Catholicism and Free Thought

[MiddleBear]

DeFide:

Where in any document does it say that conclusions or observations must be expressed verbatim from another document?

If you think the statement is wrong, explain how. I’ve already explained from the Catechism how it is correct. (I won’t ask that your explanation be verbatim from a document)

The reason that I asked for verbatim quote is because what you wrote (even though the CCC is referenced) is not what the Church intends for baptized Catholics. For example see the section on the definition of heresy in the CCC (baptized Catholic who does not accept all Church teaching).

Also, I never said conclusions must be verbatim, I was just trying to draw out any unstated premise of your point. As I am going from a post and not a conversation. Nothing more was intended.

Now for a concrete example from the CCC:

See this section of the CCC (846)
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council *(Vatican II) * teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

My observation:

Thus we can readily see that if a baptized Catholic is going through a crisis of faith, or more commonly a moral crisis, and holds the opinion that some settled Church teaching regarding grave matter in faith or morals is wrong , and that person leaves the Church (as in your hypothetical situation) that person would risk “not being saved”. Yet we would not despair for that persons salvation as Jesus is the judge , not us (that’s in the CCC too).

The obvious caveat would be if that person never knew that the “Catholic Church was founded as necessary…”.

I guess if that baptized person went through a watered down RCIA they may qualify.

Also some other case case of “invincible ignorance” would be a mitigating factor in that persons culpability, however the grave matter of the objective act would still exist.

Anyway, my point is not to condem anyone. Instead, I wished to point out that the Church does not recommend that one should leave the Catholic Church if they do not agree with some teaching, (especially as posed by your hypothetical case).

I hope this helps you to see why I contend that the logic in the posed hypothetical (as appearing in this thread) went off track.

Thanks

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Thought must be free.

The Church cannot “command” me to think in any particular way. If she does, especially under threat of sin, then she has robbed me of the chance to willingly go along with her.

How can anybody “freely” believe intellectually in the Church teachings, while operating under the fearsome belief that they must reach certain mental conclusions or be guilty of mortal sin.

This is just a watered-down version of the Inquisition. We warn and threaten that if a person’s thinking isn’t right, they will suffer – if not now, then later. How is it an act of love to assent to someone else’s idea when under threat of punishment for not doing so?

Let me put it this way. If someone says, “I have a beautiful Truth to show you, let me introduce it to you,” and I believe some but maybe not all of it right at once, then I may go on to believe fully later. If at that point, the person says, “well, you really have to believe all this truth or God help you, you will regret it,” then my mind puts up shields right away. Why, if something is True, and if God ostensibly calls us to the truth if we are chosen and when we are ready, do we have to threaten each other to try to force mental cloning? Isn’t the Truth and the Good News sufficient to sell itself, without using coercion? It doesn’t work, and leads to superficial assent and lots of “followers” who actually lie to themselves and others about it.

Alan

 

[DeFide]

MiddleBear:

The reason that I asked for verbatim quote is because what you wrote (even though the CCC is referenced) is not what the Church intends for baptized Catholics. For example see the section on the definition of heresy in the CCC (baptized Catholic who does not accept all Church teaching).

Also, I never said conclusions must be verbatim, I was just trying to draw out any unstated premise of your point. As I am going from a post and not a conversation. Nothing more was intended.

Now for a concrete example from the CCC:

See this section of the CCC (846)
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council *(Vatican II) *teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

My observation:

Thus we can readily see that if a baptized Catholic is going through a crisis of faith, or more commonly a moral crisis, and holds the opinion that some settled Church teaching regarding grave matter in faith or morals is wrong , and that person leaves the Church (as in your hypothetical situation) that person would risk “not being saved”. Yet we would not despair for that persons salvation as Jesus is the judge , not us (that’s in the CCC too).

The obvious caveat would be if that person never knew that the “Catholic Church was founded as necessary…”.

I guess if that baptized person went through a watered down RCIA they may qualify.

Also some other case case of “invincible ignorance” would be a mitigating factor in that persons culpability, however the grave matter of the objective act would still exist.

