:38: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Nice Cara, nice. Real. Such Romans seem more likely to accept love from schismatic heretics than most converts. I freely acknowledge Rome as my slightly estranged grandmother and I love her. Which is progress from when I regarded her as an apostatic Devil worshipping genocidal whore. She can´t tell me what distinctives to believe of course, but her sins are mine. I cannot distance myself from her Platonic atrocities, regardless that she won´t accept my solidarity yet. She will of course.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I think it should be fully understood by the inveterate posters to this thread that the Roman Catholic Church is not as mindless nor as monochrome as many seem to think. This has been clearly evidenced by the many Catholic posters, including Desert Daughter and Fuzzipeg, who are just as much part of the organisation as others who may be taking a stance which seems slightly more to the right of them.

One of the problems most native English speakers, whether born Catholic, converts or other have in understanding Catholicism is that the centre and sensibility of the RCC is in a Latin country. There things are not seen in such an adversarial either/or way they are in England, Australia or similar. The Vatican often makes statements, often on non-doctrinal matters, which are heard, but possibly not followed. In Italian it's called making "la bella figura" and honour is satisfied.

Much of the earnest discourse here, on the subject of "Why I couldn't possibly be a Catholic" would be met with puzzlement in Italy. People belong but do not completely conform to the ideal.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
The question is, where does that belief come from? How to get to the point where you believe the Catholic Church teaches the truth (and therefore others, eg Protestants, are, as Ingo says, heretics and schismatics)?

My money is on Blaise Pascal in this regard. Hardly an intellectual slouch himself, Pascal realised that the role of the intellect in all this is quite limited. (Just to be clear, I do not at all mean here to push any form of anti-intellectual "emotionalism", which confuses spirituality with over-excited sentimentality. At best I find that sort of stuff tolerable, if carefully managed by calm heads... at worst, it is the mother of all heresy.) Basically, your intellect can come to the right conclusions at some point in time, but to hold on to this, at that point in time you must decide to push the "machine" of your existence (as Pascal calls it) into a new direction. Basically, you must engage in habit formation, and this will primarily be through and with the body.

Or simply put, theologise once, in order to kneel frequently. Do not kneel once, in order to theologise frequently. Seriously, read Blaise Pascal on this, he hits the nail on the head.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
How to get to the point where you absolutely believe in the authority of the Catholic Church to teach the truth?

Certainly not by trying to carefully weight all these truths, which is precisely why all the "interested but not really interested" people, like Eliab, endlessly go on about that. That's basically an evasive intellectual manoeuvre. There is no end run around all that existing Catholic doctrine, and we can spend an eternity debating all the pros and cons of all these teachings. But different people hunger for different things, and if they see what they hunger for in the Catholic Church at some point in time, then all that other stuff doesn't matter much and will sort itself out later.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I trust I can benefit from the beauty and heritage of Christianity in the Anglican Communion as well. I feel every Christian church has a bit of the truth, no-one has a monopoly on it; and every church gets some things wrong as well...so much is still mysterious...we are all struggling on blindly....seeing in a glass darkly.

You keep telling yourself that. It is of course nothing but your own "black and white" dogma. And I'm sure you very much engage in habit formation concerning it.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Sorry, Ingo, but are these circumstances so very "extraordinary" ? Don't we know that a whole lot of Catholics doubt the church's teaching on contraception, just for a start and to pick the most obvious?

Teachings on morals are generally more contentious than teachings on faith, and teachings on sex are always the most contentious among the teachings on morals. Frankly, the very focus on genitalia is wrong. Once Christianity was worried about Arius, now it worries about condoms... I was thinking about proper theological stuff, like the Assumption of Mary, not about the modern preoccupation with where and how precisely one may stick one's genitalia.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I wonder if this sense of coming to a safe haven--a place which one knows is right and true, so one's own ideas, if different, will have to be adjusted--is more common among converts to Catholicism than among cradle Catholics?

Your description there has basically nothing to do with my own experience as convert to Catholicism. It's difficult to capture this properly in words, but "safe haven" is just about the last thing that would come to my mind.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Might the latter (unless they leave) be, perhaps, more likely to feel, it's my family, and a bit mad, and I don't always agree with it, but it's my family so I'm loyal and I stay here anyway, because where else would I go?

I'm not a cradle Catholic, so I can't really comment. But I doubt that most cradle Catholics think all that much about their Catholicism, they just live it.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

Many apologies for the coding nuisance, John. I'll go and practise.
In the meantime, here's a post with no direct quotes!!

Sir P, thank you for the salutary reminder about the very different attitude in, eg, Italy--very helpful to this discussion, I think.

I lived there for several years myself-- found out all about "la bella figura"!!-- and indeed was very struck by the difference from the Catholicism I grew up with in England.

And in France recently I had an interesting conversation with a bookshop proprietor about David Lodge, especially about "How Far Can You Go?". The man said he simply couldn't understand why English Catholics would worry so much about the rules of the Church re contraception! Why worry about a little thing like that...it's just the sort of thing authorities say, one just ignores it and gets on with life, was his attitude. To me, mind-boggling.

Yet despite knowing about these very different sorts of Catholicism, when I think about the Catholic Church I still think of it as the Church I grew up in.....Hmmm.....something to ponder.

Ingo, thanks for the mention of Blaise Pascal. I know the more famous bits from him--how God says to the seeker (paraphrase), you would not seek me if you had not already found me; (hope memory is right and that is indeed from him?!) and the fascinating hints of a mystical experience..... "fire"....--but must admit if I ever read him thoroughly, I have forgotten what I learned. Will have another look.

In saying that different people hunger for different things you have put so succinctly what I meant when I said it may be a question of temperament. We've arrived at the same place--agreeing that inquirers like Eliab cannot find the answer in a purely intellectual way.

Re your own conversion--interesting--not a "safe haven" sort of thing at all....this phrase reflects an impression I'd got from some 19th century converts in Tractarian days, actually. Of course there must be many different types of conversion.

Cara

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Thanks IngoB for a fascinating insight into how a Catholic should respond to Catholic teaching. The problem for me is twofold:

1) As my unhelpful rant further up this thread was an attempt to demonstrate, the record of the Catholic church in getting things right is so poor as to render its claims to authority incredible

2) The fact that Southern Europeans effectively ignore what the authority says means that Rome is part of the problem in building societies where its totally acceptable to live hypocritically. This actually is at the heart of the present Euro crisis; much of the problem is that those Southern European states signed up to the rules of behaviour for Euro members knowing that they didn't have the slightest intention of keeping them.

OTOH I have to agree with your interpretation of Pascal; the attitude of worship first and theology a very late second is healthy. And for the new convert to the faith, the psychological reality is that they will absorb the worldview of the church into which they are converted; therefore when push comes to shove, all Christians actually endorse the authority of their church more than most Evangelicals would find comfortable.

I find this comment less easy to cope with:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Teachings on morals are generally more contentious than teachings on faith, and teachings on sex are always the most contentious among the teachings on morals. Frankly, the very focus on genitalia is wrong. Once Christianity was worried about Arius, now it worries about condoms... I was thinking about proper theological stuff, like the Assumption of Mary, not about the modern preoccupation with where and how precisely one may stick one's genitalia.

The idea that Arius is 'proper theological stuff' whilst the modern concern 'with where and how precisely one may stick one's genitalia' is somehow less significant is totally flawed. The NT IMNSHO makes it very clear that both right teaching and right behaviour are important indicators about a person's 'state of grace'. Not in the sense of it being necessary to get it all right on both fronts, but

1) Where a person is proclaiming some untruths, they've clearly not known God for themselves (I John)

2) Where a person persists in wrong behaviour, they've never been really converted (1 Cor 6)

In the days of Arius, the theological dispute was the thing that was important - so it was necessary for the church to get it right. These days, in our hopelessly oversexualised society, the issue of sexual behaviour is the one that is causing people to fall into temptation wholesale, and so reject God in their lives. Therefore the church needs to be unflinching in proclaiming what it believes - though it MUST do so in ways that make an impact, not just give offence as the idiotic Scottish bishop did recently. By contrast with that, the issues of Christology are obtuse these days, as, to be honest, are the various 'modern' Marian dogmas. Unhelpful IMHO, but not really significant. By contrast sex is what matters in our present culture, so it's there that the combat is. As this phrase puts it:

quote:
If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.*

Sex is where the fight is in our society, as it was in Paul's Corinth. We need to fighting that battle, not stick to 'real' theology.

---------------
* A quote commonly ascribed to Martin Luther, but recent research suggests isn't actually his, though reflecting his attitudes.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I think Cara that those of us who grew up Catholic in the English speaking world - heavily influenced by a rather strong Irish influence - need to learn to let go.

It's a terribly non Anglo-Saxon thing to do, but, more and more, day by day, I beginning to believe it is absolutely essential. There is no return to the early 1960s possible. Thank heavens. [Big Grin]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Sir Pellinore, YOU make me hopeful. And I should also TRULY empathise with Romans, as flying back from Spain this afternoon I was reading Brian McLaren's "A New Kind of Christianity" and for the first time in a long time my head is spinning ...

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
...I was reading Brian McLaren's "A New Kind of Christianity" and for the first time in a long time my head is spinning ...

Fantastic book! [Big Grin]

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not a cradle Catholic, so I can't really comment. But I doubt that most cradle Catholics think all that much about their Catholicism, they just live it. [/QB]

I'm a cradle Catholic and I've spent the last twenty five years tearing my hair out about it. Too glib by far. What I said earlier about working out my relationship with the Catholic Church.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not a cradle Catholic, so I can't really comment. But I doubt that most cradle Catholics think all that much about their Catholicism, they just live it.
I'm a cradle Catholic and I've spent the last twenty five years tearing my hair out about it. Too glib by far. What I said earlier about working out my relationship with the Catholic Church. [/QB]

It sounds very much like you still have issues you are sorting out. The bit about Medjugorje - to my mind a dubious place and dubious miracle (officially not recognised by the Church) - was horrific. Whoever was in charge of your former place of worship and allowed people to carry on like that needed a stern talking to.

There is a lot of patho-Christianity and patho-Catholicism around: nasty, demeaning, codependent stuff. The purpose of Christianity - any decent Christianity - is to raise you up to your full humanity in God. This means you are an independent, fully functional adult.

This is not a therapy thread but I realise there are many still walking wounded, like you, out there who have been affected by various forms of patho-Christianity (Catholic and other) and I regret these things happen.

I know and avoid like the plague any variety of patho-Christian I see. Sadly there are Anglicans, Orthodox, Uniting Church and other deformers of what should be a religion of love and light as well. Others from non-Catholic backgrounds seem to have experienced something similar.

There is what I call "religio-emotional abuse and exploitation" around. Whilst sympathising fully with you I have to say I don't think it's just a Catholic problem. It's like paedophilia: it's everywhere. It is also something all Churches need to be eternally vigilant about as well.

I wish you the very best, but, as I said, I don't think it's a Catholic specific problem. It does, however, relate to how authority, any authority, may be misinterpreted, usurped and misused.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not a cradle Catholic, so I can't really comment. But I doubt that most cradle Catholics think all that much about their Catholicism, they just live it.
I'm a cradle Catholic and I've spent the last twenty five years tearing my hair out about it. Too glib by far. What I said earlier about working out my relationship with the Catholic Church.
It sounds very much like you still have issues you are sorting out. The bit about Medjugorje - to my mind a dubious place and dubious miracle (officially not recognised by the Church) - was horrific. Whoever was in charge of your former place of worship and allowed people to carry on like that needed a stern talking to.

There is a lot of patho-Christianity and patho-Catholicism around: nasty, demeaning, codependent stuff. The purpose of Christianity - any decent Christianity - is to raise you up to your full humanity in God. This means you are an independent, fully functional adult.

This is not a therapy thread but I realise there are many still walking wounded, like you, out there who have been affected by various forms of patho-Christianity (Catholic and other) and I regret these things happen.

I know and avoid like the plague any variety of patho-Christian I see. Sadly there are Anglicans, Orthodox, Uniting Church and other deformers of what should be a religion of love and light as well. Others from non-Catholic backgrounds seem to have experienced something similar.

There is what I call "religio-emotional abuse and exploitation" around. Whilst sympathising fully with you I have to say I don't think it's just a Catholic problem. It's like paedophilia: it's everywhere. It is also something all Churches need to be eternally vigilant about as well.

I wish you the very best, but, as I said, I don't think it's a Catholic specific problem. It does, however, relate to how authority, any authority, may be misinterpreted, usurped and misused. [/QB]

There are some pretty horrible legacies of folk Catholicism here, in the last few days a notorious lay conservative called Mena Cribben died, who was well known in the 1980s as a protester against the liberalisation of Irish contraception laws. This would have been a harmless enough legacy, except that she secured an injunction in 2001 against social services in Roscommon, preventing for four years intervention in an incest case. The family was sacrosanct and the state was not to interfere in family rights. Unfortunately there were enough people in Official Ireland who were willing to indulge this sort of bollocks.

The emotional and cultural problems with Irish Catholicism are incredibly deep and will take a long time to heal into anything healthy. I have to close my ears to a lot of nonsense even in the group that I belong to.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
...How to get to the point where you believe the Catholic Church teaches the truth?
...Basically, your intellect can come to the right conclusions at some point in time, but to hold on to this, at that point in time you must decide to push the "machine" of your existence (as Pascal calls it) into a new direction. Basically, you must engage in habit formation, and this will primarily be through and with the body.

