Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[Contarini]

Sorry but I find nothing about “Life is suffering” appealing.

Well, then you find much of traditional Christianity unappealing. . . for that matter so do I. Both Christianity and Buddhism have a lot of traditional literature that describes the miseries of life in order to wean people from their attachment to “the things of this world.” But in both cases there’s a lot more to what these traditions have to say about the human condition.

Our faith is the GOOD NEWS…the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hope and joy and love. Not “If you live you suffer”

Well, you need to take this up with your fellow Catholics who insist on this forum (see the long thread on Buddhism called “Ask a Buddhist”) that Buddhism is wrong for trying to escape suffering, because suffering is something we should embrace. Catholicism, particularly in its 19th- and early-20th-century forms, has often been accused of a morbid fixation on suffering. . . .

Buddhism does not say that there is nothing in life but suffering (though as with Christianity, some religious rhetoric sounds that way). Buddhism says that all life involves suffering. But “suffering” is used in a particular way–it refers to the dissatisfaction we feel when something we have grabbed onto as permanent turns out to be impermanent. Since life is impermanent, and since in the Buddhist understanding our egos are basically bundles of cravings, this suffering or dissatisfaction is built into all of life. At least that’s how I understand it–I’m sure I don’t get it quite right.

“if you are attached to anyone or anything you will suffer.”

Buddhism has a lot to say about the value of compassion and “loving-kindness.” The “attachment” it condemns is a selfish craving that tries to find permanence in what is impermanent.

CS Lewis had a wonderful essay on those whose hearts are made of stone and how their lives are miserable.

Yes. But what he said doesn’t apply well to Buddhism with its emphasis on compassion and loving-kindness.

What you put your attention to grows stronger in your life. Focusing on nothing, on suffering, on detachment just puts you in love with your brain waves.

I don’t think that’s a reasonable description of Buddhism.

I think we have a much better approach to life…not that we will not suffer but we will not suffer in vain, that there is a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak. The Light of Christ.

I agree that Buddhism lacks a redemptive narrative for the cosmos as a whole–at least I don’t see one.

Compare that to sitting under a Banyan tree and contemplating your navel or the misery of the world (OK Contarini this is hyperbole!)

I think we have to be careful with such hyperbole. Consider how you feel when non-Catholics engage in such “hyperbole” about you. “Catholics treat Mary as if she were divine.” “Catholics sacrifice Jesus over and over.” “Catholics think they can earn their way to heaven.”

I am sort of annoyed by yours and others’ constant focus on traditional or faithful Catholics being sort of these constipated, miserable creatures who pull open the CCC every time there is a question.

Well, I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. For one thing, I see no reason to accept the claim of many conservative Catholics on this forum and elsewhere that they are simply “faithful” Catholics and shouldn’t be labeled conservative. But for another, I don’t think I have ever criticized anyone for pulling down the CCC. I do so frequently myself. Often I clash with Catholics on this forum who don’t like what the CCC says–about Islam, for instance. I am myself very slow to disagree with the CCC, even though I am not in full communion with Rome. I think the CCC is one of the most magnificent summaries of Christian teaching ever produced.

Nor have I ever made any insinuation about the bowel movements of anyone on this forum, that I can recall. If I did, I hope the moderators would discipline me severely!

Dogma isn’t necessarily a dirty word. Rigidity in many circumstances has its downfall but adherence to the truth is IMO a strength, not a weakness.

I don’t disagree with any of this. Of course, the last statement rather begs Pilate’s question. . . .

And I think that we, liberals and conservatives alike, miss the boat as badly as Pilate if we don’t see, as Pilate ought to have, that truth is right there in front of us in the person of Jesus!

Dogma is anything but a dirty word–it’s vitally important. But it’s apophatic–it tells us what we may not say about Jesus. It doesn’t express the truth fully. I think that’s the difference between myself and those whom I would regard as overly rigid on this forum–some folks seem to think that the “truth” is something that has already, now, been fully mastered and locked down and has no surprises yet to pull. I understand how conservative, confessional Protestants, and perhaps still more Orthodox, can think this. But I think it’s a pretty hard move for Catholics to make, particularly after the immense surprise that was Vatican II. I would be very slow to interpret present teaching of the Church with the interpretive freedom routinely used by conservative Catholics with regard to past teaching such as Unam Sanctam. So yes, I say grumpy things about such folks from time to time, because I think they ought to know better given their own beliefs.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t value dogma or think that religious exploration should be open-ended. What draws me to Catholicism is (well, among many other things) precisely the fact that you are tied to fixed dogmatic points while also engaging in endless development and exploration based on what has already been determined. As Chesterton said, Catholic doctrine and modern Western science are the two intellectual disciplines that really seem to progress, because they don’t continually throw out the basis on which they have been operating but build on the achievements of those who went before.