Anyway, my point is not to condem anyone. Instead, I wished to point out that the Church does not recommend that one should leave the Catholic Church if they do not agree with some teaching, (especially as posed by your hypothetical case).

I hope this helps you to see why I contend that the logic in the posed hypothetical (as appearing in this thread) went off track.

Thanks

Why are you getting off-topic (salvation outside the Church)? We’re talking about conscience and sin. You’re also putting words in my mouth. I never said that someone should leave the Church if they merely do not agree or have difficultly with Church teaching, I said that the Church teaches that they must leave the Church if they (after informing their conscience) believe the Church is a fraud because she is offically teaching error and thus is not what she claims to be. Not leaving would be the equivalent of joining a Church you honestly believe to be false.

The Church teaches that you cannot act against your conscience without condemning yourself.

 

[mike182d]

Ok, here’s my beef with this claim and I’ve heard it a hundred times over:

**No one really believes in freedom of thought.

I guarantee that if during Mass the priest gave a homily making a case *for *pedophilia and how the Church and society are oppressive against his natural desires, the whole of the congregation would be in an uproar and would gladly welcome any reprimands due to this heretical priest.

The heart of the problem is *not *that the Church stifles free thought, but rather the Church stifles *my *free thought. It is okay for the Church to speak against things if I agree with them, but if the Church speaks out against what I believe, then the Church is being oppressive and outstepping its bounds.

I really wonder if Fr. Reese had written editorials promoting pedophilia, anti-semitism, and other such positions in direct conflict with Church teaching, would liberal Catholics and the media have produced the same uproar over his removal?

 

[Ahimsa]

AlanFromWichita:

Thought must be free.

The Church cannot “command” me to think in any particular way. If she does, especially under threat of sin, then she has robbed me of the chance to willingly go along with her.

How can anybody “freely” believe intellectually in the Church teachings, while operating under the fearsome belief that they must reach certain mental conclusions or be guilty of mortal sin.

This is just a watered-down version of the Inquisition. We warn and threaten that if a person’s thinking isn’t right, they will suffer – if not now, then later. How is it an act of love to assent to someone else’s idea when under threat of punishment for not doing so?

Let me put it this way. If someone says, “I have a beautiful Truth to show you, let me introduce it to you,” and I believe some but maybe not all of it right at once, then I may go on to believe fully later. If at that point, the person says, “well, you really have to believe all this truth or God help you, you will regret it,” then my mind puts up shields right away. Why, if something is True, and if God ostensibly calls us to the truth if we are chosen and when we are ready, do we have to threaten each other to try to force mental cloning? Isn’t the Truth and the Good News sufficient to sell itself, without using coercion? It doesn’t work, and leads to superficial assent and lots of “followers” who actually lie to themselves and others about it.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mike182d:

Ok, here’s my beef with this claim and I’ve heard it a hundred times over:

**No one *really ***believes in freedom of thought.

I guarantee that if during Mass the priest gave a homily making a case *for *pedophilia and how the Church and society are oppressive against his natural desires, the whole of the congregation would be in an uproar and would gladly welcome any reprimands due to this heretical priest.

The heart of the problem is *not *that the Church stifles free thought, but rather the Church stifles *my *free thought. It is okay for the Church to speak against things if I agree with them, but if the Church speaks out against what I believe, then the Church is being oppressive and outstepping its bounds.

I really wonder if Fr. Reese had written editorials promoting pedophilia, anti-semitism, and other such positions in direct conflict with Church teaching, would liberal Catholics and the media have produced the same uproar over his removal?

I can’t really tell which side you are arguing. Is your beef with the claim that nobody really believes in free thought, or is your beef with the idea of free thought and you say nobody really believes in it?

If I pledge to give full intellectual assent to the Church, then who am I to second-guess what the priest says during the homily? Why can I not go to an official Catholic Church, an official Catholic Mass, and listen to the priest without trying to use my own intellect?

If it is my job to already know everything so that I can judge whatever the priest says during the homily, then the whole thing could be taken care of a lot easier if we just skipped the homily and I took home what I already know. In other words, if I am supposed to exercise free thought, then it becomes my job to check up on the priest – hardly the way things should be.