ISTM that once you've decided to do that you've already decided that the RCC is the place for you, otherwise why begin the habit formation process in the first place? And surely that is the decision that Eliab and others are struggling to make?

So, so how does one get to the point where they decide to push the "machine" of their existence in a new direction? Surely one wouldn't decide to do that unless they already thought the new direction (i.e. the RCC) was the one for them? And surely that decision will only come about when one is convinced that the RCC teaches the truth?

This all seems very circular to me.

[ 13. August 2012, 09:37: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The problem is that you come to this with an attitude that is essentially non-Catholic. [...] A Catholic should be Catholic because he believes that the Catholic Church teaches the truth.

That was a useful post.

The question about what are the requirements of formal infallibilty are interesting, but that post puts the doctrine in perspective - it is the Church that is claimed to be authoritative, not a limited set of tightly defined dogma. The Catholic challenge to me is not to sign up to belief in all the ex cathedras, but to join that institutional Church, because it claims a unique authority.

In that context disagreement with clear, but not quite infallible, teaching matters - the content of that teaching may not be de fide, and in practice dissent from it might be tolerated, but it is important because acceptance of authority is what is being asked for, and disagreement with clear teaching inevitably means that I would have a problem accepting that authority.

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
One of the problems most native English speakers, whether born Catholic, converts or other have in understanding Catholicism is that the centre and sensibility of the RCC is in a Latin country. There things are not seen in such an adversarial either/or way they are in England, Australia or similar. The Vatican often makes statements, often on non-doctrinal matters, which are heard, but possibly not followed. In Italian it's called making "la bella figura" and honour is satisfied.

Much of the earnest discourse here, on the subject of "Why I couldn't possibly be a Catholic" would be met with puzzlement in Italy. People belong but do not completely conform to the ideal.

I almost replied that I couldn't be that sort of Catholic. I'm not sure that's quite true - had I been brought up Catholic I don't think any of my current disagreements would provoke me to leave. But I certainly don't feel any temptation to be that sort of Catholic.

The attraction of Catholicism (for me, and from where I stand now) is almost entirely the claim actually to be right in what it teaches. That's the whole point. If that claim is true, then I want to be persuaded, and then I want to try to obey. If the claim is untrue, I'm not interested. I already have a fallible church that I'm content to be a member of (and they let me preach, which the Catholics wouldn't). But if I could see that the Catholic Church spoke with Jesus' authority, and what it said was true, I'd join as soon as I possibly could. No doubt I'd then fail to do what it taught, but I can see no point in joining it intending to ignore what it taught.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
How to get to the point where you absolutely believe in the authority of the Catholic Church to teach the truth?
Certainly not by trying to carefully weight all these truths, which is precisely why all the "interested but not really interested" people, like Eliab, endlessly go on about that. That's basically an evasive intellectual manoeuvre. There is no end run around all that existing Catholic doctrine, and we can spend an eternity debating all the pros and cons of all these teachings.

Actually, my intention on this thread wasn't to carefully weigh all the teachings, but try to get to the heart of the question of authority. And I think that that attempt has been at least partly successful, because we are talking about that. Obviously particular doctrines will be used as examples, but discussing them isn't the main point.

Basically, you (personally you, as well as Catholics in general) are never going to persuade me on the merits of things like contraception. I know the arguments, I understand them, I could (if so inclined) deploy them myself in debate and argue the Catholic case, I just cannot see any way to believe them. But I don't claim to be the ultimate moral arbiter, and it is very likely (almost certain) that there are moral truths which I just don't see. This might be one of them.

Therefore the intention was not to present the Catholic Church with a rhetorical shopping list of problematic dogmas and say "convince me of these and I'll believe". I'm as sure as I can be that this would never happen: either I'm right, and confident enough to keep being right, or I am invincibly wrong, so long as we are arguing details. The intention was to set out my difficulties and say that I'm not going to be persuaded by an argument on the issues, but if I am persuaded of the Catholic Church's basis of authority, then that just might do it.

I'm not persuaded by the Catholic claim, but I am genuinely challenged by it, and this thread was intended to address that central issue not evade it with the details of particular teachings.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
ISTM that once you've decided to do that you've already decided that the RCC is the place for you, otherwise why begin the habit formation process in the first place? And surely that is the decision that Eliab and others are struggling to make?

So, so how does one get to the point where they decide to push the "machine" of their existence in a new direction? Surely one wouldn't decide to do that unless they already thought the new direction (i.e. the RCC) was the one for them? And surely that decision will only come about when one is convinced that the RCC teaches the truth?

Exactly.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I think Cara that those of us who grew up Catholic in the English speaking world - heavily influenced by a rather strong Irish influence - need to learn to let go.

It's a terribly non Anglo-Saxon thing to do, but, more and more, day by day, I beginning to believe it is absolutely essential. There is no return to the early 1960s possible. Thank heavens.

So right, Sir P.

I was for a very long time like Ronald Binge, tearing my hair out about it all. Then I did start to learn to let go...though obviously threads like this remind me of that tearing-hair-out place!

Also, because I'm now living in a continental Catholic country, surrounded by churches where I know I wouldn't be welcome to receive Communion, but the Anglican church is a bit far away, all this is coming to the fore...

But yes, learning to let go, I think I've come some way in doing that..

Cara

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
ISTM that once you've decided to do that you've already decided that the RCC is the place for you, otherwise why begin the habit formation process in the first place? And surely that is the decision that Eliab and others are struggling to make?

Obviously. However, my point was that their usual approach to making this decision is a fail-safe one to never get to any actual point of decision. It's just fence-sitting, if it is not simply an academic exercise altogether. You can easily spend an eternity trying to put a tick-mark behind every Catholic doctrine. Look over at Dead Horses, it's easy enough to spend an eternity on a single doctrine. You just cannot try to create a Protestant version of the RCC, by which you first individually agree with all available Catholic doctrine and then join because the Church fits you to a tee. The reason why there are umpteen square Protestant denominations is that opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. There is only one holy, catholic and apostolic Church though, and to some extent she is going to be in your face. One way or the other, there is going to be something that you hate, disbelief and/or rage against in the Church. By virtue of that thing with the assholes, it's going to be different things for different people, but it is inescapable. The question is however what you do with that.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And surely that decision will only come about when one is convinced that the RCC teaches the truth?

About everything? Naw, cannot be done. Doesn't happen. Perhaps the praiseworthy effort of the RCC to make all her teachings coherent and accessible backfires there a bit by creating a false expectation. Religions isn't like solving a crossword puzzle. What attracts or repels the spirit is not a database or spreadsheet of doctrine. Yes, some doctrines may play a crucial role in the (de-)conversion of some people. But none are important for all, and few are important for many.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The intention was to set out my difficulties and say that I'm not going to be persuaded by an argument on the issues, but if I am persuaded of the Catholic Church's basis of authority, then that just might do it.

Really? Well, OK then. Why are you not fantastically clued in on Church history then? Why have you not spent countless hours contemplating different ecclesiologies? If that is what could kick you into the Catholic orbit, then you should already be running white-hot with the fascination of it all. Instead you appear to be relying on someone like me for filling in the blanks. You know, I don't really give a damn about Church history. I only know about it a bit because of SoF: in order to not lose arguments here, I had to acquire some background knowledge. But mostly it bores me to tears. I don't really care about ecclesiology either. As far as the Catholic hierarchy is concerned my attitude to it is about like the attitude I have to my car. I can sort of see why it is being built the way it is built, and it seems to get me to places. I change the oil because that is what you are supposed to do, and if something breaks I bring it to the car mechanic. Other than that, leave me the hell alone with the detail. Again, I know more about the Church's organisation than I ever wanted to know simply because I don't like to lose arguments on SoF.

As far as religion is concerned, I'm a mystic and I'm a philosopher. I'm not at all saying that I'm great at either of these. But that's what drives me, that's what excites me, that's what I want. I may not have walked quite a thousand miles for that, but I sure did a couple of hundred in my life already... And that's how I ended up in the Roman Catholic Church. The details are not important, or perhaps they are, but I'm not an internet exhibitionist. Suffice to say that I embrace the RCC entire not because she excites me entire (oh dear Lord...). Rather, I am of excellent Prussian stock, and we do things proper, or die trying. But Catholic bean counting is not how I got into the Church, and I see no reason to propose this to others as the way forward.

The problem is that I have no idea what excites and drives you, what you really want of religion. Frankly, I also don't particularly care, which is one of my many failings a Christian. However, whatever it may be, it is your path to the Catholic Church. For the real deal with this "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" stuff, with the universal Church of eternal truth, is not at all that she somehow will somehow illuminate life, universe and all the rest for you, and that you can check to what extent the Church is the Church by measuring her output in lumen. The real deal is that wherever you turn, whatever you seek, in the depths and the heights, in the small and the large - God is always there, and the handmaiden of God is just waiting to be at your service (well, to add you to the service personnel). You can run, but you cannot hide.

You want to find the Church Catholic? Get hot about something in religion. God doesn't like the lukewarm. When you get really hot about something, a choice will inevitably appear. A real choice, one that you really care about. And if you are lucky (lucky in my opinion that is), then the RCC will feature in that real choice - eventually. That's all. Godspeed.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The reason why there are umpteen square Protestant denominations is that opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. There is only one holy, catholic and apostolic Church though...

This Protestant would agree that there's only one Church, although I mean something rather different than what Catholics generally mean. For me, the church / Church means all Christians, all Jesus-followers worldwide. The church / Church is not an institution. So, for me, unity doesn't mean all belonging to one corporate organisation; it means something like having the same purpose.

This is the thing that makes it unlikely I'll ever join the Catholic Church; I reject the very idea of there being one institution that has special status as the final arbiter / supreme court or whatever of Christian teaching and orthodoxy. It's not that I need to be convinced of the Catholic Church's position as God's favoured institution.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The scandal will come all the same. Protestants are bound to approach the Scriptures with all the holy dread that Ingo and TT approach the teachings of the Magisterium. God's favored book versus God's favored institution- and like I said up thread, there is a certain point where faith in the one demands faith in the other.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
One way or the other, there is going to be something that you hate, disbelief and/or rage against in the Church. By virtue of that thing with the assholes, it's going to be different things for different people, but it is inescapable. The question is however what you do with that.

When that happens I simply ignore the church's teaching and continue with my own understanding. I was not aware that such an option would remain available to me were I to join the RCC.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Protestants are bound to approach the Scriptures with all the holy dread that Ingo and TT approach the teachings of the Magisterium.

I must have missed that memo.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 1 Cor 18-19

I don't see that there is much room for individuals to pass judgment on the decrees of God in Scriptures. God's judgement is against human moral intuition- "no flesh should glory in his presence."

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

There's enough room for a mute E and not it seems.

[ 13. August 2012, 17:31: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You want to find the Church Catholic? Get hot about something in religion. God doesn't like the lukewarm. When you get really hot about something, a choice will inevitably appear. A real choice, one that you really care about. And if you are lucky (lucky in my opinion that is), then the RCC will feature in that real choice - eventually. That's all.

That's how I ended up an Episcopalian!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
When that happens I simply ignore the church's teaching and continue with my own understanding. I was not aware that such an option would remain available to me were I to join the RCC.

It is precisely as available to you as it is now. What changes (hopefully...) on the side of the Church is that people will not lie to you that such choices do not particularly matter, if you ask them about it, and will not politely look the other way if you are very loud and proud about your choices, but confront you and if you are particularly insistent, remove you. So what changes from the side of the Church is that it is decidedly not your party.

What changes from your side, or hopefully has changed before you join, is the order of trust in judgement: in the first instance, you trust the Church above yourself. The Church, not you, deserves the benefit of doubt. You, not the Church, are a bit shifty. It is not impossible to convince yourself that you got it right and the Church got it wrong, but that requires quite some doing. And even if you arrive at this conclusion, there should still be a basic loyalty which should be capable of dragging you along where the disagreement is not fundamental. And if you do disagree beyond trust and loyalty, then you should fully expect the above: if you strictly insist on your way, no fair complaining if the Church points to the highway.

So much for the ideal, the reality is that most disagreeing Catholics simply muddle and mutter along, and nothing much happens about all that. But if the shit ever hits the fan, then these are the trajectories...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
That's how I ended up an Episcopalian!

There is no real choice without the possibility of getting it wrong. [Razz]

(You walked right into that one...)

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
That's how I ended up an Episcopalian!
There is no real choice without the possibility of getting it wrong.

(You walked right into that one...)

