Any Episcopalians in the house?

[Abu]

Contarini #174
You have to make sweeping, unsupported claims, dismissing most mainstream Biblical scholarship with a wave of the hand.
That’s not a responsible way to deal with history.
You are arguing in circles by ruling out any scholarship coming from a perspective different from your own. That means that you aren’t honestly appealing to history at all.

As Arnold Lunn put it in a 1932 letter to C.E.M. Joad:
“The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the church in question. Having traveled thus far by reason unaided by authority it is not irrational to trust the authority, whose credentials have been proved by reason, to interpret difficult passages in the Bible.” *Is Christianity True?, *1933, p 34].

The fatuous argument that would dismiss “historical considerations” is exposed by no less than Christ’s Church Herself.

I thought we were talking about historical evidence as the basis for Catholic faith?

This is what those who want to change Christ’s Church promote. Their views are nothing new, just the same parroting of old modernism. Only Christ’s Church can interpret Her Scriptures with fidelity to Christ.

As Cardinal Ratzinger identified, in criticizing the “scholars” who distort the Gospels:
“Devoting themselves, ‘to the ministry of the word,’18 they set about preaching, and utilized the type of presentation appropriate to their purpose and the mentality of their listeners. They were debtors19 to Greeks and to foreigners, to learned and unlearned.20** Indeed we can single out the following categories in the preaching of Christ’s heralds**: catechetical formulas, narrative reports, eyewitness accounts, hymns, doxologies, prayers, and similar literary genres commonly found in Sacred Scripture and the speech of that period.” [My emphasis].
[See www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM]

 

[GKC]

As Arnold Lunn put it in a 1932 letter to C.E.M. Joad:
“The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the church in question. Having traveled thus far by reason unaided by authority it is not irrational to trust the authority, whose credentials have been proved by reason, to interpret difficult passages in the Bible.” *Is Christianity True?, *1933, p 34].

The fatuous argument that would dismiss “historical considerations” is exposed by no less than Christ’s Church Herself.
This is what those who want to change Christ’s Church promote. Their views are nothing new, just the same parroting of old modernism. Only Christ’s Church can interpret Her Scriptures with fidelity to Christ.

As Cardinal Ratzinger identified, in criticizing the “scholars” who distort the Gospels:
“Devoting themselves, ‘to the ministry of the word,’18 they set about preaching, and utilized the type of presentation appropriate to their purpose and the mentality of their listeners. They were debtors19 to Greeks and to foreigners, to learned and unlearned.20** Indeed we can single out the following categories in the preaching of Christ’s heralds**: catechetical formulas, narrative reports, eyewitness accounts, hymns, doxologies, prayers, and similar literary genres commonly found in Sacred Scripture and the speech of that period.” [My emphasis].
[See www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM]

Huzzah! A Lunn reference!! Complete to title and page! Not my favorite citation from that book, though. Which would be from the first paragraph of Letter VII, Lunn to Joad. Pagination from the 4th printing is different; you may find it on p. 48. The quote you give is, in that later printing, found on p. 27, which. of course, is Letter III, Lunn to Joad, though you appear to have dropped a letter and a comma, in transcribing it. No matter. I don’t think I’ve seen a Lunn quote in all my on-line postings, and I congratulate you.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

As Arnold Lunn put it in a 1932 letter to C.E.M. Joad:
“The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the church in question. Having traveled thus far by reason unaided by authority it is not irrational to trust the authority, whose credentials have been proved by reason, to interpret difficult passages in the Bible.” *Is Christianity True?, *1933, p 34].

Right. And if you appeal to “pure reason,” then to pure reason you shall go. You can’t then bring in Church documents to beat down arguments that you are unable to refute by pure reason.

The fatuous argument that would dismiss “historical considerations” is exposed by no less than Christ’s Church Herself.

I’m not dismissing historical considerations. I’m showing you the consequences of your own appeal to historical considerations. But Arnold Lunn isn’t the Magisterium, anyway. You cite him as if he were. You’re trying to hang onto a 19th-century apologetics method that just doesn’t hold up. The evidence isn’t that certain. You can’t “prove by pure reason that Christ established an infallible Church.” Aquinas knew this. Arnold Lunn apparently had forgotten it, or overlooked it in his convert zeal.