Is that anything like what you meant?

Alan

 

[MiddleBear]

DeFide:

Why are you getting off-topic (salvation outside the Church)? We’re talking about conscience and sin. You’re also putting words in my mouth. I never said that someone should leave the Church if they merely do not agree or have difficultly with Church teaching, I said that the Church teaches that they must leave the Church if they (after informing their conscience) believe the Church is a fraud because she is offically teaching error and thus is not what she claims to be. Not leaving would be the equivalent of joining a Church you honestly believe to be false.

The Church teaches that you cannot act against your conscience without condemning yourself.

Well your conclusion is off base. It does have a grain of truth but is misleading. Remember we are discussing the hypothetical case of a baptized Catholic rejecting some Church teaching and then leaving. You say that, that person can draw the conclusion that if the Church doesn’t agree with that persons view then the Church is false, and that this position is what the Church means by following your conscience. I say that is nonsense.

Yes one must go by their conscience. However for a baptized Catholic this is a properly formedCatholic conscience. The logical conclusion (consequece) to your hypothetical argument is that we are perfectly OK to fall into heresey. I am saying that is not Catholic Teaching.

One last time: The Church teaches that if a baptized Catholic doesn’t agree with some Church teaching (grave matter in faith or morals) and leaves then that person has fallen into heresey. Also another hard teaching is that if that person knows the Catholic Church is founded and necessary for salvation and refuses to stay in the Church, then that person is at risk of losing salvation.

*Oh yes, This is not an Inquisition or a coercion, it is speaking authetic Church teahing. *

Wrapping up my comments on this topic:

As Catholics we are privileged to have the gift of the magisterium (JPII BXVI). We do not blindly check our brains at the door. We instead have the attitude of humility, and submit our selves to authoritative Church teaching. Thus, if we find some teaching to be hard, then what we need to do is to prayerfully learn what and why the Church teaches such and such, and not to bolt if you will.

I could have cited numerous other sections of the CCC, besides the one that I did, (for example refer to the section where the Church gives the definition of definition of faith), and readily show that the logic posed by the concluson of the hypothetical case does not hold water.

Also what I am advocating is not my personal opinion. I am repeating magisterial teaching (not verbatim though) per the CCC, John Paul II, Bedict XVI, also catechetical material from Father John Hardon and Father John Corapi.

In closing , I’ll paraphrase somthing that Father Corapi has said in some talks, (this is from memeory)

Father Corapy, (addressing a hypothetical dissenting Catholic)

Oh, you say, you do not believe all that the Chuch teaches

(note: such as regarding artificial contraception, abortion or dogmas, papal infallability, need for confession of grave sins)

Well you are a heretic…have a nice day.

I am not calling you a heretic , I am addressing the argument and the logic , so please do not take offense.

These hard teaching could make someone (i.e. moi) sound like a fuddy duddy, however true freedom is found from the truth.

Recall from the Gospel according to Saint John,

the truth will set you free.

Hope this helps.

Thanks

 

[mike182d]

AlanFromWichita:

I can’t really tell which side you are arguing. Is your beef with the claim that nobody really believes in free thought, or is your beef with the idea of free thought and you say nobody really believes in it?

Sorry about the confusion, Alan

My point was simply that when we typically speak of human freedom in society, we do not think of it as the freedom to do whatever we want, but rather the freedom to do what is right.

With freedom of thought, the same rules apply. It is not the freedom to believe whatever you want, it is the freedom to believe what is right.

I was trying to illustrate that people who typically criticize the Church for not being “open” to free thought do not actually believe the concept they are supporting themselves. For instance, a close relative of mine thinks that the Church is close-minded for not being open to the discussion of homosexual marriage. My point was that these same people would not be terribly upset about the Church not being open to the discussion of practicing pedophelia.

People pick and choose what they think the Church should stand firm on when it suits their own personal beliefs and this is the great evil of relativism that Pope Benedict XVI speaks of.

 

[DeFide]

MiddleBear:

Well your conclusion is off base. It does have a grain of truth but is misleading. Remember we are discussing the hypothetical case of a baptized Catholic rejecting some Church teaching and then leaving. You say that, that person can draw the conclusion that if the Church doesn’t agree with that persons view then the Church is false, and that this position is what the Church means by following your conscience. I say that is nonsense.