The Catholic church has itself gotten it wrong in it's history, as has been demonstrated. Individuals who end up Catholic also end up with the "possibility of getting it wrong". Personally, anyone who believes the Nicene Creed and follows Christ qualifies as a "true Christian" and we all may be surprised at who else qualifies. As you might have guessed, I don't believe the RCC alone is the one true church and all others are heretics or schismatics.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I had a Catholic childhood in a very Protestant country (with a large Catholic population in my part of the country,heavily influenced by Irish Catholicism)
My grandparents lived in Austria where there was another kind of Catholicism,both flamboyant baroque form of Catholicism as well as a strong admixture of vernacular language celebrations long before the second Vatican council.20 km away was Italy with another kind of Catholicism and 20 km away was the then Yugoslavia (now Slovenia) where I was familiar with Catholicism in a Communist country.
These all contributed to my understanding of the 'catholicity' of the Catholic church,as I grew to adulthood.
I've never in my life neither with Catholics nor with other Christians had a discussion about the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.It's just part of church teaching.
Of the billion or so Catholics few have much interest in the nitty gritty of church doctrine but all of the different forms of Catholicism are indeed authentic Catholicism although some people can only see their own form.
I was once in a Catholic church in Scotland with Austrian friends.It was a church which had been mainly furnished by the Fraser of Lovat family and in good taste.'But are you sure this is a Catholioc church ? asked one of my friends.'Yes' said I. 'Aber wo sind die Heiligenfiguren ? (Where are all the statues of saints and angels ?) An Austrian Catholic church would be full of gilded statues of saints and angels and it was impossible to imagine a church without these.
I'm not too sure why Cara should say that she would not be welcome to receive Communion in one of the many Catholic churches surrounding her.
If she does not consider herself to be a Catholic why would she want to receive Communion in such a church ?

In every community of all sorts of religions and outlooks there are always people who are 'paepstlicher als der Papst' (more papal than the pope) One has to see past them to the essential unity of the human family under God.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
That's how I ended up an Episcopalian!
There is no real choice without the possibility of getting it wrong.

(You walked right into that one...)

But this does remind me forcibly of the teaching of the Baptist church I grew up in, where everyone was encouraged to read the Bible for him/herself, but woe betide you if you came up with the wrong interpretation of it.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Dear IngoB,

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply at such length.

I appreciate that questions about where the boundaries are and how the rules of the club work and what the minimum is that will satisfy those rules may reflect the English culture from which I'm coming.

I appreciate also that the vast majority of Catholics can and do live good Christian lives without ever bothering over such doctrinal niceties as whether the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father.

Nevertheless, any church that claims to be universal has to make some sort of sense outside its culture of origin. So I'll persist for a bit longer.

Top of my list of questions from what you said is:

How do you know that statements against the Jansenists were ex cathedra - what criteria are you using to make that judgment if not the Vatican 1 document which I thought you were putting forward as definitive ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I'm not too sure why Cara should say that she would not be welcome to receive Communion in one of the many Catholic churches surrounding her.
If she does not consider herself to be a Catholic why would she want to receive Communion in such a church ?

Perhaps it is because many of us receive communion to receive Him, rather than as a public statement that one is a Catholic?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
How do you know that statements against the Jansenists were ex cathedra - what criteria are you using to make that judgment if not the Vatican 1 document which I thought you were putting forward as definitive ?

Huh? I literally have no idea why you are addressing this question to me. As far as I am concerned, I have tenaciously defended that the criteria set out in the Vatican I document apply to documents that came before it, including the ones against the Jansenists, and that one can reasonably speak of those documents "formally invoking" what Vatican I "formally declared" later on. I think you can ask Triple Tiara why he (perhaps) thinks that the documents against the Jansenists were ex cathedra. And he might respond with some stuff about "principles". For me it is however a simple and straightforward application of the very Vatican I document which will determine whether these earlier documents were ex cathedra (or more precisely, whether a Catholic has to believe that they were).

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

If, in the resurrection, Jesus completely vindicates the RCC, can I say sorry and become RC ?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If, in the resurrection, Jesus completely vindicates the RCC, can I say sorry and become RC ?

The Churches Expectant and Triumphant do not require the services of Roman shock troops, they will merely retire them with due honour.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I must confess, whilst on a secular Buddhist Vipassana retreat on the NSW North Coast a few years ago, I was told there was a support group in the region for "Recovering Catholics".

There are many, like Cara and Ronald Binge, who may have been hurt by the misuse of supposed authority by members of the RCC, sometimes non clerics.

The problem of genuine, as against bogus, teaching authority and the appellation of "Catholic" to it is something I think needs to be continually addressed.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I'm not too sure why Cara should say that she would not be welcome to receive Communion in one of the many Catholic churches surrounding her.
If she does not consider herself to be a Catholic why would she want to receive Communion in such a church ?

Perhaps it is because many of us receive communion to receive Him, rather than as a public statement that one is a Catholic?

Yes, exactly...as Forthview says, I don't consider myself a Catholic any more, but am still trying (feebly) to be a Christian.

In the temporary situation I am in, it would be easier to go to Catholic Mass--and it's not that I have a huge animosity against the church. It would be meaningful Christian worship for me--but if I go to Mass I want be able to go to Communion....and I know I wouldn't be welcome (at least according to the "rules") because I'm not a Catholic.

Some people say, what does it matter? no-one need know, they're not going to ask....I'm not comfortable with going to receive when I know the "rules" say I can't, even though they aren't "my" rules; and I don't like feeling unwelcome, even though I do understand the Church's reasons.

Well, it's complex.....a tangent really, probably not helpful to Eliab and other seekers.

But I do just feel exasperated sometimes about the absurdity of all these separations between Christians--so that even in ecumenical Taizé, although Brother Roger wanted intercommunion, the Catholic authorities could not countenance it, and so, I gather, there are separate eucharists for Catholics and non-Catholics.

Sometimes it all just seems so silly. However, these denominational differences matter much less now than they did in the past, so perhaps we are slowly creeping towards a more ecumenical Christianity.

cara

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Indeed - receiving Communion is receiving Jesus Christ into our midst.It is certainly not first and foremost a declaration that one is a Catholic as opposed to any other form of Christian.
Both Ronald B and Cara will know that it would be rare for a prospective communicant to be asked before receiving whether they are indeed Catholics or whether they are in what the Church considers to be' in a state of grace.'

Apart from certain American churches if one is a public figure disputing publicly the teaching of the church there is no barrier to anyone approaching the altar.

The barrier would be on the communicant's side.If one feels that the Church is a sham why would one want to approach the altar ?

From another perspective one could say that Communion is indeed a wish to come closer to Jesus Christ.From the Catholic point of view we come closer to Jesus Christ also through the Church which is His body.In receiving Communion we express not only our wish to come closer to Jesus Christ but also to feel ourselves closer to that mystical body of Christ which is the Church.

If we do not feel that the Catholic church does bring us closer to Christ then what is the point of participating in its religious rites ?If we do feel that perhaps the Church helps us to come closer to Jesus then perhaps we can feel that the catholic church is not all bad and that we can feel ourselves in some ways as members of the Church.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Indeed - receiving Communion is receiving Jesus Christ into our midst.It is certainly not first and foremost a declaration that one is a Catholic as opposed to any other form of Christian.
Both Ronald B and Cara will know that it would be rare for a prospective communicant to be asked before receiving whether they are indeed Catholics or whether they are in what the Church considers to be' in a state of grace.'

Apart from certain American churches if one is a public figure disputing publicly the teaching of the church there is no barrier to anyone approaching the altar.

The barrier would be on the communicant's side.If one feels that the Church is a sham why would one want to approach the altar ?

From another perspective one could say that Communion is indeed a wish to come closer to Jesus Christ.From the Catholic point of view we come closer to Jesus Christ also through the Church which is His body.In receiving Communion we express not only our wish to come closer to Jesus Christ but also to feel ourselves closer to that mystical body of Christ which is the Church.

If we do not feel that the Catholic church does bring us closer to Christ then what is the point of participating in its religious rites ?If we do feel that perhaps the Church helps us to come closer to Jesus then perhaps we can feel that the catholic church is not all bad and that we can feel ourselves in some ways as members of the Church.

Forthview, you're right--no-one is going to ask. But there is still a barrier, not just on my side. The barrier is on the Church's side--it doesn't welcome me at the altar as a non-Catholic. I know this is the fact, I know the barrier is there, even if no-one mentions it.
So I know I am not welcome.

I certainly don't feel the Catholic Church is "a sham" at all. It's not a question of absolutes to me! That's what I've been trying to say--for me, all Christian churches are--flawed!--parts of the Body of Christ.

But to me, none of them is the exclusive, only, authoritative Real Deal. Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox is the only one with The Truth, though both claim they are. And I can't subscribe to all the Catholic doctrines....but of course I do not think the Catholic Church is "a sham", and I'm sorry if I ever gave that impression for one minute.

As a Christian church, of course the Catholic church would help bring me closer to Jesus, as any Christian church would, and better than many.

As you say, in receiving Communion, we want to be closer to Christ and also to that "mystical body of Christ which is the Church." Yes, indeed. And for me that "mystical body" is Christianity as a whole, the Christians of past and present and future; not just Catholics.

All the great Christians known and unknown--all the saints of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox church, the Anglican church, all the writers and poets and spiritual geniuses past and present....

Only Jesus knows who is in his "mystical Body." I can't believe--to take just one name off the top of my head--George Herbert is not part of it, for example! Perhaps Jesus has even welcomed into it people who do not call themselves Christians at all, because born into some other faith, but who follow his Way to all intents and purposes??

It has taken me a long, hard time to detach enough from the Catholic Church to stop worrying about whether it is the TRue Church, and if it isn't, which one is..... None of them is, as far as I can see.

Now I see Christianity as more and more a whole, and worry less and less about doctrinal differences--all are following Christ, after all. Of course some groups do seem to me to be more in error, others closer to the real "note" --but surely what unites us is far more important than what separates us?

Only an ex-cradle-Catholic will understand what an enormous mental journey this apparently simple step represents!!

And now, alas, as we've seen from The Silent Acolyte's thread, some are teaching that Catholics are not real Christians and will go to Hell....when will it ever end??

cara

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I certainly don't feel the Catholic Church is "a sham" at all. It's not a question of absolutes to me! That's what I've been trying to say--for me, all Christian churches are--flawed!--parts of the Body of Christ.

But to me, none of them is the exclusive, only, authoritative Real Deal. Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox is the only one with The Truth, though both claim they are. And I can't subscribe to all the Catholic doctrines....but of course I do not think the Catholic Church is "a sham", and I'm sorry if I ever gave that impression for one minute.

As a Christian church, of course the Catholic church would help bring me closer to Jesus, as any Christian church would, and better than many.

As you say, in receiving Communion, we want to be closer to Christ and also to that "mystical body of Christ which is the Church." Yes, indeed. And for me that "mystical body" is Christianity as a whole, the Christians of past and present and future; not just Catholics.

My thoughts exactly, Cara. One key point of disagreement in this thread seems to be about what constitutes the body of Christ. For some, it's an institution (or many institutions), while for others - including me - it's people. And those people could belong to any church or none; it's not membership of an institution that confirms someone as part of the body of Christ.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
One of the problems most native English speakers, whether born Catholic, converts or other have in understanding Catholicism is that the centre and sensibility of the RCC is in a Latin country. There things are not seen in such an adversarial either/or way they are in England, Australia or similar. The Vatican often makes statements, often on non-doctrinal matters, which are heard, but possibly not followed. In Italian it's called making "la bella figura" and honour is satisfied.

That's fascinating!

I can't help thinking that if I were a member of a group that told me I had to live my life a certain way and after many years met a majority from that group who said, "that? oh we don't worry about that", I'd be

A) confused
B) thoroughly pissed off
C) Demand a yes or no ruling

[ 14. August 2012, 09:55: Message edited by: George Spigot ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't see that there is much room for individuals to pass judgment on the decrees of God in Scriptures. God's judgement is against human moral intuition- "no flesh should glory in his presence."

Fallible humans wrote the Bible, just as fallible humans lead the church. Both claim (or have it claimed on their behalf) to have direct divine inspiration and the guarantee of infallibility. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can dismiss that claim for one without also dismissing it for the other.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What changes from your side, or hopefully has changed before you join, is the order of trust in judgement: in the first instance, you trust the Church above yourself. The Church, not you, deserves the benefit of doubt. You, not the Church, are a bit shifty.

Ha. Never going to happen. All heirarchies are fallible, corrupt and self-serving, including those that run churches. They seek their own good, not mine. I see no reason to give any of them the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Cara, I agree with almost everything you say.I certainly don't believe that the Catholic Church is the only 'real deal'.
Jesus died for ALL of us and His love encompasses all of the human race and even beyond.
Whatever the way that the Catholic Church may have seen itself in the past it teaches now that All of humanity are members of that mystical body of Christ,even those who are not aware of it.There is much that is good in other Christian groupings not linked formally to the See of Rome and I spend much of my Christian life seeking out the similarities and not the differences between different forms of Christianity and different religions who all in essence worship the same God.It is only our very human frailties which keep us apart.
The only place where the Catholic church might claim exclusivity is in saying who is and who is not linked formally with the Apostolic and Roman See.The Catholic church cannot judge the validity of the ministry of those who are not formally linked to it.It cannot make any judgement on their theological opinions but recognises that there is much good in other Christians - other Christians who cannot in any way be blamed for the divisions caused by the imperfections of Christians over the centuries.
Although some of these Christians may in a technical sense be'heretics' following quite different doctrines from those of the Catholic Church or technically 'schismatics' refusing to remain in communion with the Apostolic See,they are nevertheless the beloved children of God just as much as Catholics are.
You know why the Church does not give Communion to those over whom it has no control,as it takes its role as guardian of the mysteries so seriously.
If you share the faith in the eucharist which Catholics are supposed to have (and you know what that is).If you feel a genuine need to communicate.If there are no ministers of your own church around then normally the Church would admit you to Communion,even although you do not consider yourself to be a Catholic (even although you are !)