Again, you are just digging yourself in deeper with every post. You are not actually arguing from history. The more authorities you throw at me, the more you show that the spiral argument is bankrupt and dishonest.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Right. And if you appeal to “pure reason,” then to pure reason you shall go. You can’t then bring in Church documents to beat down arguments that you are unable to refute by pure reason.

I’m not dismissing historical considerations. I’m showing you the consequences of your own appeal to historical considerations. But Arnold Lunn isn’t the Magisterium, anyway. You cite him as if he were. You’re trying to hang onto a 19th-century apologetics method that just doesn’t hold up. The evidence isn’t that certain. You can’t “prove by pure reason that Christ established an infallible Church.” Aquinas knew this. Arnold Lunn apparently had forgotten it, or overlooked it in his convert zeal.

Again, you are just digging yourself in deeper with every post. You are not actually arguing from history. The more authorities you throw at me, the more you show that the spiral argument is bankrupt and dishonest.

Edwin

Edwin-

I understand (from your religion designation) that you are considering Catholicism, though I do not know exactly where you are in that discernment process.

However, imagine that one day you are feeling especially Catholic when someone who is less Catholic than yourself asks you to explain the idea that the Catholic Church is infallible. How would YOU go about constructing an argument that is not “bankrupt and dishonest”?

Thanks.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin-

I understand (from your religion designation) that you are considering Catholicism, though I do not know exactly where you are in that discernment process.

However, imagine that one day you are feeling especially Catholic when someone who is less Catholic than yourself asks you to explain the idea that the Catholic Church is infallible. How would YOU go about constructing an argument that is not “bankrupt and dishonest”?

Thanks.

Randy, I’m actually right up against the necessity of making a choice. I’ve been in RCIA all year and the Rite of Election is this coming Sunday. I’m not sure I can go through with it given some of my issues about women’s ordination and the validity of Protestant communities and sacraments generally (and the fact that all of this has very personal relevance to me certainly makes it a bigger deal), but I also hate the idea of turning my back on something that has haunted me for so many years and to which I feel such a powerful attraction.

But in fact I have defended the infallibility of the Church. I believe in it in the sense that I believe in the indefectibility of the Church and it seems clear to me that for the Church to be indefectible certain major decisions have to be infallible. Papal infallibility may well be true for all I know. Where the rubber hits the road for me is when we get to specific lists of things that are claimed to be infallible, such as that found in the Doctrinal Notification to Ad Tuendam Fidem.

But setting all that aside, infallibility is a consequence of the basics of the Faith, not a precondition for it. The historical arguments are probable ones, establishing the likelihood that Jesus rose from the dead and that the community historically known as the Catholic Church carries on an essentially accurate memory/interpretation of what Jesus taught and of the meaning of his actions. They aren’t demonstrative proof. Once one puts one’s faith in Christ as proclaimed by the historic Church, it then follows that Christ’s promise to be with the Church means that the Church will not make decisions that would negate that promise. Just how that works out in practice is open to debate, as I indicated above. (Ironically, the best description of infallibility I’ve seen is in the Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson.)

Trying to deduce everything else from infallibility is putting the cart before the horse with a vengeance. And trying to prove infallibility by purely historical means is sheer madness.

The Protestant version of this argument, put forward by the “Old Princeton” theologians, doesn’t work either. The whole attempt to prove the faith with demonstrative certainty through historical means is a dead end. But by adding an additional step, the Catholic version is even crazier.

Edwin

 

[commenter]

Randy, I’m actually right up against the necessity of making a choice. I’ve been in RCIA all year and the Rite of Election is this coming Sunday. I’m not sure I can go through with it given some of my issues about women’s ordination and the validity of Protestant communities and sacraments generally (and the fact that all of this has very personal relevance to me certainly makes it a bigger deal), but I also hate the idea of turning my back on something that has haunted me for so many years and to which I feel such a powerful attraction.