Yes one must go by their conscience. However for a baptized Catholic this is a properly formedCatholic conscience. The logical conclusion (consequece) to your hypothetical argument is that we are perfectly OK to fall into heresey. I am saying that is not Catholic Teaching.

One last time: The Church teaches that if a baptized Catholic doesn’t agree with some Church teaching (grave matter in faith or morals) and leaves then that person has fallen into heresey. Also another hard teaching is that if that person knows the Catholic Church is founded and necessary for salvation and refuses to stay in the Church, then that person is at risk of losing salvation.

*Oh yes, This is not an Inquisition or a coercion, it is speaking authetic Church teahing. *

Wrapping up my comments on this topic:

As Catholics we are privileged to have the gift of the magisterium (JPII BXVI). We do not blindly check our brains at the door. We instead have the attitude of humility, and submit our selves to authoritative Church teaching. Thus, if we find some teaching to be hard, then what we need to do is to prayerfully learn what and why the Church teaches such and such, and not to bolt if you will.

I could have cited numerous other sections of the CCC, besides the one that I did, (for example refer to the section where the Church gives the definition of definition of faith), and readily show that the logic posed by the concluson of the hypothetical case does not hold water.

Also what I am advocating is not my personal opinion. I am repeating magisterial teaching (not verbatim though) per the CCC, John Paul II, Bedict XVI, also catechetical material from Father John Hardon and Father John Corapi.

In closing , I’ll paraphrase somthing that Father Corapi has said in some talks, (this is from memeory)

Father Corapy, (addressing a hypothetical dissenting Catholic)

Oh, you say, you do not believe all that the Chuch teaches

(note: such as regarding artificial contraception, abortion or dogmas, papal infallability, need for confession of grave sins)

Well you are a heretic…have a nice day.

I am not calling you a heretic , I am addressing the argument and the logic , so please do not take offense.

These hard teaching could make someone (i.e. moi) sound like a fuddy duddy, however true freedom is found from the truth.

Recall from the Gospel according to Saint John,

the truth will set you free.

Hope this helps.

Thanks

You seem to insist on misrepresenting what I’m saying so I’ll try to make this very clear with some examples of how the Church views different circumstances:

Acting in accord with conscience (Good):

You have a difficulty with officially-defined Church teaching, but since you recognize the Church’s voice of authority to teach matters of faith and morality, you accept her judgement with docility and keep trying to understand.

Acting in defiance of conscience (Bad):

You informed your conscience as best you could, but you nevertheless come to believe that the Church is teaching error on some official teaching regarding faith and morals, but you decide to stay obedient to what you now honestly believe to be a fraud.

Knowing that the Church down the street is not the true Church, you nevertheless join to please your girlfriend.

You reject Church teaching out of pride or convenience while knowing that the Church is exactly what she claims to be.

Not wanting to live by what you suspect to be Church teaching, you willfully shun becoming informed so that you may act how you prefer.

---

1.) Notice that I’m not saying that error is a good thing, but rather that the Church teaches that you cannot act against your conscience without condemning yourself.

2.) Note too, that you can attempt to have a properly-formed conscience and still judge erroneously despite your best efforts.

3.) If a person honestly believes the Church is a fraud, then they do not recognize it as the true Church. Your own argument works against you.

4.) Believing error (even material heresy) is not necessarily a sin.

5.) You’re not expressing church teaching, but are misunderstanding and misrepresenting it.

 

[MiddleBear]

[Thanks , that clears up some points. I’m not intending to misrepresent what you are saying, I am only going by the language of your posts.

I’ll add comment to the various situations.

Acting in accord with conscience (Good):

You have a difficulty with officially-defined Church teaching, but since you recognize the Church’s voice of authority to teach matters of faith and morality, you accept her judgement with docility and keep trying to understand.

That’s a good move! And the point that I am trying to advocate.

You informed your conscience as best you could, but you nevertheless come to believe that the Church is teaching error on some official teaching regarding faith and morals, but you decide to stay obedient to what you now honestly believe to be a fraud.