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fallible humans wrote the Bible, just as fallible humans lead the church. Both claim (or have it claimed on their behalf) to have direct divine inspiration and the guarantee of infallibility. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can dismiss that claim for one without also dismissing it for the other.

Indeed, I have argued as much on this very thread. The Bible is the experience of the Apostles made authoritative and normative in the life of all Christians in all times.

If you can't have faith in that, then how does one come to know Jesus? No, I can't quite accept that we all have knowledge of the Nicene creed in our hearts. If one cannot have confidence in the community telling one about Jesus, one cannot have confidence in Jesus, because we don't have other sources of knowledge about him. Faith in Jesus is faith in the Church's Jesus.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

A fraction of the Bible is the narrative of the apostles. The reportage of Jesus actions and words is sufficient. Everything else is sufficiently valid, authoritative rhetorical, highly contextual commentary. Like what we're making of it all two thousand years later.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If one cannot have confidence in the community telling one about Jesus, one cannot have confidence in Jesus, because we don't have other sources of knowledge about him.

If that was true then we'd all be screwed, because how can we have confidence that anything our corrupt and self-serving church heirarchies say is anything other than corrupt and self-serving?

Fortunately, there's the little matter of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, who guides us all to Truth. Note: guides us all, not just the blokes in fancy hats and scarves (or similar "I'm the boss" garb, depending on denomination) who lord it over the rest of us by pretending they're the only ones who have a valid relationship with Him.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

This is ALL good chums!

And IngoB, THANK YOU! Seriously. I look forward to All Souls Day if I can't be in All Saints Day.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
If that was true then we'd all be screwed, because how can we have confidence that anything our corrupt and self-serving church heirarchies say is anything other than corrupt and self-serving?

Fortunately, there's the little matter of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, who guides us all to Truth. Note: guides us all, not just the blokes in fancy hats and scarves (or similar "I'm the boss" garb, depending on denomination) who lord it over the rest of us by pretending they're the only ones who have a valid relationship with Him.

We can only have confidence in them if we have faith in Jesus' promises.

It seems to me you are leaving nothing else left in the Christian message but some vague feelings in our hearts that you call the Holy Spirit. For me, there are some facts we have to maintain- facts we have to be told about, and which cannot be just thought up if we sit under the bodhi tree and think really hard. It is the Church that told me of these facts- and if I embrace them I have to embrace the Church and its Bible.

Are the people of the Church sinful and self serving? Most certainly. Have the Apostles faithfully handed down the saving truths of Jesus Christ? I can't prove it, but I believe.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fortunately, there's the little matter of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, who guides us all to Truth. Note: guides us all, not just the blokes in fancy hats and scarves (or similar "I'm the boss" garb, depending on denomination) who lord it over the rest of us by pretending they're the only ones who have a valid relationship with Him.

Agree - but the hierarchy will and do claim that the Spirit guides us all THROUGH the hierarchy's guidance and teaching 'magisterium'.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Ah, I must meet your exclusion with exclusion Zach82, how ... ironic.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Cara, I agree with almost everything you say.I certainly don't believe that the Catholic Church is the only 'real deal'.
Jesus died for ALL of us and His love encompasses all of the human race and even beyond.
Whatever the way that the Catholic Church may have seen itself in the past it teaches now that All of humanity are members of that mystical body of Christ,even those who are not aware of it.There is much that is good in other Christian groupings not linked formally to the See of Rome and I spend much of my Christian life seeking out the similarities and not the differences between different forms of Christianity and different religions who all in essence worship the same God.It is only our very human frailties which keep us apart.
The only place where the Catholic church might claim exclusivity is in saying who is and who is not linked formally with the Apostolic and Roman See.The Catholic church cannot judge the validity of the ministry of those who are not formally linked to it.It cannot make any judgement on their theological opinions but recognises that there is much good in other Christians - other Christians who cannot in any way be blamed for the divisions caused by the imperfections of Christians over the centuries.
Although some of these Christians may in a technical sense be'heretics' following quite different doctrines from those of the Catholic Church or technically 'schismatics' refusing to remain in communion with the Apostolic See,they are nevertheless the beloved children of God just as much as Catholics are.
You know why the Church does not give Communion to those over whom it has no control,as it takes its role as guardian of the mysteries so seriously.
If you share the faith in the eucharist which Catholics are supposed to have (and you know what that is).If you feel a genuine need to communicate.If there are no ministers of your own church around then normally the Church would admit you to Communion,even although you do not consider yourself to be a Catholic (even although you are !)

Thanks, Forthview.

Yes, I know that in extreme circumstances, such as no church of one's own denomination available-- the Catholic Church does allow Christians who believe the Catholic way about the eucharist to take Communion even if they are not otherwise Catholic....

Well, I'm not actually that far from an Anglican church, so I can't really claim these extreme circumstances, and I believe in the Real Presence but not in transubstantiation, and this exception to the rule is so hedged about with caveats and provisos....but I appreciate your mentioning it.

Cara

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Carissima CARA - I'm certainly not trying to encourage you to visit a Catholic church as there is obviously something keeping you away.
The provisos and caveats are there for a definite reason but they can be interpreted in various ways.Some people would say that if an Anglican priest were not immediately available then one could go to Communion in the nearest Catholic church - if one shared the eucharistic understanding of Catholics.
You say that you believe in the Real Presence.If for you Jesus is really present in the consecrated bread and wine then what is wrong with the word 'transubstantiation' which after all is only an attempt in words from the Middle Ages to explain that Jesus is really present in the consecrated bread and wine.If He wasn't really present in the bread and wine before the consecration and yet is present after the consecration what is wrong with using that word ?

I sense from your words that although there is something which brings you some sort of 'souvenir involontaire' of your past when you see a Catholic church that you cannot bring yourself to go in,perhaps in case you feel that you might be sucked in against your will.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Carissima CARA - I'm certainly not trying to encourage you to visit a Catholic church as there is obviously something keeping you away.
The provisos and caveats are there for a definite reason but they can be interpreted in various ways.Some people would say that if an Anglican priest were not immediately available then one could go to Communion in the nearest Catholic church - if one shared the eucharistic understanding of Catholics.
You say that you believe in the Real Presence.If for you Jesus is really present in the consecrated bread and wine then what is wrong with the word 'transubstantiation' which after all is only an attempt in words from the Middle Ages to explain that Jesus is really present in the consecrated bread and wine.If He wasn't really present in the bread and wine before the consecration and yet is present after the consecration what is wrong with using that word ?

I sense from your words that although there is something which brings you some sort of 'souvenir involontaire' of your past when you see a Catholic church that you cannot bring yourself to go in,perhaps in case you feel that you might be sucked in against your will.

Thanks for your kind concern, much appreciated! But I really shouldn't hi-jack Eliab's thread any further with discussion of my personal stuff. I should just clarify that I absolutely can and do go into Catholic Churches, often--though rarely to attend Mass, it's true. However not so long ago I did go to Mass with a family member who was visiting --at Communion time I went up for a blessing instead. Which I know has been discussed on the Ship as a controversial practice, but anyway.

I don't go to Catholic Mass often.....but then, although I call myself an Anglican, at present I'm not going much to Anglican worship either, for a variety of reasons....some practical, since as I said it's not that near, and others too nebulous to go into here.

Re Catholic churches--or rather re Mass itself, as I go into Catholic churches all the time to look at them and appreciate their freight of beauty and their almost tangible centuries of prayer, and maybe even pray myself--there may be a little inkling of the sort of resistance you describe, but it's not as drastic, and is far more complex...

As to "Real Presence" vs "transubstantiation," as I understand it there absolutely is a difference.

A belief in the Real Presence means you believe Christ is truly present somehow in the bread and wine, but with no need to define exactly how.

Transubstantiation is a particular way of understanding the Real Presence, by which the external accidents remain the same, while the substance changes...or however it is properly defined.
(A quick Google of "transubstantiation vs real presence" brings up a host of explanations.)

As far as I know, to be a Catholic and receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to understand the Real Presence strictly in the Catholic way: transubstantiation.

However, for Eliab, it's not specific doctrines that matter at the moment, so much as trying to decide whether the Catholic church really has authority, so all this is by the by.....

But these are the sort of tangents that inevitably arise in any discussion of the Catholic church and especially of her authority re dogmas and doctrines, I suspect!

cara

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:

(A quick Google of "transubstantiation vs real presence" brings up a host of explanations.)

oops!!! unintentional pun. [Smile]

cara

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
One of the problems most native English speakers, whether born Catholic, converts or other have in understanding Catholicism is that the centre and sensibility of the RCC is in a Latin country. There things are not seen in such an adversarial either/or way they are in England, Australia or similar. The Vatican often makes statements, often on non-doctrinal matters, which are heard, but possibly not followed. In Italian it's called making "la bella figura" and honour is satisfied.

That's fascinating!

I can't help thinking that if I were a member of a group that told me I had to live my life a certain way and after many years met a majority from that group who said, "that? oh we don't worry about that", I'd be

A) confused
B) thoroughly pissed off
C) Demand a yes or no ruling

I gather you were making a personal statement.
[Big Grin]

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... Whatever the way that the Catholic Church may have seen itself in the past it teaches now that All of humanity are members of that mystical body of Christ,even those who are not aware of it.

Can you provide an authority for that claim?

(I'm not disputing what you say, but it is not my understanding. I may need to read more carefully - as I've needed to in other matters.)

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I gather you were making a personal statement.

Sorry you've lost me. Personal statement about what?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I gather you were making a personal statement.

Sorry you've lost me. Personal statement about what?

A comment on what I said about the Italian way of looking at things.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Whatever the way that the Catholic Church may have seen itself in the past it teaches now that All of humanity are members of that mystical body of Christ,even those who are not aware of it.

Whilst this is a popular liberal interpretation of Vatican II, it is not actually justified by the text. More importantly for a Protestant, it is explicitly denied by the bible, which states:

quote:
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Jn 1:11-13

Now - if my receiving of Him causes me to have the right to become a child of God, then I am not, by default, a child of God. Therefore 'all of humanity' cannot be 'members of the body of Christ'. If Rome is teaching the opposite, it is wrong.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Agree - but the hierarchy will and do claim that the Spirit guides us all THROUGH the hierarchy's guidance and teaching 'magisterium'.

Well they would, wouldn't they. Turkeys don't tend to vote for Christmas, and people with jobs for life that allow them to live in palaces and lord it over others don't tend to surrender them.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Many of the threads concerning the CATHOLIC CHURCH complain about the exclusivity of the Catholic church and now we have a post from Ender's Shadow saying that the Catholic church is too inclusive.

Arguments can rage round and round in circles about the meaning of words,statements and ideas.What exactly does 'real' mean in Real Presence ? What exactly does 'Presence' mean in Real Presence ? What exactly does 'transubstantiation' or 'consubstantiation' mean ? Although these can be interesting to some people, for the great majority of Christians they are simply words with which we surround and attempt to explain,sometimes not too well,what are the mysteries of the Christian Faith.

To the question of AdamPater about the Catholic church's view of possible salvation for all of humanity created by a loving God the catechism of the Catholic church,an authoritative document, has the following to say.

Para 816 The sole Church of Christ is that which our Saviour,after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care ....this Church,constituted and organiserd as a society in the present world subsists in the Catholic church,which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.

817 in this one and only Church fromits very beginnings arose rifts which the Apostle strongly censures .....in subsequent centuries large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic church - for which,often enough men on both sides were to blame.....

818 ..one cannot charge with the sin of separation those born now into those communities and the Catholic church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers

819 furthermore many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic church - Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation....

832 The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of faithful gathered together through the Preaching of the Gospel and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated ... they may be small,poor or existing in the diaspora but Christ is present through whose power the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic church is constituted...

836 All men are called to this Catholic unity of the People of God .. and to it,in different ways,belong,or are ordered : the Catholic faithful,others who believe in Christ and finally all mankind,called b y God's grace to salvation.

838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptised who are honoured by the name of Christian who do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety... they are in a certain,but imperfect communion with the Catholic church.

839 when the Church delves intoher own mystery she discovers her link with the Jewish people

841 The plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims who together with us adore the one merciful God........

843 the CATHOLIC CHURCH recognises in other religions the search for God and considers all goodness and truth found ion these religioons as a 'preparation for the Gospel

846 extra ecclesiam nulla salus - no salvation outside of the Church - put positively iot means that all Salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his body

847This affirmation is not aimed at those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and his church ... those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ....but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and try in their actions to do his will according to the dictates of their conscience - these too may achieve eternal salvation.

On 11th October 1992 pope JohnPaul II on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council signed an Apostolic constitution 'Fidei depositum' introducing and commending this catechism to the whole Catholic church
'Guarding the deposit of faith is the mission which the Lord entrusts to his Churchand which she fulfils in every age....

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Forthview, I don't see how that clarifies things.

I think it is only fair to all reading this thread to point out that the Catholic Church does not teach that "All of humanity are members of that mystical body of Christ, even those who are not aware of it."

It just doesn't.

Given that, your assertion - no matter how well-intentioned - is deeply unhelpful

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
<snip> To the question of AdamPater about the Catholic church's view of possible salvation for all of humanity created by a loving God the catechism of the Catholic church,an authoritative document, has the following to say.

