"An index of Catholicism's decline"- Pat Buchanan

[Roy5]

I have no interest in defending the Masons but Hitler was strongly anti-Mason. Google Hitler together with Masons and the evidence there is clear.

 

[ManOnFire]

A couple quick thoughts from somewhat raised within both the Catholic and Protestant heritage - relatives ‘on both sides’.

 1. **This constant dependence upon the Church Fathers to somehow establish eternal truth is questionable.** I have read many of them and find that many of their writings are filled with false data of all kinds, based on the era in which they lived. Without modern telescopes they believed all sorts of nonsense about the heavens - basically the three tier idea that there was a heaven up there, an earth here, and a hell down there. Their concept of the universe was myopic when today we know that there could be a million or a billion solar systems. And disease. Many of them dealt with illness as caused by demons or God's punishment or some other superstition. 

 Just one comment about St. Thomas Aquinas. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on him so became rather well-acquainted with his thought. He was a remarkable thinker and writer. But, for example, he argued that 'heretics' should be turned over to the state to be executed! That statement, among others of his, undercut my willingness to view his total work as that reliable.

Abelard, as I recall, wrote a whole book entitled *Sic et Non *in which he showed how Popes contradicted one another. St. Jerome sided with the Protestant and Jewish view on the canonical books of the Old Testament. And we could go on. Yes, the Church Fathers are to be admired for their thinking considering their era, perhaps, but they aren't all that helpful today.

 2. **I ran across a quote somewhere that goes somewhat like this: "Doubt comes in the window if inquiry is denied at the door**." A basic problem of an iron-fist version of Catholicism is that it can suffocate those who want to think for themselves in various areas of theology and religious practice. Was it Hans Kung who was 'disciplined' by the Church because he indulged in some 'incorrect' thinking? One of my favorite magazines had been "America" published by the Jesuits. As I understand it, its editor was replaced because of his 'dangerous' ideas. True? It's hard to convince Americans accustomed to an attitude of 'think and let think' to accept handed-down beliefs and practices that must be accepted just because they have been approved by the Papacy and Magisterium. I know that expressing such an opinion leads to criticism like 'who do you think you are?' or 'diversity of views leads to dissension and division' (like the Protestants!), But what is one to do if his/her conscience leads him/her to take issue with the church? What, for example, if a faithful Catholic couple feel they have all the children they can properly care for well and use 'artificial' birth control? I have friends who faithfully tried the approved method and it failed them twice! Lots of Catholics have had chinks made in their shield of faith because of that issue. Once we question one church policy it becomes quite easy to question others. Catholic doctrine is built on the requirement that we accept it all or the whole thing can come crashing down. How about a 'big tent' church that permits more independent inquiry and a wider range of conclusions?

    I can become garrulous. Sorry. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier. God bless his children of every creed, color and country.

I enjoy your level-headed posts. I have a few questions for you. If an individual chooses NOT to follow the Pope, then how does one decide which version of Christianity to believe? Why wouldn’t most people choose the one that is easiest/most pleasurable/simplest? How do Protestant churches reconcile “This is my body. Do this in memory of me” when some churches don’t have communion? Isn’t it human nature to choose to take the easy way out? What’s to stop people from just taking a few more steps farther in the feelgood direction, all the way to worshipping sex, drugs, ultimate selfishness, and godlessness? Most people know that those in the Catholic Church are not infallible, so there will always be sinners and some contradictions, some of them due to increases in technology or due to those who choose to engage in alternative thinking. Those whose alternative thinking goes astray from the Church’s Way begin to make up their own rules, no? The Catholic Church’s “one” way of thinking is both the strength and the weakness. The one way of thinking is the reason some of my friends have converted to Catholic. They were tired “believe whatever you feel” and tired of choosing a religion cafeteria style. It seems that there really are only 2 choices: Follow the Church, despite it’s humanity, or free willingly choose beliefs cafeteria style.

Anyone who truly studies Catholicism can see that there are good reasons why we believe what we believe. Part of the historical problem is that many people were simply told to believe and to not ask questions. The answers are there. They just take many hours of study to learn them. If people are free to think but never learn the Cathechism, they are more likely to get tempted into a lifestyle of brain pleasurism for self. So, the easiest thing to do is tell people to believe and not ask. The logic is: Once people know the reasons, they’ll arrive at the same simplified conclusion: there are 2 choices: follow the Way, or give in to human nature’s (Freud’s id) desire to choose to please a godless self. Most people are simply somewhere in between, with each generation drifting more toward godlessness. It’s quite predictable. Hence, the radical efforts to keep people in line, despite human nature.