But in fact I have defended the infallibility of the Church. I believe in it in the sense that I believe in the indefectibility of the Church and it seems clear to me that for the Church to be indefectible certain major decisions have to be infallible. Papal infallibility may well be true for all I know. Where the rubber hits the road for me is when we get to specific lists of things that are claimed to be infallible, such as that found in the Doctrinal Notification to Ad Tuendam Fidem.

But setting all that aside, infallibility is a consequence of the basics of the Faith, not a precondition for it. The historical arguments are probable ones, establishing the likelihood that Jesus rose from the dead and that the community historically known as the Catholic Church carries on an essentially accurate memory/interpretation of what Jesus taught and of the meaning of his actions. They aren’t demonstrative proof. Once one puts one’s faith in Christ as proclaimed by the historic Church, it then follows that Christ’s promise to be with the Church means that the Church will not make decisions that would negate that promise. Just how that works out in practice is open to debate, as I indicated above. (Ironically, the best description of infallibility I’ve seen is in the Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson.)

Trying to deduce everything else from infallibility is putting the cart before the horse with a vengeance. And trying to prove infallibility by purely historical means is sheer madness.

The Protestant version of this argument, put forward by the “Old Princeton” theologians, doesn’t work either. The whole attempt to prove the faith with demonstrative certainty through historical means is a dead end. But by adding an additional step, the Catholic version is even crazier.

Edwin

I will pray for you at this juncture in your spiritual life. (And you can pray for me, I keep hitting junctures).

 

[Novocastrian]

Huzzah! A Lunn reference!! Complete to title and page! Not my favorite citation from that book, though. Which would be from the first paragraph of Letter VII, Lunn to Joad. Pagination from the 4th printing is different; you may find it on p. 48. The quote you give is, in that later printing, found on p. 27, which. of course, is Letter III, Lunn to Joad, though you appear to have dropped a letter and a comma, in transcribing it. No matter. I don’t think I’ve seen a Lunn quote in all my on-line postings, and I congratulate you.

GKC

You show once again your admirable eye for minutiae!

 

[GKC]

You show once again your admirable eye for minutiae!

And, of course, a glimpse into my estimable, and totally out of control, assemblage of books. Massive and motley.

GKC

 

[Thorolfr]

Randy, I’m actually right up against the necessity of making a choice. I’ve been in RCIA all year and the Rite of Election is this coming Sunday. I’m not sure I can go through with it given some of my issues about women’s ordination and the validity of Protestant communities and sacraments generally (and the fact that all of this has very personal relevance to me certainly makes it a bigger deal), but I also hate the idea of turning my back on something that has haunted me for so many years and to which I feel such a powerful attraction.

But in fact I have defended the infallibility of the Church. I believe in it in the sense that I believe in the indefectibility of the Church and it seems clear to me that for the Church to be indefectible certain major decisions have to be infallible. Papal infallibility may well be true for all I know. Where the rubber hits the road for me is when we get to specific lists of things that are claimed to be infallible, such as that found in the Doctrinal Notification to Ad Tuendam Fidem.

I understand the appeal of belonging to an infallible and divinely inspired and divinely ordered church and I’m sure that having some sort of certainty in my life would be very comforting. Living instead with a certain degree of uncertainty, disorder and ambiguity in both my life and in my faith is not always easy. So I can see the appeal of the Catholic Church. But I personally would find it difficult to give my assent to many doctrines that I just don’t believe in such as the doctrine that only men can be ordained. To me, 2000 years of doctrine and tradition starts to look like a straight jacket that prevents us from seeing and understanding God in new ways and ends up putting God into a box.

On the issue of how distressing uncertainty and disorder can be, I’ve been reading a book by University of California historian William Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (Oxford University Press, 1988). One of the main topics of the book is the extreme anxiety from which Calvin suffered (Luther had the same problem). As Bouwsma says, “He offers the historian a unique opportunity to study the inner turmoil of a peculiarly troubled age.” Calvin was especially troubled by disorder and uncertainty of any kind and he felt comforted by the order that he saw in the heavens. Astronomy, Calvin said, “unfold the admirable wisdom of God…The innumerable multitude of stars is ordered like an army in all its ranks…The sun, moon and stars are not mixed confusedly together, but each has its assigned position and dwelling place.”