FWIW I spent years seeking and experiencing many other religions, delving deep, studying, considering and re-considering the various teachings and results of each faith tradition. That I came Home to the Church was NOT a result of dogmatic and hidebound blindness but from a long and very interesting path.
Lisa

I don’t think I have ever suggested otherwise!

Edwin

 

[CMatt25]

It should be. You are giving the state the power to determine who is a person and what is or is not murder. That is idolatrous and blasphemous.

If the state said that it was legal for Catholics to kill non-Catholics with impunity, would that make such killings “not murder”?

If the state said that it was legal for white people to kill black people, or for men to kill women, or for parents to kill their children after birth, would that make any of these things cease to be murder?

That’s simply a monstrous position. It’s illogical and immoral.

Of course we submit to laws that seem unnecessary and inconvenient, out of respect to the authority of the government. But that doesn’t mean that we allow the government to define what is and is not human life and what is and is not contrary to natural law. Furthermore, your position doesn’t make any sense even on its own terms, because you seem to be saying that we shouldn’t try to change the law. That’s a very different question from whether we should obey it. (I support civil disobedience in the case of abortion, but that’s a separate question from whether the present laws should be changed. It makes no sense to argue that the law shouldn’t be changed just because it hasn’t already been changed.)

This is simply an absurd and offensive comparison. You’re comparing personal inconvenience with the belief that something is unjust and murderous. Do you really think that it is evil and unjust and destructive of innocent human life to wear a seatbelt?

You are making arguments that are unworthy of your dignity as a human being made in God’s image and capable of reason.

That’s euphemistic language to cover what is evidently (based on your previous paragraphs) a very muddled and morally indefensible position on your part.

I am the first to agree that this issue, and indeed pretty much any important issue, is difficult and complex. But that’s all the more reason to think clearly and consistently, which you are failing utterly to do.

Edwin

Thank you Edwin for your judgement and opinion of me and my thinking. I have no use to respond to you after that. God bless and I’m blessed to have encountered other Episcopalians in my life. Peace along your journey.

 

[Contarini]

Thank you Edwin for your judgement and opinion of me and my thinking. I have no use to respond to you after that. God bless and I’m blessed to have encountered other Episcopalians in my life. Peace along your journey.

I regret the fact that my vehement rhetoric has caused you to ignore the substance of what I’m saying.

But can you really, as a person of integrity, ignore the possibility that my vehemence is justified?

Are you so wedded to your conviction of your own rightness that you can afford to ignore substantive criticisms of your opinion?

To repeat those criticisms without the rhetoric:

1. How can you compare whatever objections you may have to wearing a seat belt to the moral objection many of us have to the killing of the unborn?
2. How can you argue against trying to change a law merely on the basis of the fact that the law exists?
3. How can you give the state the power to determine who is and who is not a human person? Wouldn’t that justify, under other cultural circumstances, the slaughter of racial or religious minorities, or of women, just as it now justifies the slaughter of the unborn?

Be as offended as you like at me. But I implore you to care about the truth enough to consider these points.

I wish you every blessing, and I will not pester you further.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Elizabeth502]

I do not recall your providing any solid evidence that I was incorrect on a previous occasion, but it may be that I have forgotten the occasion.

That would indeed be it.

No, what I’m complaining about is that many orthodox Christians are prejudiced against interfaith dialogue precisely in the sense that they reject it before inquiring fairly as to whether it retains the integrity of the Christian faith.

Perhaps “many.” Certainly not most. The position you describe is not representative of either officially Catholic statements or of the informal attitudes of active Catholic clergy.

I’m not sure our disagreement is about history at all.

It is, and I just demonstrated that. I do realize that you often speak on CAF as if you have some inside knowledge about Catholicism that Catholics supposedly do not have. (Or, that would be the implication of a great many of your posts, in my perception.) It’s difficult to get an accurate picture of someone else’s faith from the outside – it is for all of us, regarding any faith other than our own. Many of the topics from which you seek answers in reference materials cannot be answered from reference materials, because they concern attitudes and movements which are difficult to capture in a static information source such as a book or an online source.