I would say that so far the action is not bad (morally wrong), but it is incomplete, and unwise. You should humbly be obedient and try to understand the subject teaching better. Thus, this is not a moral evil, but it is not what the Church intends. The Church recommends spiritual direction or good confessor.

Knowing that the Church down the street is not the true Church, you nevertheless join to please your girlfriend.
Danger wrong turn!, This is a bad choice, the person is now respecting man, instead of the Creator!

You reject Church teaching out of pride or convenience while knowing that the Church is exactly what she claims to be.
Danger wrong turn this is a bad choice as pride is the capital sin!

Not wanting to live by what you suspect to be Church teaching, you willfully shun becoming informed so that you may act how you prefer.
Danger wrong turn! Bad choice , culpable ignorance see CCC.

---

My comments :
to point 1.
Well actually the Church teacingis that you cannot act against a well-formed conscience with out condemning your self. A case where the correct course of action is to act against your conscience is the case when someone has a scrupulous conscience. One who is scrupulous would think something’s a sin that is not, or something is a mortal sin that is actually venial. The scrupulous person typically goes about thinking they are doomed. The Church teaches that you are not to follow your conscience in this case. The Church teaches that you need spiritual direction and a good confessor to help you, and that you are to follow your confessor’s recommendations and penance if assigned.

The opposite extreme is if one has a presumptuous conscience, you believe nothing is a sin, or mortal sins are actually venial. In this case you are not to follow your conscience, as it is improperly formed. Remedy, spiritual direction and a good confessor.
So you see what I disagree with post. It appears to say that we are to always follow our conscience even if the conscience is malformed. The previous example may draw out the difficulties in this ongoing interaction.

2.) Note too, that you can attempt to have a properly-formed conscience and still judge erroneously despite your best efforts.

That is true, and as I have stated …Church teaching, good confessor and spiritual direction.

3.) If a person honestly believes the Church is a fraud, then they do not recognize it as the true Church.

That is not a necessary conclusion.

Your own argument works against you.

I don’t think so. You may not understand my writing either, or you may disagree with what I am saying. nderstand that I am addressing the case of a baptized Catholic. The baptized catholic is not supposed to see the Church (really the Church magisterial teaching in faith and morals) as a fraud. Individual Church members are sinners and may cause scandal, and may act fraudently, but that is a different matter.

4.) Believing error (even material heresy) is not necessarily a sin.

Actually the action is a wrong action (dare I say sinful action), heresey is an objective evil, (objectively the matter is a sinful act). What is not know is the judgement of the degree of cculpability if any (that’s up to our Lord Jesus). Thus, if the person really believes something is not a sin, that person may be judged to be culpable of no sin, or a venial sin rather than mortal. The purgation could be in this life or next. But the act is still objectively wrong, though the culpability may be nil.

Comment to point 5 .

Yes, I am expressing Church teaching, but in language that you are not used to, and in language to draw out what you disagreed with. I did this as I found the language of the post to be at times ambigous or wrong sounding in the conclusions.

Again, I am not purposely attempting to misrepresent what you intended to say. I am only going from the words you wrote in your post.

Please take what I said in consideration, reread what I actually said, and be sure to understand the premise. Also take a look again at the mentioned sections of the CCC keeping in mind the gist of my comments.

I know that I will do the same with your comments too.

I found this to be a good exchange, and it gave me some good points to consider in reading the CCC and other magisterial documents.

Thanks for taking the time to give your comments.

 

[DeFide]

MiddleBear:

…

You informed your conscience as best you could, but you nevertheless come to believe that the Church is teaching error on some official teaching regarding faith and morals, but you decide to stay obedient to what you now honestly believe to be a fraud.

I would say that so far the action is not bad (morally wrong), but it is incomplete, and unwise. You should humbly be obedient and try to understand the subject teaching better. Thus, this is not a moral evil, but it is not what the Church intends. The Church recommends spiritual direction or good confessor.