And Calvin thought that the order that he perceived in the heavens should be replicated on earth. He believed that every person has a calling assigned by God and that “those who rudely interfere in the business of others cause great disturbance” and that confusion in the ranks of society “signifies a dreadful vengeance of God…God values above all the obedience with which we follow our calling.”

The family also had its proper order Calvin believed. It is “the law of nature” that a woman should “serve her husband and give him honor and reverence.” Women, Calvin said, “by the ordinary law of nature are born to obey, for all wise men have always rejected government by women as an unnatural monstrosity.” God did not create “two heads of equal power but added to the man an inferior as helper.”

According to Bouwsma:

The Reformation slogan scripura sola was intrinsically naive; and Calvin’s claim that Scripture was his “only guide,” and acquiescence in its “plain doctrines” as his “constant rule of wisdom,” could never have been more than an aspiration. He had “forgotten” only a fraction of what he had learned under the papacy. Like other first-generation Protestants, he had acquired in the old church both his spiritual need and his criteria for “pure instruction in the faith.” Among the cultural baggage Calvin carried to Geneva were a conception of human being as a hierarchy of faculties governed by the mind and an assumption that the mind is adequate to grasp the world as it actually is. These beliefs inclined him towards an intellectualized Christianity that he never relinquished…Doctrine, he pointed out, “is a great deal more precious than persons.” Such sentiments point to a tendency in Calvin to understand faith less as trust in God’s promises than as intellectual assent to a body of propositions.

Unfortunately, I’m not convinced that it’s possible to live without a certain amount of disorder and ambiguity and have the certainty about God that is supposedly offered by an infallible church. Nor do I believe, as Calvin apparently did, that the “mind is adequate to grasp the world as it actually is.” The world is really kind of messy and not always easy to grasp. Perhaps that is the nature of our existence here on earth. I’m not certain that I would be able to “assent to a body of propositions” which is what it seems to me the Catholic Church requires and is a way of understanding faith that Calvin, too, carried over from his former life as a Catholic.

 

[Abu]

GKC, it’s good to see someone who knows and appreciates the scholarship and integrity of Sir Arnold Lunn.

With regard to the ideas of Contarini, the following points 2-5 against Fr Raymond Brown seem very relevant re Contarini’s suupositions as Rene Laurentin, a peritus at Vatican II, who once referred to Brown as “an exegete of great importance”, comments on Brown’s Birth of the Messiah:

1. Historico-Criticism is a limited method
2. Brown’s method leads him to an ambiguous position toward doctrine
3. Brown’s assumptions are dubious
4. Brown’s ecumenical dialogue is defective
5. The Catholic faith is damaged by irresponsible biblical speculation
   The New Biblical Theorists Raymond E Brown and Beyond, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books 1983, p 8, 64-67].

Fathers Rumble and Carty comment:
The evidence from the historicity of the Gospels, and the early Church confirm the primacy of authority and the infallibility of the Pope as defined by Vatican I, and the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council confirmed by the Pope.

Let us subject the Gospels as books to all the laws of historical criticism – the same laws that we apply to other books. They prove to be reliable historical documents – indeed, there is no genuine historical document in existence, if these are not so. Now these historical documents tell us of a certain historical person who declared that He was God, justified that claim by works which no ordinary man could do, and said that He would establish an infallible Church – a Church still in this world. Thus we prove Christ’s life and works from historical documents. We prove His divinity from His life and works. We prove the infallible Church from the promise of this divine Person. But **we do not yet say that Scripture is inspired, though of course we know that it is. But our rational grounds for that belief come from the fact that the infallible Church of Christ teaches with her authority that the Bible is inspired and the Word of God, and also tells us what books comprise the Bible. **

That the Bible is infinitely superior to the sacred books of other religions becomes at once apparent. The most rigid criticism shows the strictly historical character of the Bible. Fabulous narratives cannot stand this test. The supernatural character of the Bible stands out in, vivid contrast when compared with the teaching of other religious documents. The Catholic Church, whose very existence in the world today cannot be explained by natural forces, guarantees the Bible as the Word of God.
See: radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=16 [Fathers Rumble and Carty].

 

[Contarini]

GKC, it’s good to see someone who knows and appreciates the scholarship and integrity of Sir Arnold Lunn.