 

[Roy5]

ManonFire

 Fair enough. Let me try to respond. Remember, I come from a Catholic and Protestant background so have been dealing with this whole matter for years now.

 First off, I reject fundamentalist Protestantism. That is the sort that says like one bumper sticker: "The Good Book says it, I believe it, that settles it." To begin with the Bible obviously can be interpreted many ways, which is why there are so many Protestant denominations, of course. Since childhood I have not believed in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which are not lies but simply parables, fables with a lesson, morality stories.

 Then, as for Catholicism. I always have admired many things about the Catholic Church. The sacrificial lives of priests and nuns who forsake everything else to serve Christ. The way in which Catholicism has championed the poor, the sick, those who need a good education. There is a noble history there which fostered art and universities and hospitals and much more. Of course, there is much ignoble history, too, but that is to be expected in all human institutions. 

 So, what troubles me? For those who can accept the doctrines and practices of the church, fine. I wish I could. But there simply are too many dogmas, for example, that seem like superstitions.

 There are so many examples that I don't know where to start. You mention the Eucharist. Try as I may, I cannot bring myself to believe that when a priest consecrates bread and wine hey become 'transubstantiated' into the body and blood of Christ. Granted, you have quoted scripture that may suggest this. But Jesus was always speaking in symbolic language. I am the door. I am the gate, I am the good Shepherd. Besides, the old mystery religions - several of them - taught that consuming the flesh and blood of a god made the consumer more like God, etc. Sorry, but I see that as too superstitious for my modern mind.

  Or Mary. Obviously a wonderful woman. But Immaculate Conception? The Bible never mentions her mother and father but non-canonical scriptures - especially the Goispel of James, if I recall correctly - have this story about St. Anne, nowhere found in scripture. Even Catholic sources seem to recognize that there is much fiction mixed in with this extra-Biblical tale, yet there are many churches in her honor. The same for the Assumption. Non-Biblical. That Mary lived a sinless life. Sorry. Just too much for my rational mind to accept. 

 Or, take something like levitation. The church teaches that all sorts of Saints levitated, among them - well, I forget - but St. Francis of Assisi among them. Plus Padre Pio, who also bilocated, among many miracles he performed. Those who can believe all that, again, fine. I guess I'm too influenced by what I view as reason and science. 

 Now, if the church only allowed some options - for example, that we could believe in transubstantiation or not, we could accept the Immaculate Conception and Assumption or not, that we could accept levitation or not...but it doesn't. These sorts of things have been made doctrines, and those who can't believe them are 'heretical'. Hence, we feel as though there is no place for us with our doubts in the Catholic church.' Actually, studies indicate that millions upon millions of Catholics have the same problem I do. Many leave the church. Many others remain for family, cultural, or 'despite their doubts' reasons. 

  I need breathing space. I am one of those who is fascinated with the ultimate questions: why are we here? is God omnipotent and loving? if so, why so much suffering of the innocent? is there something after death? if, so, what? It doesn't bother me that I don't have answers. I believe in God. I try to be a worthy disciple of Christ. I try to follow his basic commandment: Love God and love on another. I am tending to find more freedom to explore, doubt, question, change my mind, etc., within the so-called mainline Protestant denominations - Episcopalians, Methodists, UCC, Presbyterians, etc. - which seem to put far less emphasis on theological and liturgical conformity. 
  
  Then there are issues of practice. For example, I believe that clergy should be given the option to marry if they choose to. I have some problems with the undemocratic power structure in the church. The laity should have more of a say. In this a little progress hnas been made, but not nearly enough. Etc.

   This could be a book, but I'll leave it at that. Except that I don't believe that the choices are between the Catholic church and Freud, as you may be suggesting. There are many within the Catholic church who seem to have been under 'Freudian influence' - even what's his name, Maciel? apparently a favorite of John Paul II - a hyprocite and much worse. And there are millions of non-Catholics - Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, etc. - who live exemplar lives. I spent awhile living with a Hindu family in India some years ago. If they don't make it heaven, the rest of us are going to have problems getting there. 

   Christianity should be a 'big tent', with room for a variety of viewpoints. It should also work to make religion a bridge and not a bearer.

   God bless Catholics, Protestants and is children of all creeds, colors, and countries.

 

[Roy5]

Oops! That near-to-the-last word was barrier and not bearer. Sorry. My carelessness.

 

[Andre1000]

Modern Catholics who does not believe in church teachings do not think for themselves
most times they think nothing.
They only think what everybody thinks, so if the society says it is good then they think so too.