 

[SteveVH]

It was basically one brief quote that people repeat over and over. And while not saying anything outright inaccurate, it was hardly a fair or adequate summary of what Buddhism is all about.

Well, that is a matter of opinion. John Paul, II was an incredibly brilliant man who was well acquainted certainly with every major religious philosphy. “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” was not meant to delve into every nook and crany of Buddhism. In my opinion he strips it down to its ultimate reality. While their are vague references to “gods” and even an “uncreated being”, God has little or nothing to do with Buddhism. As John Paul said "“in large measure an ‘atheistic’ system.” Finding God is not the purpose of Buddhist meditation techniques and I think John Paul’s warnings concerning the adoption of Buddhist techniques or beliefs were well warranted.

"For this reason it is not inappropriate to caution those Christians who enthusiastically welcome certain ideas originating in the religious traditions of the Far East—for example, techniques and methods of meditation and ascetical practice. In some quarters these have become fashionable, and are accepted rather uncritically. First one should know one’s own spiritual heritage well and consider whether it is right to set it aside lightly. Here we need to recall, if only in passing, the brief but important document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “on certain aspects of Christian meditation” (10/15/1989). Here we find a clear answer to the question “whether and how [Christian prayer] can be enriched by methods of meditation originating in different religions and cultures”. (“Crossing the Threshhold of Hope”)

Life is dangerous.

Indeed, which is all the more reason not to bring it on ourselves.

If that’s what you mean by the Catholic Church possessing the fullness of truth, then it’s obvious to any fair-minded person that the Catholic Church does not possess the fullness of truth.

What I mean when I say that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth is that Jesus Christ is Truth itself, not partial truth, but Truth itself. That is why I say that the Catholic Church embraces all truth in any religion. This presupposes that truth does exist in every religion to one extent or another and I have never said anything different. The truth that exists in every religion is common ground upon which we can build. I think it is vitally important that Christians have at least some knowledge of other religions. The study of world religions and philosophies is certainly a noble and necessary pursuit. But this does not mean we water down the ultimate Truth or accept certain dogmas or practices just to get along. You say that I have contradicted myself in making the point that Christ promised to remain with his Church until the end of time and to send the Holy Spirit to guide it “into all truth”. Therefore if one believes this and believes that the Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Jesus, then it follows that one would have no need to seek truth outside of the Church and certainly no reason to adopt other religious practices. I fail to see where I have contradicted myself.

It is quite obvious that not every good and legitimate practice is currently practiced in the Catholic Church, and that not every true belief is currently taught and believed in a fully developed form. Thus, your claim is presumptuous. It is far from certain that none of the good practices currently not practiced among Catholics are being practiced by people of other religions, or that none of the true beliefs currently not explicitly held in a developed form by Catholics are found in a more developed form among adherents of other religions.

Such as?

Are you suggesting that St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong for drawing on the philosophy of Aristotle? That St. Augustine was wrong in finding much of value in Plato?

Not at all. We accepted and even adopted Aristotle’s reason and logic in order to express a truth that the Church already held before Thomas Acquinas was even around. At the same time we also rejected anything by either Aristotle or Plato that was not recognized as truth by the Church. As I have said, truth can be found in many places and I would go so far as to say every religion. Even beyond religion, the Church embraces all truth found in scientific study. The Church certainly recognizes and supports all the good and the truth that exists within Buddhism, but it is not a different truth that the Church was lacking. It is the common ground of leading a good life, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc…, all principles that already exist in the Catholic Church. It is the ultimate goal of the religion that is not and cannot be accepted if one is Christian. Our goal is salvation through Christ and our destiny is eternal life with God. A Buddhist’s goal is to escape suffering in this world and their destiny is Nirvanna (God not being part of the equation).

Do you know what Buddhists mean by nothingness?

I can give you my understanding and then you can correct me. I believe they are speaking of the “supreme emptiness” in which one empties one’s self of sensual desires, pride and greed. Christians would agree that this is a noble undertaking, but not for the same reasons. The goal in Buddhism is to escape the human condition, i.e. suffering. From the Christian perspective we should empty oursleves of these things as well, but only so that we might be filled with the presence of God, even in the midst of suffering.

I agree that one should not simply take on these techniques without examining their implications. But Christians today should not be too proud to learn from Buddhists, just as our ancestors were not too proud to learn from Platonism and Aristotelianism.