With regard to the ideas of Contarini, the following points 2-5 against Fr Raymond Brown seem very relevant re Contarini’s suupositions as Rene Laurentin, a peritus at Vatican II, who once referred to Brown as “an exegete of great importance”, comments on Brown’s Birth of the Messiah:

1. Historico-Criticism is a limited method
2. Brown’s method leads him to an ambiguous position toward doctrine
3. Brown’s assumptions are dubious
4. Brown’s ecumenical dialogue is defective
5. The Catholic faith is damaged by irresponsible biblical speculation

I agree that historical criticism is limited. But your next quote disagrees:

Let us subject the Gospels as books to all the laws of historical criticism – the same laws that we apply to other books.

You need to make up your mind: do you want to do this are not?

Once you say, "Yes, I do, then you need to follow through.

You can’t simultaneously claim to follow historical criticism as a basis for Church doctrine and reject it when it leads to conclusions you dislike.

My own view of historical criticism is in between the two extremes which you seem to be trying to hold at once. I think it is valuable and should be treated with respect and integrity, but I agree that it is limited and should not be relied on uncritically as the basis for doctrine.

But you want to have your cake and eat it too.

They prove to be reliable historical documents – indeed, there is no genuine historical document in existence, if these are not so.

That’s just nonsense. It’s blowing smoke.

I’m not going to go farther with this, because you can just shoot out quotes from your favorite authorities until the cows come home and use that to avoid actually having a reasonable discussion.

You need to answer the actual argument I have made. If you appeal to historical criticism, then to historical criticism you must go. So do you trust it or not? If you don’t, then the spiral argument falls. But if you do, then the spiral argument falls, because historical criticism does not provide a basis for the kind of certainty about the reliability of Scripture (particularly Matt. 16) that you need for the argument. (Never mind that the interpretation of these passages isn’t certain either, even if they are wholly reliable.)

Please answer me *in your own words/I instead of posting more lump quotations which actually contradict each other, as you have done in this last post.

Edwin*

 

[Thorolfr]

Let us subject the Gospels as books to all the laws of historical criticism – the same laws that we apply to other books. They prove to be reliable historical documents

How do we know that they are reliable historical documents? Supposedly King Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, was born of a vestal virgin who became pregnant and claimed that the god Mars was responsible. At the end of his life, Romulus was reportedly gathered with member of the Senate where dozens of senators claimed that he was snatched up into heaven from their midst. That’s a lot of witnesses. So how do we know that this is not a reliable historical account?

 

[commenter]

Unfortunately, I’m not convinced that it’s possible to live without a certain amount of disorder and ambiguity and have the certainty about God that is supposedly offered by an infallible church. Nor do I believe, as Calvin apparently did, that the “mind is adequate to grasp the world as it actually is.” The world is really kind of messy and not always easy to grasp. Perhaps that is the nature of our existence here on earth. I’m not certain that I would be able to “assent to a body of propositions” which is what it seems to me the Catholic Church requires and is a way of understanding faith that Calvin, too, carried over from his former life as a Catholic.

Mainline Protestants seem to be increasingly required to “assent to a body of propositions” also. Their propositions come mainly from the media. For Christians to be glued to contemporary trends or political correctness seems to be just as binding or restrictive as being faithful to 2000 years of Christian tradition. The question is, which one is more likely rooted in Christ?

I personally just don’t have enough trust to tie my religion to 2015, specifically to the corporations that control the media in 2015 and indirectly shape the Mainline. As a Catholic, I am free to review, accept, or reject the propositions that the NY Times, Huffpost, and CNN have defined for religion. I do accept some, reject others. Catholics can be skeptical, in ways the Mainline liberal Protestants, including the TEC, cannot.

 

[Contarini]

Mainline Protestants seem to be increasingly required to “assent to a body of propositions” also. Their propositions come mainly from the media. For Christians to be glued to contemporary trends or political correctness seems to be just as binding or restrictive as being faithful to 2000 years of Christian tradition. The question is, which one is more likely rooted in Christ?