Para 816 .... <snip>

With apologies to Inigo Montoya: you are using these words... I do not think they means what you think they means.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
847This affirmation is not aimed at those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and his church ... those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ....but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and try in their actions to do his will according to the dictates of their conscience - these too may achieve eternal salvation.

This appears to address the issue we are focusing on: but note the restrictions - those who've not heard the gospel AND try to live according to their conscience. Therefore those who fail on either of those tests are not covered by that statement. Therefore salvation is not guaranteed - Rome has not turned universalist, however much universalists might like it to have done.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

From the Catholic point of view,being a member of the Church does not automatically guarantee salvation.

I go back to the Catechism issued by the authority of pope John Paul II and which he says is a 'statement of the Church's faith .. a sure norm for teaching the faith'.

Para 779 The Church is both visible and spiritual ,a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ.She is one,yet formed of two components,human and divine.That is her mystery,which only faith can accept.

836 ALL MEN are called to this catholic unity of the People of God... and to it,IN DIFFERENT WAYS BELONG ,or are ordered :
the Catholic faithful
others who believe in Christ
ALL MANKIND,called by God's grace to salvation.

837 Even though incorporated into the Church,one who does not persevere in charity is not saved.He remains in the bosom of the Church,but 'in body' not 'in heart'

Thus I would put it in my words that as Catholics we have to recognise all men and women as our brothers and sisters in the Lord.

All have been created by God and all are offered redemption through the Saving Blood of Jesus Christ

That is obviously not to say that all are really Roman Catholic whether they know it or not.
Apart from this Roman Catholics know that not all within the visible community linked fully to the Apostolic See are Roman Catholics.

Human frailty will make some Roman Catholics believe that they alone are special.They are indeed special but so are all members of the human race equally special.

Whilst accepting at the highest level that all men are children of God and brothers and sisters of one another,the Church nevertheless believs that it has a particular message for all those brothers and sisters the world over as is expressed in:
849 Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be the 'universal sacrament of salvation' the Church,in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality,strives to preach the Gospel to all men

851 It is from God's love for all men that the Church receives both the obligation and the vigour of her missionary dynamism... God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth.All those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way to salvation.The Church ,to whom this truth has been entrusted,must go out to meet their desire.

To me these are encouraging words which inspire me to look outwards to others,but to remain more than aware of the firm foundation which I have within the bosom of Holy Mother Church.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Well, Forthwith, here's my interpretation of the CCC, which to the best of my knowledge is compatible with official RC teaching:

Who is a full member of the Catholic Church?
Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. (CCC 837)
The members of the Catholic Church in communion with the pope, Roman and Oriental, and as of recently, Anglican.

Who is an almost full member of the Catholic Church?
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC 838)
The Eastern Orthodox (and in a similar manner also some other smaller group, IIRC).

Who else can be considered a member of the Catholic Church in a sense, but clearly to a lesser degree?
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." (CCC 838)
Other Christians that have a valid baptism, like most Protestants.

Who is not member of the Catholic Church, but also privileged in the sight of God?
The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (CCC 839)
The Jews.

Who is not a member of the Catholic Church, but close to a proper understanding of God?
The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. (CCC 841)
Others who believe in a Creator God, foremost among them the Muslims.

Who is not a member of the Catholic Church, even further removed in understanding, but still to some degree doing God's will?
The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life." (CCC 843)
All other religious adherents.

Can those who are outside of the Church viably remain apart from her?
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)
No, it is required for their salvation to become a member of the Catholic Church, in particular through baptism.

Are then all who remain outside of the Catholic Church doomed?
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)
No, if they are not culpable for remaining apart from the Catholic Church, then God will not count this against them.

What about those who are members of the Catholic Church, but not fully so?
The Church's mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity. Indeed, "divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects." (CCC 855)
They are impeding the life of the Church, and such hindrance should be removed as far and as fast as possible.

So what is the big picture concerning membership in the Catholic Church?
"All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation." (CCC 836)

Catholics: fully belonging.
Other Christians: partly belonging.
Everybody else: should be belonging.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If one cannot have confidence in the community telling one about Jesus, one cannot have confidence in Jesus, because we don't have other sources of knowledge about him.
If that was true then we'd all be screwed, because how can we have confidence that anything our corrupt and self-serving church heirarchies say is anything other than corrupt and self-serving?

Fortunately, there's the little matter of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, who guides us all to Truth. Note: guides us all, not just the blokes in fancy hats and scarves (or similar "I'm the boss" garb, depending on denomination) who lord it over the rest of us by pretending they're the only ones who have a valid relationship with Him.

The question is not as simple as that, and cannot be solved by merely ‘pointing to the text.’ What we need to ask, is: When Christ said that the Holy Spirit would “lead you into all truth,” who was the recipients of that promise? Was it the Apostles qua Christians or the Apostles qua Aposles? You seem to assume that the former interpretation is the correct one, but you cannot point to the text itself to ‘prove’ your point. In and of itself, this text only tells us that the Church* will be lead into all truth. It doesn’t say if Christ’s promise is to the individual Christian, or the Church through the Apostles (and perhaps their successors).**

I happen to hold the latter view, because it is the historic interpretation, and was held by the Church when it canonized the Scriptures. It is still held by the Catholic Church and, quite frankly, by most historical churches, including tradtional reformational churches.

* I am not here saying anything about which Church is the correct one. I am personally a high church Lutheran.

** Some will say that this happened through Scripture alone, some primary through Scripture, some through the institutional Church, etc.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
what is wrong with the word 'transubstantiation' which after all is only an attempt in words from the Middle Ages to explain that Jesus is really present in the consecrated bread and wine.If He wasn't really present in the bread and wine before the consecration and yet is present after the consecration what is wrong with using that word ?

What's wrong with the word is that it carries the implication of the whole Medieval philosophy - that spiritual matters are to be thought of in terms of a non-material substance which is perceivable only by faith.

Human understanding of the world and of the processes of thinking have moved on since then. We live in a world of matter and information - hardware and software - and spirit is software, not hardware. Faith is not a perception, it is a closing of the mind to possibilities other than the one committed to.

The Gospel is never out-of-date but some of the ways in which the saints of old thought about it and expressed it are.

But Conservatism and the Catholic church is a whole other topic...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

From the Catechism
para 777 The word 'Church'...designates the assembly of those whom God's word convokes,i.e. gathers together to form the People of God.

778 The Church is both the means and goal of God's plan:prefigured in creation,prepared for in the Old Covenant,founded by the words and actions of Jesus Christ,fulfilled by His redeeming cross and resurrection..She will be perfected in the glory of heaven as the assembly of all the redeemed of the earth

779 The church is both visible and spiritual,a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ.She is formed of two components,human and divine.That is her mystery which only faith can accept.

(As a visible hierarchical society the Catholic Church is indeed what most people see it to be- the assembly of those baptised who recognise themselves as members of that family of God,linked together in communion with their bishops and as focus of unity,the bishop of Rome.

As the mystical Body of Christ there is also that invisible body of those redeemed by virtue of the saving death of Jesus Christ,who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of that saving death of Jesus Christ nor indeed not the same understanding of the visible society of the Catholic church.

When on the day of final perfection Jesus Christ will come again he will not ask 'Where are the Catholics ? Where are the other Christians ? where is the rest of humanity?

Rather he will ask all of humanity 'Have you fed the hungry ? Have you welcomed strangers ? Have you clothed the naked? Have you visited the sick and those otherwise deprived of liberty ?

Whether we are Catholics or other Christians or other parts of God's creation it is if we can answer positively to these questions that we will be recognised as good limbs of the Mystical Body of Christ in our service to other members of that Body.

If we cannot answer these questions positively,whether we are Catholics or other Christians or other members of God's creation,our limbs may then been severed from the Mystical Body of Christ ..at the end of time.}

In its visible,hierarchical form the Catholic church recognises the definitions made by the Church throughout the Ages.In the present catechism it has the following to say about transubstantiation:

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique......In the most Blessed Sacrament the whole Christ is truly,really and substantially contained.This presence is called 'real' by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence,as if they could not be 'real' too,but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say it is a substantial presence,by which Christ,God and man,makes himself wholly and entirely present.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What's wrong with the word is that it carries the implication of the whole Medieval philosophy - that spiritual matters are to be thought of in terms of a non-material substance which is perceivable only by faith.

Rather, you are wrong about medieval philosophy and theology. Perhaps you should study what they are saying before dismissing them?

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Human understanding of the world and of the processes of thinking have moved on since then. We live in a world of matter and information - hardware and software - and spirit is software, not hardware.

Let's gloss over the endless problems in cashing out what you just said in something resembling philosophical strictures. Then it remains a simple fact that the actual philosophy and theology of the middle ages, or at least the high middle ages with its scholastics, has a lot more to do with your supposedly "modern" ideas than with what you wrote above. It is Aristotle, not Plato, who won the day in the middle ages. In consequence, something like a "form" is not some Platonic ideal floating in conceptual shape, of which material objects are imperfect instantiations. Even less did they talk about some Cartesian link between a ghostly soul and a material body. A form is simply that, the shape of things that makes them be and do what they are - from which one can abstract in thought their essence. If one sees enough humans, one can have a fair guess what being a human is like essentially, but there is no essence existing as such other than in what one can gather from observations with the mind. Your "software" is simply a medieval form. Well, actually it's a lot more complicated, since the medievals would immediately point out (upon learning about "hardware") that the body of the computer has a form as well, which significantly shapes what that computer is and does (try running PC software on an iPad). And they likely would get into a complicated discussion about all this. But at the level of glossing required for your statement to make sense, there really isn't much of a difference.

Further, while the medievals did affirm that there were incorporeal beings, like the angels and God, and while they did affirm that there are aspects of human being that are incorporeal, all that has nothing to do with transubstantiation! Nobody was then or is now supposed to "see in faith" the soul of Jesus in the consecrated bread and wine. What does that even mean? The medievals (or at least the majority thereof) put a lot of emphasis on all information about the world deriving from the senses. While they didn't know about "photons", they sure understood the "material" nature of seeing. (For example, Aquinas derives that angels must on occasion assume bodies because it is natural for illusions to be had by only one person, whereas scripture reports angels being seen by many, wherefore they must have had a body at that point in order to be detectable by "bodily vision".)

What the "eyes of faith" are supposed to see beyond the "bodily senses" in transubstantiation is rather that the appearances are misleading, and that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. There's no talk about "seeing the soul" of Christ, detecting the incorporeal, or whatever. While this surely is decidedly weird in many ways, it is precisely not weird in the sense that you are talking about. It's more like watching David Copperfield walk through a wall, and applauding rather than revising the laws of physics. While your senses report that the man just walked through a wall, your "eyes of faith in physics" let you see that there must be hole somewhere from him to get through - even if you fail to see any "physical" evidence for that. That's what transubstantiation boils down to: the senses report this, but by faith one believes that they are mistaken. Not bread and wine is there, but the body and blood of Christ. (In truth, it is a bit more complex: there is a physical necessity for this illusion, namely to make morally possible cannibalism, i.e., to achieve spiritual transfer by bodily eating.)

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Faith is not a perception, it is a closing of the mind to possibilities other than the one committed to.

True, but a rather negative way of putting it...

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Dear IngoB,

Sorry, not had a lot of free time at the computer for the last few days. So there's two or three of your posts to which I'd like to reply.

On medieval philosophy, you said

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your "software" is simply a medieval form. Well, actually it's a lot more complicated, since the medievals would immediately point out (upon learning about "hardware") that the body of the computer has a form as well.. ..there really isn't much of a difference.

You're right that it ain't simple.

Objects ("hardware") are both made of matter and have a structure (information), whereas software is information without (or abstracted from) matter. I communicate information to you by this wonderful technology which arranges some of the matter inside your computer in the same configuration as the matter inside my computer.

If you want to say that this isn't very different from how medieval philosophy would describe it, that's fine.

I maintain that in terms of communicating with modern people, the word "information" is both more precise and more easily understood than the word "form" (recognising the common linguistic root).

quote:
What the "eyes of faith" are supposed to see beyond the "bodily senses" in transubstantiation is rather that the appearances are misleading, and that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.

Appearances are not misleading - the bread and wine remain chemically bread and wine, and the senses correctly report that.

It is the mind that makes sense of the information it receives, that co-relates the sensory input to the belief that the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ.

Faith trusts that that belief is in some sense true; the senses report that in one sense - perhaps the most obvious sense - it is not true, and the intellect interprets these data, differently in the case of different people.

The medieval interpretation is the "veil of illusion" argument - that the matter we sense isn't the real matter, that all matter has a true nature which corresponds to its apparent nature in every case except this one.

That seems to me poor philosophy.

A modern interpretation might say that the doctrine is true at the level of information rather than the level of matter. You may disagree with this interpretation.

Much has been and could be said on this subject, and this isn't really the right place. The original point was to do with what the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is doing when it seeks to impose one particular interpretation on all members of the institution.

At another point you said:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
opinions are like assholes, everybody has one

Wonderful metaphor - if it isn't an IngoB-ism, where did it come from ?