We should accept all that is good and true in any religion, Buddhism included. And we should reject all that is not good or true, keeping in mind always the ultimate destiny to which the path is leading.

Steve

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well, that is a matter of opinion. John Paul, II was an incredibly brilliant man who was well acquainted certainly with every major religious philosphy. “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” was not meant to delve into every nook and crany of Buddhism. In my opinion he strips it down to its ultimate reality. While their are vague references to “gods” and even an “uncreated being”, God has little or nothing to do with Buddhism. As John Paul said "“in large measure an ‘atheistic’ system.” Finding God is not the purpose of Buddhist meditation techniques and I think John Paul’s warnings concerning the adoption of Buddhist techniques or beliefs were well warranted.

And these warnings are also echoed elsewhere in various Catholic books, pamphlets, talks, from mainstream Catholic authorities on the subject.

The goal in Buddhism is to escape the human condition, i.e. suffering. From the Christian perspective we should empty oursleves of these things as well, but only so that we might be filled with the presence of God, even in the midst of suffering.

Not to mention, even in suffering and in emptying ourselves, we Christians believe that our human condition glorifies God, and in so doing transforms our humanity. We derive that from Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It is not the goal of Christianity to eradicate self in the same way that Buddhism sees that effort. When we speak of dying to ourselves and emptying ourselves, it is, as Steve describes, with the goal and anticipation of a transformed self.

Good post, Steve. (The rest of it as well.)

 

[Contarini]

That would indeed be it.

And yet you do not “remind” me of any such occasion. You seem to confuse a unilateral declaration on your part with an actual argument supported by evidence.

And the addition of cutesy “emoticons” to snide remarks does not make them less insulting. Quite the reverse.

Perhaps “many.” Certainly not most. The position you describe is not representative of either officially Catholic statements or of the informal attitudes of active Catholic clergy.

Where did I say it did? I made a generalization about the history of modern interfaith dialogue, and about the attitudes I find among many conservative Christians–not just Catholics. I will gladly admit that the problem is much worse among conservative Protestants. Catholics have a theological basis for engaging in robust interfaith dialogue without compromising their faith. Vatican II (which did mark a fairly sharp shift in attitude with regard to ecumenical and interfaith relations) has laid down excellent principles which provide a fine basis for such dialogue.

Nonetheless, one can criticize some of the official and quasi-official statements made in the Catholic Church as showing insufficient sensitivity to the religious “other”–and by that I really mean nothing more than the practice of the Golden Rule. In other words, don’t stereotype other religions in ways you wouldn’t want your own to be stereotyped. I think part of the miscommunication is that when I say “dialogue” I’m including that kind of sympathetic approach, not just the act of addressing members of another religion. For instance, Christians produced “dialogues” with Jews for centuries–but historians today often question whether most of these dialogues even involved real Jews rather than stock figures who were often used as a stand-in for intra-Christian disputes. The Pope’s speech at Regensburg, though an admirable attempt to get a serious conversation going about religion, violence, and reason, fell into this trap to some extent. He didn’t seem to have asked himself how the citation from the Byzantine Emperor would sound to Muslims (if a non-Catholic cited some very harsh statement about Catholicism as an opening gambit in order to make a bigger point, would Catholics really understand that the quote was being used for a specific purpose and wasn’t being endorsed without qualification?). And he cited an Islamic scholar (Ibn Hazm) without apparently having asked Muslims whether this figure was truly representative of their tradition. He seemed to be drawing only on Christian scholarship about Islam, not on what Muslims say about themselves. Now I defended the Pope quite a bit at the time–I think that people drastically overreacted to his speech, even without considering the violent reactions by some Muslims. But there are principles of interreligious dialogue that he did not sufficiently respect in that speech–he was interested in making an intellectual point about faith and reason and did not sufficiently put himself in the shoes of the Muslims whose faith he was using as a foil. When I speak of “interreligious dialogue” I’m talking about dialogue in which you genuinely try to put yourself in the shoes of the other. Liberals have, on the whole, done this more than conservatives–the problem is that they are limited by their lack of appreciation for any fixed dogma, so that they often simply dissolve both religions into some vague ethical consensus.

It is, and I just demonstrated that.

No, you didn’t. You confuse assertion with demonstration, and you mischaracterize what I was asserting in the first place.