I personally just don’t have enough trust to tie my religion to 2015, specifically to the corporations that control the media in 2015 and indirectly shape the Mainline. As a Catholic, I am free to review, accept, or reject the propositions that the NY Times, Huffpost, and CNN have defined for religion. I do accept some, reject others. Catholics can be skeptical, in ways the Mainline liberal Protestants, including the TEC, cannot.

I share this concern, but you massively overstate things. Actually one can be skeptical about modern liberal “propositions” in the Episcopal Church. I’ve been doing it for seventeen years now, and I’m far from the only person. Christopher Wells and the Living Church magazine he edits are still going strong.

 

[Contarini]

I understand the appeal of belonging to an infallible and divinely inspired and divinely ordered church and I’m sure that having some sort of certainty in my life would be very comforting. Living instead with a certain degree of uncertainty, disorder and ambiguity in both my life and in my faith is not always easy. So I can see the appeal of the Catholic Church.

Don’t assume that you know another person’s reasons unless they tell you. The considerations you mention certainly have their appeal, but like you I find other things difficult to swallow. Also, Rome is far less uniform than you seem to think. This forum is not representative, though it’s much closer to the mainstream of American Catholicism than was the case 20 years ago (i.e., American Catholicism has gotten much more conservative-at least its catechesis, bookstores, radio programs, etc., have.).

The bottom line for me is that I think Rome is the proper center of unity. It’s about being in a covenantal relationship, not about having all the answers. You are setting up a bit of a straw man.

On the issue of how distressing uncertainty and disorder can be, I’ve been reading a book by University of California historian William Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (Oxford University Press, 1988).

Yes, it’s a brilliantly written book, but I don’t think it does justice to Calvin. Ironically, it forces him into a box by labeling some of his tendencies “abyss” and others “labyrinth.” I think Bouwsma has some real insights, but I think he imposes his pattern on Calvin and often distorts specific passages by forcing them into his Procrustean bed. To be honest, I probably can’t give a more incisive critique, since it’s many years since I read the book!

Edwin

 

[Thorolfr]

Don’t assume that you know another person’s reasons unless they tell you. The considerations you mention certainly have their appeal, but like you I find other things difficult to swallow. Also, Rome is far less uniform than you seem to think. This forum is not representative, though it’s much closer to the mainstream of American Catholicism than was the case 20 years ago (i.e., American Catholicism has gotten much more conservative-at least its catechesis, bookstores, radio programs, etc., have.).

The bottom line for me is that I think Rome is the proper center of unity. It’s about being in a covenantal relationship, not about having all the answers. You are setting up a bit of a straw man.

Being in the Catholic church would seem to be easier for anyone who is a straight man and is in a happy marriage. But it would seem to me to be a more difficult fit for some women, people who don’t fit Catholic notions about sexuality and gender, or anyone who has an unhappy marriage and has perhaps been divorced.

 

[GKC]

GKC, it’s good to see someone who knows and appreciates the scholarship and integrity of Sir Arnold Lunn.

With regard to the ideas of Contarini, the following points 2-5 against Fr Raymond Brown seem very relevant re Contarini’s suupositions as Rene Laurentin, a peritus at Vatican II, who once referred to Brown as “an exegete of great importance”, comments on Brown’s Birth of the Messiah:

1. Historico-Criticism is a limited method
2. Brown’s method leads him to an ambiguous position toward doctrine
3. Brown’s assumptions are dubious
4. Brown’s ecumenical dialogue is defective
5. The Catholic faith is damaged by irresponsible biblical speculation
   The New Biblical Theorists Raymond E Brown and Beyond, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books 1983, p 8, 64-67].

Fathers Rumble and Carty comment:
The evidence from the historicity of the Gospels, and the early Church confirm the primacy of authority and the infallibility of the Pope as defined by Vatican I, and the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council confirmed by the Pope.