My comments :
to point 1.
Well actually the Church teacingis that you cannot act against a well-formed conscience with out condemning your self. A case where the correct course of action is to act against your conscience is the case when someone has a scrupulous conscience. One who is scrupulous would think something’s a sin that is not, or something is a mortal sin that is actually venial. The scrupulous person typically goes about thinking they are doomed. The Church teaches that you are not to follow your conscience in this case. The Church teaches that you need spiritual direction and a good confessor to help you, and that you are to follow your confessor’s recommendations and penance if assigned.

2.) Note too, that you can attempt to have a properly-formed conscience and still judge erroneously despite your best efforts.

That is true, and as I have stated …Church teaching, good confessor and spiritual direction.

…

You are accountable to do the best you can with what you know. Section 1790 of the Catechism does not have an exception for baptized Catholics:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

If you seek further counseling after informing your conscience, then that DEMONSTRATES that you know that there is still room for you to stay in the Church while still acting according to your conscience. Hence, you do not really (yet) believe the Church is in error and thus a fraud.

Similarly, if you’re scrupulous and seek outside advice, then that DEMONSTRATES that you know your condition and are acting according to what you know… acting according to your conscience means getting help with your conscience. The same goes for the other extreme.

At the risk of going over-the-top with my explanation, believing the Church is in error (and thus a fraud) PRESUPPOSES that you have no room left in your conscience to believe otherwise.

The whole point of this teaching is to emphasize that it is not possible to sin if, from beginning to end, you do the best you can with what you know, even if you misunderstand, or act erroneously. Baptized Catholics are no exception.

 

[Shlemele]

Not to throw off the discussion but my opinion of Catholic attitudes has been that the church dogma is more important than knowing the bible. For a protestant this is seen like ignorance because for us the bible IS the only dogma we recognize (tradition is not seen as an authority, not trying to pick a fight that is just the way we believe). That being said My wife was very ignorant of my beliefs and hers when we first met. I was raised in a Mennonite church and he in the Catholic church. I went to secular schools until college and she went to Catholic school until she was in 8th grade. We both went to church pretty much every Sunday but when we met I had a much greater knowledge of the bible. We believe that every member of the church has the right to learn and interpret the bible so a big part of our teaching in reading and learning scripture.

The kicker, I believe God used this tradition in bringing my wife and I together. Before going to college and meeting my wife I was in a bible study where we spent about 4 months reading the Song of Songs from the perspective of a sexual relationship in marriage. In those months I learned so much about the way God wants me to treat my wife. A year later when I met my wife I had to go back to those teaching almost every week. She was the victim of some trauma in high school that I won’t go into but had I not gone to that bible study I don’t believe that I would have known how to address some of the problems that we faced in the early part of our relationship.

Well to close this I think that you have to understand that part of being protestant or Anabaptists (yes there is a difference) is that ALL insight is derived from scripture and not filtered. We believe that it is the Holy Spirits job to filter truth. Again I’m not trying to step on toes here, just to provide some insight to the other side of the case.

 

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

Not to throw off the discussion but my opinion of Catholic attitudes has been that the church dogma is more important than knowing the bible. For a protestant this is seen like ignorance because for us the bible IS the only dogma we recognize (tradition is not seen as an authority, not trying to pick a fight that is just the way we believe). That being said My wife was very ignorant of my beliefs and hers when we first met. I was raised in a Mennonite church and he in the Catholic church. I went to secular schools until college and she went to Catholic school until she was in 8th grade. We both went to church pretty much every Sunday but when we met I had a much greater knowledge of the bible. We believe that every member of the church has the right to learn and interpret the bible so a big part of our teaching in reading and learning scripture.

The kicker, I believe God used this tradition in bringing my wife and I together. Before going to college and meeting my wife I was in a bible study where we spent about 4 months reading the Song of Songs from the perspective of a sexual relationship in marriage. In those months I learned so much about the way God wants me to treat my wife. A year later when I met my wife I had to go back to those teaching almost every week. She was the victim of some trauma in high school that I won’t go into but had I not gone to that bible study I don’t believe that I would have known how to address some of the problems that we faced in the early part of our relationship.