It conveys all sorts of overtones:
- that a man's opinion is, like his asshole, something that is one and undivided
- that a man's opinion is, like his asshole, something best kept to himself
- that a man's opinion is, like his asshole, something that he loves only because it is his
- that however important and worthy is the calling of a doctor who specializes in the care of assholes, this - like people's opinions - is something beneath the notice of the lofty princes of the Church.

And what I want to suggest to you is that whilst your statement is strictly true, these overtones are false.

Most people I know have many opinions. They have different levels of commitment to these, depending on a number of factors including the level of experience and knowledge that the opinions are based on.

The particular opinion you seem to want all members of the Catholic Church to hold is "Rome is always right". (I try to imagine Christ, dying on the Cross, holding such a view, and in failing conclude that such a notion is unChristian).

My opinions seem to me to be NOT ideas that have blossomed out of nowhere in the brain of Russ, ideas in which I feel pride of ownership, BUT rather judgments that such-and-such idea that I have heard or read is true, or not true. And I suspect that this lack of originality is pretty universal.

I love Isaac Newton's phrase - "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." It detaches the merits of the idea from the unworthiness of the person putting it forward.

Most opinions are judgments on the truth or otherwise of what we've absorbed from others. Any pursuit of truth results in an opinion. And the process of airing one's own opinions and listening to the opinions of others is how we learn and refine our views and approach closer to truth.

But it may be that we're talking about different things - language often seems much better developed in talking about matter rather than information.

Finally, and closer to the main topic of the thread, you said:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For me it is however a simple and straightforward application of the very Vatican I document which will determine whether these earlier documents were ex cathedra (or more precisely, whether a Catholic has to believe that they were).

but the bit that confused me was:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In a practical sense, the last two "ex cathedra" were particularly (and likely intentionally) non-novel in content. However, this need not be the case. For example, the ex cathedras against the Jansenites were novel in the sense of making a clear decision against theological opinions that were being defended as very traditional.

So on the one hand you're saying that Pastor Aeternus is definitive and straightforward to interpret, and one can deduce from this which papal statements are ex cathedra.

And on the other hand you seem to be saying that statements against the Jansenites are known to be ex cathedra and from that fact one can induce the principle that non-novelty is not a requirement, despite the implication in Pastor Aeternus that it is, from the section that you quoted. (The section which represents the triumph of conservatism over Christianity within the 19th-century Catholic church).

Do you see why this might be confusing ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Objects ("hardware") are both made of matter and have a structure (information), whereas software is information without (or abstracted from) matter.

Perhaps you could claim that the algorithmic concepts are "info without matter", as they sort of live in human understanding, but the actual software itself sure isn't abstracted from matter at all. Its purpose is precisely to instruct a specific kind of matter (the computer) to be in a particular way (its computational state). It is true that we humans work very hard to create "abstraction layers" in software engineering, but that's about making software more accessible to human conceptual thinking.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I maintain that in terms of communicating with modern people, the word "information" is both more precise and more easily understood than the word "form" (recognising the common linguistic root).

Information is a "catch all" term in ordinary language use, but one of the things it catches least is what "form" would be about. You don't open the bonnet of a car and say "Oh, I see what is wrong with the information of this motor." Not that you couldn't say that in principle, but it sure would sound odd.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The medieval interpretation is the "veil of illusion" argument - that the matter we sense isn't the real matter, that all matter has a true nature which corresponds to its apparent nature in every case except this one. That seems to me poor philosophy.

First, it is supposed to be miraculous. Second, if one wants to bring philosophy into this at all, then one would have to say that it is a particularly philosophical miracle. Jesus walking on water is a physical miracle. Philosophy does not exclude people from walking on water, physics does. But a substantial change that leaves the species untouched - physics doesn't come into this, and you cannot really speak of this without bringing some philosophy to bear. Technically speaking, transubstantiation is using Aristotelian philosophy in ways it wasn't meant to be. Indeed, a scandal to the Greeks, in particular Aristotle. But is far from any sort of incompetence in philosophy. It is more like moving from Newtonian to quantum mechanics: decidedly weird stuff is being proposed, and one may well reject it by "common sense", but one cannot find simple "calculation mistakes" in the workings.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
A modern interpretation might say that the doctrine is true at the level of information rather than the level of matter. You may disagree with this interpretation.

You would have to get a lot more precise before I could answer this. Of note, information is taken seriously in modern physics as a way of understanding matter, but decidedly not in the way needed here. The "substance" of transubstantiation is not a substance in a materialist sense, and the "information" of bread and wine in the sense that physics uses that term doesn't change (appreciably). Considered in terms of physical entities, like molecules or atoms, the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. The illusion is not about physics (and in that sense my Copperfield analogy was misleading), but about what physics tells us about world. To say more than that, you have to do philosophy.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The original point was to do with what the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is doing when it seeks to impose one particular interpretation on all members of the institution.

What the RCC has actually imposed is much less specific than you might think. Because the only definition Trent has given for the terms it uses is in terms of the gospel language itself.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Wonderful metaphor - if it isn't an IngoB-ism, where did it come from ?

I don't know, but I first read it on the Ship.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And what I want to suggest to you is that whilst your statement is strictly true, these overtones are false.

That's your opinion...

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The particular opinion you seem to want all members of the Catholic Church to hold is "Rome is always right".

First, there really is no single entity "Rome" that one can usefully talk about like that. Second, to the extent that one can talk of "Rome" here, "Rome" isn't always right and never has claimed to be always right. Neither have I. Ever. Third, this particular rhetorical move is so old, I can barely bring myself to answer this kind of shite anymore...

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And on the other hand you seem to be saying that statements against the Jansenites are known to be ex cathedra and from that fact one can induce the principle that non-novelty is not a requirement, despite the implication in Pastor Aeternus that it is, from the section that you quoted. (The section which represents the triumph of conservatism over Christianity within the 19th-century Catholic church).

Huh? Best I can tell, you are confusing levels of description here. You stupid comment about the "triumph of conservatism over Christianity", is about the supposed state of the Catholic Church. My comment concerned the formal criteria set out for an ex cathedra in Pastor Aeternus. And "non-novelty" doesn't belong to that and isn't mentioned (except in a general sense underlying all doctrine of the RCC, namely understood as ongoing fidelity to the "deposit of faith"). I illustrated that with an example of a more "novel" ex cathedra than the last two.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you see why this might be confusing ?

No, I don't. Read Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, paragraph 9. Then you know what makes for an ex cathedra. It isn't confusing in the slightest.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
In and of itself, this text only tells us that the Church* will be lead into all truth. It doesn’t say if Christ’s promise is to the individual Christian, or the Church through the Apostles (and perhaps their successors).**

The Church is the people of God. All of us. I am the Church, and so are you. The idea that the Church consists only of the people in fancy hats (etc.) is one of the most pernicious lies ever told.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The intention was to set out my difficulties and say that I'm not going to be persuaded by an argument on the issues, but if I am persuaded of the Catholic Church's basis of authority, then that just might do it.
Really? Well, OK then. Why are you not fantastically clued in on Church history then? Why have you not spent countless hours contemplating different ecclesiologies? If that is what could kick you into the Catholic orbit, then you should already be running white-hot with the fascination of it all. Instead you appear to be relying on someone like me for filling in the blanks.

I don't think I understand your point. Are you suggesting that if I were a sincere a reasonably diligent seeker of truth, then a deep study of Church histroy and ecclesiology is what I'd do? But if so, why? - since you clearly don't think that the answer is to be found there.

I never imagined that the question of Catholic truth claims would be settled by being clued up on history. That's Da Vinci Code territory. If all Christians really are called to be Catholic, then the truth of Catholic authority ought in principle to be accessible to most Christians, not just historians and academics (I'm not saying it has to be obvious, or easy, just accessible in principle).

As for ecclessiology, I know enough to know what the Catholic church believes about itself, what the Orthodox believe, and something of the range of views in Protestantism (mainly as represented by the Anglicans). Your interpretation of what the Catechism says of various groups relating to the Church, for instance, wasn't news to me - that is exactly what I understood the Catholic position to be. The blanks that I want filling in are the reasons why I personally should believe that. I see the Catholic position set out, but not argued for, in the Catechism. And I find it sufficiently challenging that I would like to know how the Catholics on the Ship (whom I mostly respect) would argue for it.

quote:
The problem is that I have no idea what excites and drives you, what you really want of religion. [...] However, whatever it may be, it is your path to the Catholic Church. For the real deal with this "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" stuff, with the universal Church of eternal truth, is not at all that she somehow will somehow illuminate life, universe and all the rest for you, and that you can check to what extent the Church is the Church by measuring her output in lumen.

Unfortunately, that is a pretty good expression of what it is that does excite and drive me about religion. That is why I believe in God, in Jesus, in the Bible - in all of those I find a truth and a beauty that illuminates life, the universe and all the rest for me, that endorses what my moral intuition already recognises as true and guides me to truths which my moral intuition would not have reached. Illumination is precisely what I want from a Church, and it is precisely how I would naturally evaluate a Church's claims.

Which is why, in ecclesiology, there are basically two models up for my serious consideration - the Catholic one, and the invisible Church of Protestantism, because both illuminate the actual position of a divided Christendom. The Catholic model explains why and how I can be separated from the true Church and nevertheless somehow connected to it through baptism and faith. The Protestant model explains in a different way the common experience of Christianity. Both, it seems to me, are superior to Orthodoxy's agnosticism about other denominations, and theories like Anglican branch theory*, because only the Catholic and Protestant theories account for, and are true to, what I and (as far as I can tell) others know by experience.

(*by which I mean the one that has Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican branches of the true church, in contrast to all the other denominations. That never made sense to me: you can make a case for comparable antiquity of Catholic and Orthodox churches, but it seems to me that beyond that you have either to exclude the Anglicans, or include a heck of a lot more than just them.)

quote:
The real deal is that wherever you turn, whatever you seek, in the depths and the heights, in the small and the large - God is always there, and the handmaiden of God is just waiting to be at your service (well, to add you to the service personnel). You can run, but you cannot hide.

An experience which I can somewhat relate to (and would no doubt relate to more if I were a better Christian). Thus far, the handmaiden of God seems sometimes to don a Catholic mask, but shows little sign of having a Catholic face.

quote:
You want to find the Church Catholic? Get hot about something in religion. God doesn't like the lukewarm. When you get really hot about something, a choice will inevitably appear. A real choice, one that you really care about. And if you are lucky (lucky in my opinion that is), then the RCC will feature in that real choice - eventually. That's all. Godspeed.

The sentiment is very much appreciated.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think I understand your point. Are you suggesting that if I were a sincere a reasonably diligent seeker of truth, then a deep study of Church histroy and ecclesiology is what I'd do? But if so, why? - since you clearly don't think that the answer is to be found there.

There is no "the answer". Not because there is no "the truth". There sure is that. But because there is no "the question" that "the human" might have. Hence it is hasty for you to dismiss an answer just because it is not the answer - for me. Or at least so unless you happen to have precisely the same question as I do (and find my judgement authoritative as well - an appreciated but rather unwise sentiment).

Now you said this: "The intention was to set out my difficulties and say that I'm not going to be persuaded by an argument on the issues, but if I am persuaded of the Catholic Church's basis of authority, then that just might do it." Well, if you are not looking for argument but for authority, then I do not know where to point to put history and ecclesiology. Well, there also could be mystical revelation, but you don't strike me as the type. (Whereas that is a significant part of the answer, to me...)

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If all Christians really are called to be Catholic, then the truth of Catholic authority ought in principle to be accessible to most Christians, not just historians and academics (I'm not saying it has to be obvious, or easy, just accessible in principle).

The authority of the Catholic Church is not necessarily the starting point for most, as you apparently want/need it to be. For many it is more of an outcome, or possibly even a side issue. Furthermore, you contradict yourself. The reason why we have historians and academics is of course precisely that history and other academic studies are neither obvious nor easy, but accessible in principle. That's basically the rationale for these professions... So by your own qualifications, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the truth of Catholic authority not being accessible to most.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The blanks that I want filling in are the reasons why I personally should believe that.

I don't normally point to lengthy texts to read. But Karl Adam's "The Spirit of Catholicism" is a classic, very readable and not a little inspiring. (Well, in German - I have not read the English translation available at the link for free.)

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That is why I believe in God, in Jesus, in the Bible - in all of those I find a truth and a beauty that illuminates life, the universe and all the rest for me, that endorses what my moral intuition already recognises as true and guides me to truths which my moral intuition would not have reached. Illumination is precisely what I want from a Church, and it is precisely how I would naturally evaluate a Church's claims.

You have a "measurement problem" there, one you danced around with admirable precision in your little aside about morals. (I guess that you thought quite carefully about what you wrote there...) Who says that the life, the universe and all the rest is actually getting brighter? You says. And if you measure the illumination of the Church by your own lights, then just whose lumen are getting counted there?

For now we see through a glass, darkly. And what seems luciferous to the advocate might well be of the devil...

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

As the 500th anniversary of the English Reformation edges ever-nearer, I like to consider that ecclesial understanding within Christianity then was nothing like it is now. Back then, everybody was "in" unless you put yourself "out".

RCs today tend to behave as a denomination among many, and some say it's the right one to be in. Anglican converts can be the worst for this. It's beyond any doubt that the Pope is the world's senior Christian leader, but I think there came a point when the Vatican simply stopped believing that. Instead believing that he is leader only insofar as he is recognised as such. It's a bit like saying the Jesus is only the Messiah for Christians. And so we have denominationalism, which is not all the Pope's fault, of course.