Let us subject the Gospels as books to all the laws of historical criticism – the same laws that we apply to other books. They prove to be reliable historical documents – indeed, there is no genuine historical document in existence, if these are not so. Now these historical documents tell us of a certain historical person who declared that He was God, justified that claim by works which no ordinary man could do, and said that He would establish an infallible Church – a Church still in this world. Thus we prove Christ’s life and works from historical documents. We prove His divinity from His life and works. We prove the infallible Church from the promise of this divine Person. But **we do not yet say that Scripture is inspired, though of course we know that it is. But our rational grounds for that belief come from the fact that the infallible Church of Christ teaches with her authority that the Bible is inspired and the Word of God, and also tells us what books comprise the Bible. **

That the Bible is infinitely superior to the sacred books of other religions becomes at once apparent. The most rigid criticism shows the strictly historical character of the Bible. Fabulous narratives cannot stand this test. The supernatural character of the Bible stands out in, vivid contrast when compared with the teaching of other religious documents. The Catholic Church, whose very existence in the world today cannot be explained by natural forces, guarantees the Bible as the Word of God.
See: radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=16 [Fathers Rumble and Carty].

Been collecting Sir A. for over 45 years. Got a few weak points, but he is a delight to read, and usually holds his own. Except, as he said, in the case of Ronald Knox.

GKC

 

[commenter]

Being in the Catholic church would seem to be easier for anyone who is a straight man and is in a happy marriage. But it would seem to me to be a more difficult fit for some women, people who don’t fit Catholic notions about sexuality and gender, or anyone who has an unhappy marriage and has perhaps been divorced.

Actually the Catholic Faith is a difficult fit for everyone, not just the groups you refer to. It’s a call to conversion, on many fronts. It pinches me where I want space. It’s too slack where I want a tight ship (especially when I am performing my ministry of judging others). It challenges me from directions I’m not prepared for, such as Art and Music. But it pulls me into new directions, such as the Divine Mercy devotion, when I want to argue doctrine on the Internet. When I think I have a good understanding of contemporary Catholicism, along comes a Pope Francis who believes all the dogmas, but pokes comfortable people like me to view them in a deeper way.

If Earth was meant to be my home, I would design a far more comfortable religion than Catholicism to live in.

 

[commenter]

I share this concern, but you massively overstate things. Actually one can be skeptical about modern liberal “propositions” in the Episcopal Church. I’ve been doing it for seventeen years now, and I’m far from the only person. Christopher Wells and the Living Church magazine he edits are still going strong.

You’re right, I overstated things. To fairly respond:

• The ELCA and TEC now occupy theological and social positions comparable to those taken by extremely liberal churches such as the United Church of Christ in 1995.
• The UCC has since 1995 taken positions that would have been unthinkable for them in 1995, and still unthinkable to most in TEC and ELCA today. But quite thinkable to some.
• ELCA and TEC today take positions that would have been unthinkable for most in 1995.
• It is true that elements within the TEC, such as you refer to, still endure to hold onto orthodoxy. I’m sure orthodox elements existed in the UCC in 1995, maybe even today.
• The orthodox elements in any of these 3 churches have decreasing influence on anyone outside their circle, and no influence on the overall direction of leadership.
• What the UCC is doing now - including adding books to the NT - the TEC and ELCA will be doing tomorrow.

 

[Thorolfr]

This forum is not representative, though it’s much closer to the mainstream of American Catholicism than was the case 20 years ago (i.e., American Catholicism has gotten much more conservative-at least its catechesis, bookstores, radio programs, etc., have.).

Cathechesis, bookstores and radio programs might be getting more conservative, but it would appear that mainstream Catholics themselves are actually getting less conservative. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center Survey:

However, over the past four decades, self-reported church attendance has declined among “strong” Catholics as well as among Catholics overall. The share of all Catholics who say they attend Mass at least once a week has dropped from 47% in 1974 to 24% in 2012; among “strong” Catholics, it has fallen more than 30 points, from 85% in 1974 to 53% last year.

pewforum.org/2013/03/13/strong-catholic-identity-at-a-four-decade-low-in-us/

I would assume that all those Catholics who no longer attend Mass regularly are getting less conservative or perhaps they are no longer counted as real Catholics any more. Also, there is this Pew Research Center Survey from 2014:

Fully 85% of self-identified Catholics ages 18-29 said in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey that homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with just 13% who said it should be discouraged. Older age groups are less likely to favor acceptance. But even among Catholics ages 65 and older, 57% say that homosexuality should be accepted.

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/

It looks like young Catholics are getting much more liberal, not more conservative.