Anglicanism vs. Catholicism

[gurneyhalleck1]

I see what you’re saying but I think it’s almost a more strict view of what it means to be a Catholic than some Catholics in here even think about obedience. Things like Humanae Vitae and sexuality, you’re right, it’s pretty hard to have “new developments” so I can appreciate a Catholic refusing to budge on NFP, etc. I personally have my own view of Humanae Vitae and it’s not an agreeable one. In any case, I appreciate the view that Rome has spoken and one must obey to be a “good” Catholic (I’m not busting out any GKCesque Latin here! )…But with something like A.C., I see it being something to be honored at the time, even though like you I don’t buy it, but after the Dutch interractions and other things, I don’t see why a ‘good’ catholic can’t respect A.C.'s intentions for the time and yet say “I think they have valid but illicit orders and sacraments.” I don’t see why one must jettison his intellect observing a historical development and put himself in a box to that degree based on subsequent development. So I guess we have different views on what makes a good Catholic on this one. I guess by your definition I’d make one lousy one! LOL

Note that I added a bit to the original post, above. I’m a slow thinker.

In brief, yes. That is what I’m saying. A good RC should affirm that what the RCC teaches as true, is to be accepted as true, on the authority of the RCC. I am not saying that the arguments on either side, pro or con (on AC, (e.g.) are true or false, though I have my own, Anglican opinion. I’m saying that, if Roma locuta (as is said was said), then *casua finiti *, on that point, unless and until Rome speaks again, to further define something.

There might be things upon which there might be wiggle room, but I don’t see this one as so. The point that the issue of OC/PNCC has not been definitively commented on, it seems to me, might permit some such wiggle room, but I wouldn’t encourage it. I’d discuss, though.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I see what you’re saying but I think it’s almost a more strict view of what it means to be a Catholic than some Catholics in here even think about obedience. Things like Humanae Vitae and sexuality, you’re right, it’s pretty hard to have “new developments” so I can appreciate a Catholic refusing to budge on NFP, etc. I personally have my own view of Humanae Vitae and it’s not an agreeable one. In any case, I appreciate the view that Rome has spoken and one must obey to be a “good” Catholic (I’m not busting out any GKCesque Latin here! )…But with something like A.C., I see it being something to be honored at the time, even though like you I don’t buy it, but after the Dutch interractions and other things, I don’t see why a ‘good’ catholic can’t respect A.C.'s intentions for the time and yet say “I think they have valid but illicit orders and sacraments.” I don’t see why one must jettison his intellect observing a historical development and put himself in a box to that degree based on subsequent development. So I guess we have different views on what makes a good Catholic on this one. I guess by your definition I’d make one lousy one! LOL

The problem lies in the last couple of sentences of AC, seen in the light of what Cardinal Ratzinger said, in his Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, re: the professio fidei . Not much room to wiggle, there. He is commenting precisely on what the profession of faith means and uses AC as one example of the sort of thing it covers and what a RC must affirm of it.

I’m not trying to set the standard for what makes a “good” RC. I just won’t try to convince any RC that, in affirming what the RCC teaches is de fide, he is doing anything other than precisely what he should, as a RC. But I sometimes do discuss what I know of history, or what I know of what the RCC does teach.

GKC

 

[JohnnyReb]

The problem lies in the last couple of sentences of AC, seen in the light of what Cardinal Ratzinger said, in his Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, re: the professio fidei . Not much room to wiggle, there. He is commenting precisely on what the profession of faith means and uses AC as one example of the sort of thing it covers and what a RC must affirm of it.

I’m not trying to set the standard for what makes a “good” RC. I just won’t try to convince any RC that, in affirming what the RCC teaches is de fide, he is doing anything other than precisely what he should, as a RC. But I sometimes do discuss what I know of history, or what I know of what the RCC does teach.

GKC

Sort off the subject but still on it, the vast majority of RCs do not accept every fine point of Catholic Church teaching, although they should. Many disagree with the teachings found in Humanae Vitae -up to 83% and many are using contraception, despite the churches teaching against it.

stanford.edu/class/humbio129s/cgi-bin/blogs/feministlens/2009/05/14/how-many-catholics-follow-the-vaticans-ban-on-contraception/

There is even a diversity of opinion regarding masterbation in the RCC

religioustolerance.org/masturba10.htm

So there are Catholics who differ from church teachings on some things. Many of the men who express differing opinions are priests. In otherwords, they don’t represent the fundementalist mindset one finds among the segment of Catholics who engage in apologetics.