Well to close this I think that you have to understand that part of being protestant or Anabaptists (yes there is a difference) is that ALL insight is derived from scripture and not filtered. We believe that it is the Holy Spirits job to filter truth. Again I’m not trying to step on toes here, just to provide some insight to the other side of the case.

I have some questions for you:

First, how can the bible be a “dogma?” It is a book that needs to be interpreted and therefore is a passive agent.

You, the interpreter is the active agent, and therefore determine for yourself what “dogma” you will follow.

Second, have you tested the bible knowledge of all Catholics? Or, have you ever tried to play bible trivia with Protestants? Just try to play it with your friends and see the response you get.

Catholics and Protestant are equally ignorant of the bible. The only difference as I can see it is that Catholics don’t carry the bible around with them while claiming to base their entire belief system on it, at the same time being ignorant of its content.

This is not Protestant bashing, just 13 years of experience in the Protestantism.

My point: knowledge is availible to all, both to the Protestant and the Catholic. It is up to you and me and whoever to take the steps necessary to gain that knowledge. You can bring a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

Thirdly, how did the early Church view the bible and Tradition? Did they have the same view as you?

I know you will probably say, mistakes were made, sinful people were involved, so the church today will not look like the church then…, but who is to say that what you believe is not a mistake? I mean, the people who started your church are human and sinful… you get the point.

There has to be a way for those who seek the truth to find it, right? If not, then how do we know if we actully believe the truth?

The evidence in the early Church is there for all those who care to look, just as Sacred Scripture is there for all to read.

Peace

 

[Shlemele]

You, the interpreter is the active agent, and therefore determine for yourself what “dogma” you will follow.

Actually we believe that the Holy spirit is the active ingredient.

Catholics and Protestant are equally ignorant of the bible. The only difference as I can see it is that Catholics don’t carry the bible around with them while claiming to base their entire belief system on it, at the same time being ignorant of its content

I’m speaking of experience here too. I’m trying to be civil but I keep getting the idea you want to try to pick a fight. I’m not talking about interpretation here or social nuances, I’m talking simple content. I knew a lot more stories and passages than my wife or most other Catholics i knew did. Simple fact related from my life experiences. My wife took some bible classes and we could talk about passages I had known my whole life while she had just read them for the first time.

This is not Protestant bashing, just 13 years of experience in the Protestantism.

So far bashing is exactly what it feels like. I took care to explain I was posting to give insight to why we as protestants are disposed to think along certain lines. I’m trying to build bridges here, not burn them down.

Thirdly, how did the early Church view the bible and Tradition? Did they have the same view as you?

Following the teaching of the early church and the mindset of the early fathers is in my churches web site.
USMB.org:

The Protestant Reformation had not gone far enough. The early Anabaptists, while diverse and far from perfect, committed themselves to nothing less than the restoration of the New Testament church. We, their heirs, have the privilege of reemphasizing these twelve principles, in word and deed, here and now.

I know you will probably say, mistakes were made, sinful people were involved, so the church today will not look like the church then…, but who is to say that what you believe is not a mistake? I mean, the people who started your church are human and sinful… you get the point.

Yes but we base our theology on scripture BECAUSE we know man is sinful. The thing is that in my tradition it’s ok to make admit that we made mistakes. We don’t hold our church elders up to the same level Catholics do (in the tradition vs scripture issue scripture ALWAYS wins out).

There has to be a way for those who seek the truth to find it, right? If not, then how do we know if we actually believe the truth?

The holy spirit and the fruits of the spirit.

Again I didn’t post here to try and defend my church (although I find myself doing that a lot these days on this board). I came here to try to help some of the posters understand why some of us protestants believe the way we do.

 

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

Actually we believe that the Holy spirit is the active ingredient…

I have the Holy Spirit too, but we disagree. Where do we go from here?

Shlemele:

I’m speaking of experience here too. I’m trying to be civil but I keep getting the idea you want to try to pick a fight. I’m not talking about interpretation here or social nuances, I’m talking simple content. I knew a lot more stories and passages than my wife or most other Catholics i knew did. Simple fact related from my life experiences. My wife took some bible classes and we could talk about passages I had known my whole life while she had just read them for the first time.