They easily create a fantasy god that does not want anything and so they do not need to think about it!!
A catholic who does not care about church teaching are just like a mathematics who denies all mathematical research made in the past!

It is so stupid. A religion without any basic spring of truth you trust (I mean a revelation like the bible or church teachings) is just a joke.

And I think that Vatican II was a right step at it time but now not so much anymore.

---

And Hitler said that he will stay catholic because he wanted that Protestants and Catholics unite against the Jews.

 

[ManOnFire]

Roy,

If you can believe in the resurrection, then why not the immaculate conception or transubstantiation? What do Protestants believe was the beginning of Jesus conception? Pre-marital sex? Mary drunk on wine and taken advantage of? I mean no disrespect. I’m just wondering. When Jesus said, “This is my body, do this in memory of me” and you want to take it figuritively, then do pancake breakfasts and spaghetti dinners satisfy this request at churches that have no eucharist? Again, I mean no disrespect, I’m just wondering. It sounds like you have the education to give the differing views.

Ultimately, what’s to stop people from drifting into the habit of choosing their views cafeteria-style based on what is confortable, feels good, or is easiest? Won’t most people take the easiest way out if they have the means and the free will?

 

[MarkThompson]

Roy,

If you can believe in the resurrection, then why not the immaculate conception or transubstantiation? What do Protestants believe was the beginning of Jesus conception? Pre-marital sex? Mary drunk on wine and taken advantage of? I mean no disrespect. I’m just wondering. When Jesus said, “This is my body, do this in memory of me” and you want to take it figuritively, then do pancake breakfasts and spaghetti dinners satisfy this request at churches that have no eucharist? Again, I mean no disrespect, I’m just wondering. It sounds like you have the education to give the differing views.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary herself was conceived without original sin. It’s not to be confused with the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, which is that Mary became pregnant with Jesus miraculously without having relations with a man. Protestants (I’m sure there are a handful of exceptions) believe in the Virgin Birth because it is expressly stated in the Bible, but most Protestants do not believe that Mary was conceived and born sinless.

 

[Roy5]

Right. Mark Thompson has indicated that the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth are two very different beliefs. The Virgin Birth is clearly stated in scripture. However, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest the Immaculate Conception. As I recall, that wasn’t defined by the Papacy until 1854 (or thereabouts) by Pius IX. There is no mention of the parents of Mary in the Bible. As I recall, the names of Anne and Joachim came from the Gospel of James which was not considered valid enough to be included in the canon.

There's a while literature based on the idea that St. Anne may have fled to France, which is one reason why St. Anne has a special place in Quebec and elsewhere within the French-speaking world. 

As for Protestants and the Virgin Birth, the evangelicals would definitely believe in it. In fact, that is more or less a litmus test among them as to whether others are real Christians or not. However, you will find many clergy and laity within the mainline denominations - Methodists, Episcopalians, UCC, Presbyterians, etc. - who may doubt the Virgin Birth or perhaps quietly disbelieve in it. They often ask: if Mary and Joseph were married, why not have a baby? So, Virgin Birth or not isn't so crucial among them.

 It has always bothered me that in all the letters of St. Paul, the first books of the New Testament to be written, Mary isn't mentioned once. Paul focused his attention on theology. If Mary should be so central in Catholic veneration why would Paul have ignored her entirely in his writings?

 The doctrine of transubstantiation, so central to Catholicism, is disbelieved to different degrees among Protestants. Lutherans and Episcopalians don't accept it but do teach that Christ is especially present in the sacrament. Most other Protestants also believe in the Real Presence in that Christ promised to be with us always and everywhere. However, they tend to look upon the teaching that the bread and wine, once consecrated, change in any way is a superstition rather than a reality. Jesus, they would argue, regularly spoke in metaphors and similes: I am the gate. I am the door. I am the Good Shepherd.

 Protestants, in a word, vary considerably as to how they regard communion. Many churches offer it weekly. Many more offer it once a month or so.  In some services it becomes central. In others it can appear peripheral.

 A recent Poll I saw in the *US Catholic, Our Sunday Visitor* and/or elsewhere found that 43% of American Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation and thereby excom- municate themselves. This subtract 30,000,000 or more Catholics from its statistics - plus the 30,000,000 who have left specifically over recent years to join other churches or religions or to become totally unchurched.

  Modern men and women who think about such matters want doctrines that they can embrace. I know I'm a small minority here on CAF, but the Church needs to weigh such things without keeping its head in the sand. It can continue to teach the doctrines but allow a wider divergence when it comes to such theological issues.