 

[GKC]

Sort off the subject but still on it, the vast majority of RCs do not accept every fine point of Catholic Church teaching, although they should. Many disagree with the teachings found in Humanae Vitae -up to 83% and many are using contraception, despite the churches teaching against it.

stanford.edu/class/humbio129s/cgi-bin/blogs/feministlens/2009/05/14/how-many-catholics-follow-the-vaticans-ban-on-contraception/

There is even a diversity of opinion regarding masterbation in the RCC

religioustolerance.org/masturba10.htm

So there are Catholics who differ from church teachings on some things. Many of the men who express differing opinions are priests. In otherwords, they don’t represent the fundementalist mindset one finds among the segment of Catholics who engage in apologetics.

I certainly agree with your observations. I just won’t encourage it, beyond discussing history, here and there, as I understand it.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well you know me; I am a pretty honest guy. I haven’t read then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Tuendam Fidem re the professio fidei. I’d like it if you’d enlighten me. I haven’t a clue on that one. But one thing I might wonder before even reading it is, he was a cardinal at the time of making these comments, right or no? I don’t know. If he was, then infallibility or credibility at that point would sure not be what it is now. Ratizinger made a lot of positive, ecumenically-friendly comments about the Lutheran Eucharist when he was a cardinal. Now that he’s pope he’s had more of a hard line “they’re ecclesiastical communities, not churches!” stance. So what he thought before, heck, does it square with his role as pope? Just wondering…

The problem lies in the last couple of sentences of AC, seen in the light of what Cardinal Ratzinger said, in his Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, re: the professio fidei . Not much room to wiggle, there. He is commenting precisely on what the profession of faith means and uses AC as one example of the sort of thing it covers and what a RC must affirm of it.

I’m not trying to set the standard for what makes a “good” RC. I just won’t try to convince any RC that, in affirming what the RCC teaches is de fide, he is doing anything other than precisely what he should, as a RC. But I sometimes do discuss what I know of history, or what I know of what the RCC does teach.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Well you know me; I am a pretty honest guy. I haven’t read then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Tuendam Fidem re the professio fidei. I’d like it if you’d enlighten me. I haven’t a clue on that one. But one thing I might wonder before even reading it is, he was a cardinal at the time of making these comments, right or no? I don’t know. If he was, then infallibility or credibility at that point would sure not be what it is now. Ratizinger made a lot of positive, ecumenically-friendly comments about the Lutheran Eucharist when he was a cardinal. Now that he’s pope he’s had more of a hard line “they’re ecclesiastical communities, not churches!” stance. So what he thought before, heck, does it square with his role as pope? Just wondering…

Here you go:

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/552/Doctrinal_Commentary_on_Ad_Tuendam_Fidem_Joseph_Cardinal_Ratzinger.html

He was a Cardinal, yes. It was in 1998, IIRC. See what you think.

And yes, you are an honest guy. It shows.

GKC

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Just to let you know, I created a thread on the Articles of Religion. I plan on going through all the controversial ones, and discussing varying interpretations of them.

 

[GKC]

Just to let you know, I created a thread on the Articles of Religion. I plan on going through all the controversial ones, and discussing varying interpretations of them.

Good luck.

GKC

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Good luck.

GKC

Thanks.

I suspect to find that either my reconciliation works, or that my views are actually more Low-Church Anglican than I originally thought.

 

[GKC]

Thanks.

I suspect to find that either my reconciliation works, or that my views are actually more Low-Church Anglican than I originally thought.

Given the opportunity to bet, I’d favor the latter.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If you do subscribe to most of the Articles, you are Protestant and more of an evangelical than anything, yes. Ask GKC, he just LOVES the 39 Articles. In my time, I have yet to meet someone with such a passion for them. They’re sacrosanct to him and a daily code of life

BTW, kudos to the pic! Each day that I’m in CAF I imagine what these posters look like!

For what it’s worth, I look like Timothy Dalton in his prime LOL

Thanks.

I suspect to find that either my reconciliation works, or that my views are actually more Low-Church Anglican than I originally thought.