I do realize that you often speak on CAF as if you have some inside knowledge about Catholicism that Catholics supposedly do not have. (Or, that would be the implication of a great many of your posts, in my perception.) It’s difficult to get an accurate picture of someone else’s faith from the outside – it is for all of us, regarding any faith other than our own. Many of the topics from which you seek answers in reference materials cannot be answered from reference materials, because they concern attitudes and movements which are difficult to capture in a static information source such as a book or an online source.

Well, that’s basically my problem with becoming Catholic. I have no problem converting to the Catholicism found in the Catechism, papal statements, eminent Catholic theologians (like Ratzinger, De Lubac, Dulles, Aidan Nichols–lest you think I’m talking about Kung and his ilk). But when folks on an internet forum say things that seem to me to violate the principles I find in these “reference sources,” as you call them, and I point this out, I am told that I have no business saying anything about Catholicism and that these folks on an Internet forum who sound remarkably like the Protestant fundamentalists I knew growing up (right down to treating non-Catholics as unfairly as Protestant fundamentalists treat Catholics) have mystical insights into the meaning of these Catholic texts that a mere baptized Christian like myself doesn’t have.

Your use of the term “outsider” is a perfect example. It seems to me, based on the Catechism, that it’s inappropriate to call any baptized Christian an “outsider” to the Catholic Church without qualification. (Indeed, Fr. Benedict Groeschel told me not to call myself "non-Catholic–but I guess he’s one of those evil liberals folks on this forum are so worried about.) I would be much more cautious in speaking of Buddhism or Islam than I am in speaking of Catholicism, precisely for that reason.

But I suppose you will tell me that I have no business interpreting Vatican II or the Catechism. And, of course, whenever I point out that real live Catholics agree with many of my interpretations (and in plenty of cases find them ridiculously conservative), I’m told that those people mustn’t be “real” Catholics or they’d agree with the Magisterium as represented by EWTN and Karl Keating. . . .

Edwin

 

[stewstew03]

Well, that’s basically my problem with becoming Catholic. I have no problem converting to the Catholicism found in the Catechism, papal statements, eminent Catholic theologians (like Ratzinger, De Lubac, Dulles, Aidan Nichols–lest you think I’m talking about Kung and his ilk). But when folks on an internet forum say things that seem to me to violate the principles I find in these “reference sources,” as you call them, and I point this out, I am told that I have no business saying anything about Catholicism and that these folks on an Internet forum who sound remarkably like the Protestant fundamentalists I knew growing up (right down to treating non-Catholics as unfairly as Protestant fundamentalists treat Catholics) have mystical insights into the meaning of these Catholic texts that a mere baptized Christian like myself doesn’t have.

You find yourself in agreement with the Bishop of Rome on many issues, and yet the barrier you face in converting to Catholicism is that folks on CAF sound like Protestant fundamentalists?

I hope that if you ever decide to convert to Catholicism, or ever become a Protestant fundamentalist, it is because you have discovered Truth.

 

[Contarini]

You find yourself in agreement with the Bishop of Rome on many issues, and yet the barrier you face in converting to Catholicism is that folks on CAF sound like Protestant fundamentalists?

I hope that if you ever decide to convert to Catholicism, or ever become a Protestant fundamentalist, it is because you have discovered Truth.

I am rightly rebuked. It was a ridiculous excuse, provoked by Elizabeth’s claims that I think I have some sort of inside knowledge about Catholicism that Catholics don’t have. My point is that it is the understanding I think I have of Catholicism that makes me want to become Catholic; if I had to convert to the “inside understanding” boasted by some Catholics on this forum, I would certainly never do it.

But my real reasons for not converting are my extremely indecisive personality and my personal attachment to particular communities, traditions, and individuals.

Edwin

 

[stewstew03]

My point is that it is the understanding I think I have of Catholicism that makes me want to become Catholic; if I had to convert to the “inside understanding” boasted by some Catholics on this forum, I would certainly never do it.

There is no “inside understanding” of which I am aware. As a convert from the Southern Baptist tradition, I frequently look to the CCC to remind myself (or to educate myself) on the Church’s teachings.

 

[LisaA]

Well, then you find much of traditional Christianity unappealing. . . for that matter so do I. Both Christianity and Buddhism have a lot of traditional literature that describes the miseries of life in order to wean people from their attachment to “the things of this world.” But in both cases there’s a lot more to what these traditions have to say about the human condition.