Hence we have these bizarre sessions on who to belong to (Prots), and who belongs to us (Papa), based on whether one agrees. Instead, we (all of us) need the confidence to recognise who we are.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Beloved children, brothers, sisters of God ?

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

How lovely, yes. And surely baptised into the one living Church of the living Lord, recognised as such by he/those who have its charge.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
...The blanks that I want filling in are the reasons why I personally should believe that. I see the Catholic position set out, but not argued for, in the Catechism...

I would suggest you are still missing the point. The job of the Catechism isn't to argue for the truth of Roman faith, but to inform you, in some detail, of what it consists of. If you were a good Roman Catholic, then you wouldn't have those sorts of questions, you would accept the truth of what you were taught, because you would accept the authority of the Magisterium. The whole point is learning to obey, not deciding whether or not you agree - once you have decided to submit your will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church, then the question of whether you 'agree' becomes moot. Thereafter, you may study and read about Roman Catholic doctrine in the tiniest and most excrutiating detail, (and write the most eloquent and long-winded posts) but you will never for a moment doubt the truth of it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
The whole point is learning to obey, not deciding whether or not you agree - once you have decided to submit your will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church, then the question of whether you 'agree' becomes moot.

Perhaps, but this thread is (ISTM) about the reasons why one might decide to submit one's will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church in the first place. Do you have an answer to that question?

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...but this thread is (ISTM) about the reasons why one might decide to submit one's will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church in the first place. Do you have an answer to that question?

Not an adequate answer. I've not seen any argument that isn't basically circular, so I would only conclude that those who do decide to convert make the choice first, and look for reasons after, rather than the other way around, which is what Eliab seems to be trying to do. Why people do decide to convert (and I'm excluding conversion for reasons of marriage, domicile, etc.) I don't pretend to know, but then I don't assume that everybody thinks the same way that I do, or that they have the same basic motivations. If they did, then there wouldn't be many Roman Catholics left, at least, not in this country.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
...The blanks that I want filling in are the reasons why I personally should believe that. I see the Catholic position set out, but not argued for, in the Catechism...
I would suggest you are still missing the point. The job of the Catechism isn't to argue for the truth of Roman faith, but to inform you, in some detail, of what it consists of. If you were a good Roman Catholic, then you wouldn't have those sorts of questions, you would accept the truth of what you were taught, because you would accept the authority of the Magisterium. The whole point is learning to obey, not deciding whether or not you agree - [b]once you have decided to submit your will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church, then the question of whether you 'agree' becomes moot.[\b] Thereafter, you may study and read about Roman Catholic doctrine in the tiniest and most excrutiating detail, (and write the most eloquent and long-winded posts) but you will never for a moment doubt the truth of it.

Faith with no room for doubt, that doesn't sound right. This Smoke is a bit too acrid for me to be around. You haven't factored in the cultural/identity issues but that is a very big subject in itself and accounts for the vast numbers of nominal Catholics in Ireland as opposed to actual practice.

[ 21. August 2012, 16:53: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Faith with no room for doubt, that doesn't sound right...You haven't factored in the cultural/identity issues but that is a very big subject in itself and accounts for the vast numbers of nominal Catholics in Ireland as opposed to actual practice.

Ronald, I am (and I'm assuming other people on this thread are) talking about a practising and theologically-aware Christian planning to convert to Roman Catholicism from another denomination (as we see it), without any extenuating circumstances, such as marrying into a Irish Catholic family. Would there be any other way into the RCC other than complete acceptance of the church's teachings, and it appears not because of what you have to say when you convert (and especially if you look at the extraordinary form of the service). The fact that many cradle Catholics put two fingers up when it suits them is neither here nor there, or at least according to some people. I just wonder why the RCC continues to insist on this submission thing for converts, but if it does, then that really is their problem, I'm not Roman Catholic so it's not much point me trying to argue for its reform from the outside when there are perfectly good alternatives for people like me (i.e. not 'culturally' Catholic).

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Originally posted by Vaticanchic:

quote:
It's beyond any doubt that the Pope is the world's senior Christian leader

Er... Excuse me?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
quote:
It's beyond any doubt that the Pope is the world's senior Christian leader
Er... Excuse me?

Actually, and despite my not being a Catholic nor likely to become one any time soon, I have no problem with that statement.

I think the Pope is the most senior Christian leader, and what he says is worthy of consideration. I'm not Catholic (nor likely to become one) because I don't see that as meaning the Pope is infallible and what he says is what I must believe. Even as the most senior Christian leader he can be wrong. Even as the most senior Christian Church, the RCC can be wrong. And if the RCC would be happy accepting me on the basis of that statement I would be happy to convert*, but it's not.

.

*= Other factors also apply, of course - not least that I'm very happy in my current church family. But that's the only theological thing stopping me becoming RCC.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
The whole point is learning to obey, not deciding whether or not you agree - once you have decided to submit your will and intellect to the Roman Catholic Church, then the question of whether you 'agree' becomes moot. Thereafter, you may study and read about Roman Catholic doctrine in the tiniest and most excrutiating detail, (and write the most eloquent and long-winded posts) but you will never for a moment doubt the truth of it.

The problem with this common and insulting caricature is that it is difficult to overcome as a piece of rhetoric. Anything not amounting to open and complete rejection of some RC doctrine or the other can always be twisted into supposedly slavish obedience against one's better insight and knowledge. But if the RCC is what she claims she is, then one should not be in open rebellion against her. Why? Not because one has handed over one's brains at the church door, but rather the opposite: for after all, the RCC then teaches God's truth - not perfectly, but in essence infallibly. Hence in these circumstances reasonable and well-informed doubt necessarily acts in favor of the RCC. One may not be able to fully understand how something or the other the Church teaches could be correct. However, if what is being taught is actually true, then the more reasonable and well-informed one is the more will one have occasion to doubt that one can reject the teaching.

Naturally, if the RCC is not what she claims she is, then all this does not apply. Then it is most likely that she will teach some falsehoods. Furthermore, then the more reasonable and well-informed one is the more likely it is that one will reject some of her teachings (and importantly, the right ones - hardly a guaranteed outcome!). Then doubt works in favor of exposing whatever truth might be left in the RCC.

This is then what the sophist wants to achieve with the caricature: Reject the claims the RCC makes for herself implicitly and without argument. Suggest in consequence that being reasonable and well-informed would require some clear rejection of RC doctrine. Thereby encourage those who are thinking about rejecting some RC doctrine, making them think of themselves as reasonable and well-informed in doing so. Have them reject some RC doctrine, and thereby at least implicitly agree with the sophist's attitude concerning the RCC. And if the RCC happens to be what she really is, then this underhanded method of spreading one's point of view targets precisely the weak: those least reasonable and worst informed.

Like most sophistic attacks this one too has a soft underbelly of lacking factual support. Instead of counter-argument, one could simply point at the next Catholic Church and ask who the hell the sophist is talking about in the first place. Certainly not about most Catholic sitting in the pews... And since I'm probably a target of this caricature, I might add that even for the rare self-appointed defender of the faith this caricature totally misses the mark. This is simply not the psychological dynamics at play. It's hard to prove such introspection, of course. But long-winded arguments are not usually a sign of unthinking obedience, short slogans followed by ad hominems is more what one would expect there.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB (to Eliab):
Why are you not fantastically clued in on Church history then? Why have you not spent countless hours contemplating different ecclesiologies? If that is what could kick you into the Catholic orbit, then you should already be running white-hot with the fascination of it all. Instead you appear to be relying on someone like me for filling in the blanks.

I'm not trying to speak for Eliab, but felt there was something here for me too.

I take it for granted that being a Christian means being part of a Christian community, and all Christian communities have a culture above and beyond "mere Christianity". (Some shipmates are Christian in a Baptist way, some in an Orthodox way, and so forth). It is clear to me that there is such a thing as Catholic culture (albeit with a number of subcultures).

I don't feel any particular fascination with Catholic culture or Catholic history. In my ideal Europe of German engineers, French chefs, British policeman etc - I'm sure you've heard that joke - Italian church bureaucrats do not figure.

My best subject at school was not French, where something is right or wrong, good French or bad French, according to what French people collectively tend to say and do. It was maths, where something is right or wrong because it does or does not represent an eternal truth that is built into the fabric of the universe.

So wherever within Catholic thought there is a "real transferable truth" about how God works or how humankind works, I want to know it and add it to my understanding. Where there is something in Catholic thought that is neither good nor bad but merely cultural, well that's just the way they do it in Rome. And where there is something wrong, something dishonest, I'd want to see it exposed so that all good Catholics will reject it and the world be the better for it.

That sort of quest is what (on my good days) sparks my enthusiasm. If as you suggest it is only enthusiasm that can bring anyone into the fullness of Christianity, then that's the way that I shall be brought.

You've said that most Catholics do not think like that, & I believe you. But I want you to be distinguishing how Catholics actually think from how the hierarchy would like them to think. Because I've been exposed as much to the various caricatures as to real Catholics speaking their own minds about their understanding.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...But if the RCC is what she claims she is, then one should not be in open rebellion against her. Why? Not because one has handed over one's brains at the church door, but rather the opposite: for after all, the RCC then teaches God's truth - not perfectly, but in essence infallibly. Hence in these circumstances reasonable and well-informed doubt necessarily acts in favor of the RCC. One may not be able to fully understand how something or the other the Church teaches could be correct. However, if what is being taught is actually true, then the more reasonable and well-informed one is the more will one have occasion to doubt that one can reject the teaching.

Well naturally, if it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the RCC teaches infallible truth, then it would be foolish to say the least to reject her, and everything you say applies. But unfortunately, that is not the case, and the arguments put forward by the RCC basically boil down to "it's true, because we say so".

quote:
Naturally, if the RCC is not what she claims she is, then all this does not apply. Then it is most likely that she will teach some falsehoods. Furthermore, then the more reasonable and well-informed one is the more likely it is that one will reject some of her teachings (and importantly, the right ones - hardly a guaranteed outcome!). Then doubt works in favor of exposing whatever truth might be left in the RCC.

It would be arrogant in the extreme to suggest that I knew which of your church's teachings are demonstrably false, but I'd hazard a guess most of the important ones, at least, in terms of her particular interpretations. [Biased]

(And, of course, I'm sure there is much of value, especially at a day to day level).

quote:
This is then what the sophist wants to achieve with the caricature: Reject the claims the RCC makes for herself implicitly and without argument. Suggest in consequence that being reasonable and well-informed would require some clear rejection of RC doctrine. Thereby encourage those who are thinking about rejecting some RC doctrine, making them think of themselves as reasonable and well-informed in doing so. Have them reject some RC doctrine, and thereby at least implicitly agree with the sophist's attitude concerning the RCC. And if the RCC happens to be what she really is, then this underhanded method of spreading one's point of view targets precisely the weak: those least reasonable and worst informed.

And methinks the pot is calling the kettle black here. How does the RCC spread her point of view (I'll pass over some of the more extreme methods) - not by reasonable evidence-based discussion, but by claiming everything she says is the complete truth, and trying to bully people into swallowing the whole package on an all or nothing basis.

[quoteLike most sophistic attacks this one too has a soft underbelly of lacking factual support. Instead of counter-argument, one could simply point at the next Catholic Church and ask who the hell the sophist is talking about in the first place. Certainly not about most Catholic sitting in the pews... And since I'm probably a target of this caricature, I might add that even for the rare self-appointed defender of the faith this caricature totally misses the mark. This is simply not the psychological dynamics at play. It's hard to prove such introspection, of course. But long-winded arguments are not usually a sign of unthinking obedience, short slogans followed by ad hominems is more what one would expect there. [/QUOTE]

Most people I think would say that it is up to the person making the extraordinary claims to back them up, not the sceptic to refute them. As for the psychological dynamics, I suppose I can see the attraction for a certain type of person, if they are able to convince themselves somehow that your church's claims are true - then, as I said, everything else follows, and they have the reward, common to most wishful thinking, of peace of mind and freedom from anxiety, but then I doubt whether that applies to more than a tiny minority of Roman Catholics, and I'm sure there are a host of reasons and rationalizations why people continue to believe and practise, just as there are in any other denomination.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I take it for granted that being a Christian means being part of a Christian community, and all Christian communities have a culture above and beyond "mere Christianity".

Correct, there are many particular Churches - 23 to be exact, 22 Eastern plus the Latin one - and of course even more variety according to different rites. To this we may add a degree of local variation in customs, which adds even more colour. And of course there are many Catholic organisations of all kinds, from internationally operating monastic orders to local groups collecting money for new church bells. There's nothing wrong with all that, for Catholicism embraces all such licit expressions of the faith in one global community, one church. As Christ intended.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It was maths, where something is right or wrong because it does or does not represent an eternal truth that is built into the fabric of the universe. So wherever within Catholic thought there is a "real transferable truth" about how God works or how humankind works, I want to know it and add it to my understanding. Where there is something in Catholic thought that is neither good nor bad but merely cultural, well that's just the way they do it in Rome. And where there is something wrong, something dishonest, I'd want to see it exposed so that all good Catholics will reject it and the world be the better for it.