I honestly do not want to pick a fight, but I’m always up for lively debate. We are talking about thing that are dear to us, so obviously we will try to give a strong case and high light weaknesses in the other persons arguments. I believe this the the greatest way at gaining understanding.

My comments regarding the degree of knowledge of Protestants and Catholics was meant to relate the fact that knowledge is relative to individual people involved. I have experienced biblical ignorance in both camps, and believe me there in no great difference.

Shlemele:

So far bashing is exactly what it feels like. I took care to explain I was posting to give insight to why we as protestants are disposed to think along certain lines. I’m trying to build bridges here, not burn them down.

And we are taking care to explain that some of your insights may be misguided. I hear the Scripture every Sunday in Mass (or everyday if I choose to go to daily Mass). In three years I have the whole bible read to me. I can’t think of any Protestant church which can claim that.

Shlemele:

Following the teaching of the early church and the mindset of the early fathers is in my churches web site.

“The Protestant Reformation had not gone far enough. The early Anabaptists, while diverse and far from perfect, committed themselves to nothing less than the restoration of the New Testament church. We, their heirs, have the privilege of reemphasizing these twelve principles, in word and deed, here and now.”

So, the early church was Anabaptists? How exaclty can one restore the New Testament Church? I read this and think, “your worldview is different than 1st century society, your not Jewish, or Roman, you don’t believe in a flat earth, seven tiered heaven, the Apostles are 20 centuries away from you and did and thought more than what was written down…etc” How can you recreate something that you are so far removed from? Its like me recreated Babylon using the Code of Hammurabi. I could never do it, for I lack the cultural and sociological understanding of the time. I would be reading my own 21st century understanding into the Code and created anything but what Babylonian culture was. This is exactly what the Anabaptist did in the 16th and 17th centuries. They read their own cultural presuppositions into the New Testament text.

If you want to know what the early Church looked like read the Fathers.

Shlemele:

Yes but we base our theology on scripture BECAUSE we know man is sinful. The thing is that in my tradition it’s ok to make admit that we made mistakes. We don’t hold our church elders up to the same level Catholics do (in the tradition vs scripture issue scripture ALWAYS wins out).

You base your theology on an interpretation of Scripture. And its the tradition vs. (your interpretation of) scripture issue.

Shlemele:

The holy spirit and the fruits of the spirit.

Then the Holy Spirit is telling people a thousand different things, for there are thousands of people who believe differently then you claiming the same Holy Spirit and bearing the same fruits.

Shlemele:

Again I didn’t post here to try and defend my church (although I find myself doing that a lot these days on this board). I came here to try to help some of the posters understand why some of us protestants believe the way we do.

Again, we are just trying to help you understand why Catholics believe the way we do.

Peace

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Shlemele:

Not to throw off the discussion but my opinion of Catholic attitudes has been that the church dogma is more important than knowing the bible. For a protestant this is seen like ignorance because for us the bible IS the only dogma we recognize ……………. We both went to church pretty much every Sunday but when we met I had a much greater knowledge of the bible. We believe that every member of the church has the right to learn and interpret the bible so a big part of our teaching in reading and learning scripture.
……………
Well to close this I think that you have to understand that part of being protestant or Anabaptists (yes there is a difference) is that ALL insight is derived from scripture and not filtered. We believe that it is the Holy Spirits job to filter truth. Again I’m not trying to step on toes here, just to provide some insight to the other side of the case.

The ironic part is that since Catholics and Protestant (and Anabaptists) each think the other has it wrong then the ability to recite chapter and verse is not per se an indication of understanding what the words mean.

Christian history is filled with both the pious but unlearned as well as the insightful scholar.

However, humans are capable of infinite self-deception. I mean I’m sure Jim Jones knew the bible real well as he mixed up the poison cool aid and that Romanian priest who just crucified that poor woman spent years in a seminary studying the scriptures; so obviously personal interpretation has its limits. The idea of having an organized group understanding of what things mean is not surrendering free thought or brainwashing. It is a reality check….a standard against which we can measure out understanding.

If everyone is going their own way and doing their own thing than what is the point of a church? You may as well just go to the library.