Wow no I don’t. In fact I have to wonder how people without a Judeo/Christian faith deal with suffering, pain and loss. I think the “People of the Book” have a foundation in joy, celebration and love. When I read what Buddhists are supposed to do; detach with a sort of fatalistic attitude (which you find in Islam as well…Inschallah) I envision a life of emptiness. Yes attachments do mean sorrow in that you may lose the one you love through death or separation. But as the saying so, had you missed the sorrow you would have also missed the dance. I believe that God wants us to have life ABUNDANTLY…not in the financial sense but to enjoy our physical selves, our relatonships, our aspirations and dreams. If you practice detachment, then I suppose you don’t covet your neighbor’s wife or his beasts or his stuff…but detachment from other human beings?

I guess you have to be born into it for this theory to have some appeal.

Well, you need to take this up with your fellow Catholics who insist on this forum (see the long thread on Buddhism called “Ask a Buddhist”) that Buddhism is wrong for trying to escape suffering, because suffering is something we should embrace. Catholicism, particularly in its 19th- and early-20th-century forms, has often been accused of a morbid fixation on suffering. . . .

I suspect that old view was a misinterpretation. We “embrace” the suffering visited upon us but we don’t try to bring on more of it. The hair shirt and flagelation practices seem pointless and self defeating. Surely God didn’t intend for us to bring on misery so I don’t think that’s a valid criticism of Christianity.

Buddhism does not say that there is nothing in life but suffering (though as with Christianity, some religious rhetoric sounds that way). Buddhism says that all life involves suffering. But “suffering” is used in a particular way–it refers to the dissatisfaction we feel when something we have grabbed onto as permanent turns out to be impermanent. Since life is impermanent, and since in the Buddhist understanding our egos are basically bundles of cravings, this suffering or dissatisfaction is built into all of life. At least that’s how I understand it–I’m sure I don’t get it quite right.

Well I think Christianity has a similar focus but a far less grim approach. IOW nothing is permanent but God. Our earthly relationships, our earthly pleasures, our earthly accomplishments as noted in Ecclesiastes are but dust in the wind. But the point is enjoy the blessings of life while they exist…enjoy the dance. My interpretation is that Buddhism says avoid the attachments (love, relationship, joy etc) because eventually you’ll lose them. This is simply unappealing to me.

Buddhism has a lot to say about the value of compassion and “loving-kindness.” The “attachment” it condemns is a selfish craving that tries to find permanence in what is impermanent.

Yes. But what he said doesn’t apply well to Buddhism with its emphasis on compassion and loving-kindness.

Agree there. I have an appreciation of the Eightfold Path for that reason.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t value dogma or think that religious exploration should be open-ended. What draws me to Catholicism is (well, among many other things) precisely the fact that you are tied to fixed dogmatic points while also engaging in endless development and exploration based on what has already been determined. As Chesterton said, Catholic doctrine and modern Western science are the two intellectual disciplines that really seem to progress, because they don’t continually throw out the basis on which they have been operating but build on the achievements of those who went before.

I don’t think I have ever suggested otherwise!

Edwin

Appreciated your comments about the CCC etc. I don’t think that all truth is known and I think Scripture speaks to this frequently. Jesus refers to not being able to tell the disciples everything and there is the reference to looking through the glass darkly (love that turn of phrase) and that all will be revealed when we see God face to face.

So if someone thinks the current CCC is the once and future and only word on the subject they are probably mistaken. OTOH I think that Vatican II notwithstanding, the basic foundations of Truth are known. The bones, the foundation are known and as you said there will always be questions and debate…until the day comes when we see God face to face.

BTW one additional comment not related to your post above but to subsequent posts. If you are reluctant to embrace the Church because of the failings of its members, I am afraid you will never find a faith home where you feel you belong. We’re sinners all. We fail every day. The Church thankfully cannot be pulled down by the failings of we humans.

Lisa

 

[SteveVH]

And these warnings are also echoed elsewhere in various Catholic books, pamphlets, talks, from mainstream Catholic authorities on the subject.

Not to mention, even in suffering and in emptying ourselves, we Christians believe that our human condition glorifies God, and in so doing transforms our humanity. We derive that from Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It is not the goal of Christianity to eradicate self in the same way that Buddhism sees that effort. When we speak of dying to ourselves and emptying ourselves, it is, as Steve describes, with the goal and anticipation of a transformed self.

Good post, Steve. (The rest of it as well.)

Thanks Elizabeth. I was beginning to wonder if I was making any sense at all.