Well, if you are as good at maths as you claim you are, then you know that without axioms no mathematical truth can be proven. And if you are as fascinated by what is built into the fabric of the universe (more the realm of physics than maths) as you claim you are, then you know that without data no physical theory can show its usefulness. Where then do your religious "axioms" or "data" derive from? What are the sources of your judgement?

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That sort of quest is what (on my good days) sparks my enthusiasm. If as you suggest it is only enthusiasm that can bring anyone into the fullness of Christianity, then that's the way that I shall be brought.

Sure. Follow up the questions I asked above with the drive of enthusiasm, and you may well find a change of heart.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But I want you to be distinguishing how Catholics actually think from how the hierarchy would like them to think. Because I've been exposed as much to the various caricatures as to real Catholics speaking their own minds about their understanding.

So one is a "real" Catholic by speaking one's own mind about one's own understanding? Well, when I was still working in theoretical physics, I had a guy come into my office. He explained to me at length how he would measure gravitational waves in his bathtub. He was very serious indeed about speaking his own mind about his own understanding. I guess he must have been a real scientist then, by your logic how this whole truth thing works...

[ 22. August 2012, 18:22: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't normally point to lengthy texts to read.

And I don't normally read lengthy links - but that one does seem to be worth making an exception for. I'm away for the weekend and I'll respond next week.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Well, if you are as good at maths as you claim you are, then you know that without axioms no mathematical truth can be proven. And if you are as fascinated by what is built into the fabric of the universe (more the realm of physics than maths) as you claim you are, then you know that without data no physical theory can show its usefulness.

The only claim I made was that it was better than my other subjects...

Yes, data is important, and distinguishing between the data and the theory is important. It is to the credit of the Church that it has kept the Bible as it was, and not rewritten it to reflect a developing understanding.

You're right that in proving a result, to come to a certainty that it is true and to convince others that it is true, one starts from definitions and axioms. But the prior step, of coming to a belief that something is likely to be true, does not in general proceed in such a logical step-by-step fashion, but is much more intuitive.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
when I was still working in theoretical physics, I had a guy come into my office. He explained to me at length how he would measure gravitational waves in his bathtub. He was very serious indeed about speaking his own mind about his own understanding. I guess he must have been a real scientist then, by your logic how this whole truth thing works...

If he followed up his discussions with you by carrying out experiments and modifying his hypotheses as a result then I'd have to say that he was doing science. And if this was a regular activity then one would naturally call him a scientist. However mistaken he may have been in some of his ideas.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
...endorses what my moral intuition already recognises as true and guides me to truths which my moral intuition would not have reached.

That seems to me how the "authority of expertise" works - if someone makes sense when talking about what you already know or think you know, and can explain in a plausible way what is immediately beyond your knowledge, then you're inclined to trust them when they make statements about something that is way beyond your current knowledge.

My impression is that the authority of the Catholic church is not of this kind. The discussion of papal infallibility - the highest level of authority in the Catholic church - makes clear that a doctrine is being moved from the category of "Catholics may in good conscience hold different views about this" to the category of "all who wish to remain loyal members of the institution must hold this view". That's the authority of position - like when the referee says that we're going to play this game on the basis that he was offside, or the boss at the office decides that some other firm should be considered as rivals rather than potential partners.

Any papal reference to "apostolic authority" means "I'm saying this as the boss, the successor of Peter". The papal documents don't say "I came to this view in a particular way, and knowledge thus gained has been shown by experience to be always reliable".

If somehow you were to become convinced that this is the only possible way to run a church that is faithful to Christ, then you might conceivably over-ride your own views based on a faith that this is the way things have to be - that the institution has to be treated as right even when it's wrong by any conceivable test.

But that's not a happy place to be. That's like invoking martial law - sacrificing what makes a society worth fighting for in order that the society will survive unconquered.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."

IngoB,

Thanks for the link. I can see how one might quite naturally read Pastor Aeturnum as if the final paragraph is the definition and all that goes before is merely preamble which does not qualify the definition in any way.

But if you believe that the Pope can infallibly declare new doctrine, how does that work ? Given that the above extract that you quoted earlier seems to rule out it working by the power of the Holy Spirit ?

I'm arguing to Eliab that it doesn't have to "work" - that this is in essence just the rules of the club. Feel free to agree or disagree.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What amuses me is that the vast majority of Roman Catholics throughout the Americas, Southern and Eastern Europe, Ireland, countries which are 110% Roman Catholic, are really lousy Roman Catholics yet are all superior to me. They are all more Christian in some ineffable, elitist, esoteric way by definition.

Which they ARE in Christ of course, but not the way the nicely patronizing catechism puts it.

In the homeless outreach I'm privileged to have an insignificant, ineffectual part of, in Leicester, a disproportionate number who come to be served are Roman Catholic. Some straddle both 'worlds' - a continuum in reality - very well. One woman in her sixties is marvelous. A total heretic by Roman Catholic and oecumenical criteria, completely heterodox and in our totally open 'God slot' I tell her so. I've told her, in a totally acceptable, nice, fraternal way, to get to confession. She won't of course.

A guy who is emerging from a narrow conservative evangelical background said to her that she was a lousy Catholic but a GREAT Christian.

The tiny minority, middle-class, intellectual understanding of Roman Catholic 'authority' typified here bears NO relation to the lives of ANY Roman Catholic I have ever met. My very middle class, intellectual best friend and best man and his entire family included.

GREAT people, great Christian and Christianized people, a mix of good and bad (non practising, non believing) Catholics.

Are the confessing Roman Catholics who are foul human beings, irredeemable in this broken life, in the Mexican drug gangs or whatever (former Fascist juntas or whatever), not Christian in any sense that Jesus would recognise, superior Christians to me in the Roman Catholic sense ? Does Roman Catholic authority extend down through them to me in some sense and will do in the resurrection ?

The answer must be yes, surely and "it's a mystery", no ?

Don't worry, I'm starting to Zen this ... more and more. With a LONG way to go. It's all rhetorical and NO Roman Catholic here can reach out to me I know. Reach out to me in this failure of grace. Mine. NO Roman Catholic can publically or privately UTTERLY lay down their 'authority' here and reach out to me, become as me, in Christ, as my brother, because I'm a schismatic heretic to their 'authority', whatever that means.

Isn't there something missing here guys ? Or rather isn't there something occluded ? Isn't there something in the way of Someone here ? There is in me.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Indeed there is something missing here - you have no understanding of what the Catholic church is, you have no understanding of what the Catholic church teaches,nor does it seem that you want to have any understanding.

The church does teach that she has a divine command to go out and tell the world about Jesusu christ.Certainly those who in this world are not linked in communion with the Roman pontiff are not memebers of the visible Catholic church as it is constituted here on earth,whether they follow the roman rite or any other authorised rite. And most of those who are not Catholics in this sense,do not want to be Catholics in this sense.

However I see no teaching of the catholic church whioch says that 'members of the Roman obedience' are in any way superior to any other human beings.

From those to whom much has been given,much is asked.Many are called,but few are chosen.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

0 / 1 / ...

[ 26. August 2012, 11:45: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But if you believe that the Pope can infallibly declare new doctrine, how does that work ? Given that the above extract that you quoted earlier seems to rule out it working by the power of the Holy Spirit ?

The question is what you mean by "new". There is a "newness" which is licit in Catholic theology, and a "newness" that isn't. The essential claim of Catholic theology is that in its fundamentals it is nothing but the "deposit of faith", though expounded and elaborated. These are the teachings of the Lord, with nothing added or removed in principle. Hence they can have Divine authority. No priest, bishop or pope can have Divine authority in their own right, of course. However, the exposition and elaboration itself can be new, and indeed on occasion must be as the Catholic faith encounters new people and new problems. It is also in general human and hence fallible. Up to this point a clean analogy to Protestant thinking can be made: there is scripture, and there is the interpretation of scripture. Nothing can be added or removed from scripture, since it has achieved its final state. However, plenty can be added or removed from its exegesis. There is the word of God, and the word of man about the word of God. One unchanging in principle, the other developing with time. The same can be said about the "deposit of faith" and the "development of doctrine" in Catholic theology.

However, unlike in Protestant thinking Catholics believe that - precisely by the action of the Holy Spirit - the successors of the apostles as a community in unity with the successor of St Peter, and indeed St Peter on his own, can take some part of this "doctrinal development" and declare it as an infallible truth. It is as if a Protestant could say: this is the correct exegesis of these verses in scripture, and henceforth this interpretation will be normative for all, and all incompatible interpretations will be considered false. This would not turn the exegesis into scripture, but it would make it function much like scripture. Such a normative exegesis could be both "new" (in the sense that it arose at some point in time after scripture, perhaps even contentiously so) and "old" (in the sense that it remains an exegesis, not a statement in its own right, hence fundamentally relying on the unchanged scripture).

So the power of the pope, in terms of the Protestant analogy, is simply that he can decide to point at scripture and say "These verses you must understand in this way, or you shall not be part of the Church that I head." When he does so, this can be surprising ("new") to the members, or not. If you like you can call these "club rules", but they are not just arbitrary. The pope (in the analogy) has to point to scripture, he cannot simply make things up. In that sense all such "club rules" are "old". The only real difference between this Protestant analogy and the Catholic reality is that Catholics considered tradition as much as scripture.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
They are all more Christian in some ineffable, elitist, esoteric way by definition.

You wish that this was somehow ineffable, elitist and esoteric, for that is your beloved excuse. Actually, it isn't in the slightest mysterious. It is as down to earth as anything. They are - whether by choice or accident of birth - members of the Roman Catholic Church, in communion with the successors of the apostles and the successor of St Peter. You are not. That's all. There is no depth to that. If you want to go all mystical about it, you can, but then it is about the general mystery of God stooping so low as to be with people. With chosen people. With - by Divine standards - unworthy yet still chosen people. With Adam, with Abraham, with Israel, with the disciples, with the Church. Nobody needs to "qualify" for this by being a "better" Christian than you are. There is no Pelagian competition here. There is a simple decision to be made with whom you wish to stand. And in your case it will have to be an explicit decision. Hence you can just stop this annoying whine about being a second-rate Christian and your prideful boasting about your good works. All that is painfully irrelevant. If you so desire becoming a "first-rate Christian", then get the RCIA upgrade. Its free for those who want it and there hasn't been a time in history when it was more accessible to all. If you cannot bring yourself to do that, well, it sucks to be you.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

0 / 2 / ...

I knew I could rely on you mate. Yes I am. No less than you. No more second class than you. And therefore, actually LESS.

As more is LESS.

I'll whine my broken works with broken Roman Catholics in a world of them as long as you flaunt your sin as Sodom.

You surely are a GREAT Roman Catholic IngoB ...

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

IngoB,

You seem to be saying that (at the "rules of the club" level) the Pope has the power to write a new page in the book of Tradition, but there is a real condition that it has to be an application or elaboration of a theme that is clearly present on previous pages.

Best Wishes,

Russ

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You seem to be saying that (at the "rules of the club" level) the Pope has the power to write a new page in the book of Tradition, but there is a real condition that it has to be an application or elaboration of a theme that is clearly present on previous pages.

Something like that, yes. However, perhaps a better analogy would be the old Dutch masters, who were as good at business as at painting. They would do the particular significant parts of a painting (e.g., faces) themselves, but leave much of the canvas-filling to their apprentices, many of whom were even specialised (one apprentice mostly does the animals, the other clouds...). For that rest of the painting the master would just provide a rough sketch. The Dutch master is of course God, and the apprentices are the bishops (and indeed all the faithful) in their regular workings. An ex cathedra is then in this analogy when the lead apprentice attempts a significant part of the painting (say, some face the master didn't execute) under the watchful eye of the master, who will interfere if it doesn't come out to his liking. Now, if you know a lot about paintings, you may well be able to tell apart the workings of the master and those of his workshop crew. You may even be able to point at a particular face and say: this is by that master student, not by the master himself. But most people will just look at the painting and say "what a beautiful Rembrandt." Both ways of looking at the picture are right in their own way.

My point is that all this is a lot more "organic" than a rule book. An ex cathedra is something special, but not something different. It is one extreme of what a pope regularly is busy with. And it is not isolated. Context is everything, always, in Catholicism. It really is a lot like the master student saying to the master "Can I try doing this face here, please, sir? I know just what you had in mind for that..."

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

And what happens if one day the master goes for a walk in the mountains and doesn't come back ?

For a while, no doubt, the apprentices carry on as best they can, expecting his imminent return. But at some point they have to face up to the probability that he won't come back.

There several ways the story can go from there. If it is the sort of comedy that gently pokes fun at foolish and greedy men, they will pretend that he is gravely ill in a back room, unable to see visitors, but still supervising the work, and go on selling paintings with the master's name on, initially working from sketches that he has left, and gradually developing their style and skills until they are a very professional gang of forgers.

If they are honest and faithful, they will wish to keep the studio running as the master wished, learn from what he has taught them, make his style and his genius known to all the world. The result may be quite similar; the difference is that they will scrupulously distinguish what is and is not his work.

You seem to want to blur that boundary, that touchstone of who are the honest men and who are the scoundrels.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And what happens if one day the master goes for a walk in the mountains and doesn't come back ?

Since the master has thoughtfully provided the apprentices with a substitute advisor of equal artistic talent, there are no major problems with continuing the work until he returns.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0