Do you believe there is one true church?

[jmcrae]

While I am glad you posted ideas for thinking about the Church yesterday, this posting is not as classy.

Thanks for the crit. Did you have anything by way of an actual response?

Did we ever define codswallops?

I think we did, but I skimmed past that part of the conversation to get to something more interesting, so I don’t remember it.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Good point. In our RCIA group last night, it came up that God does not send anyone to Hell. People choose freely to go there, by choosing to reject Him, and by choosing to disobey His commandments.

I find it impossible that a God of love sends moral non-Christians straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. I also do not believe that he sends all Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems and other ‘pagans’ to hell. We too have discussed in our RCIA: and concluded that there are very very few people in purgatory or hell. That is not because *they *choose to actively reject him, but because He loves those He made, and gives brownie points for trying - in lives that are often difficult beyond our comprehension of it. Is this variation in RCIA understanding diversity in unity, unity in diversity?

And we cannot forget (I keep reminding you, and am criticised for doing so, but it is an idea that seems not to have stuck) that the Dogmatic Constitution, Vatican II, speaks to the salvation of The Other.

 

[jmcrae]

I find it impossible that a God of love sends moral non-Christians straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. I also do not believe that he sends all Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems and other ‘pagans’ to hell. We too have discussed in our RCIA: and concluded that there are very very few people in purgatory or hell.

Just because it’s possible for moral non-Christians etc. to go to Heaven does not mean that all non-Christians are moral, or that Hell is underpopulated. There are plenty of people who think God should do things their way, rather than the other way around.

And we cannot forget (I keep reminding you, and am criticised for doing so, but it is an idea that seems not to have stuck) that the Dogmatic Constitution, Vatican II, speaks to the salvation of The Other.

Yes, it does. I don’t see where I said anything to contradict anything in the Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican II, or any of its other documents.

Our point last night was that nobody who goes to Hell is ever taken by surprise at the fact, because they make a full and conscious choice to reject God and His Church. Those who are doing their best to follow God as they understand Him will ultimately end up in Heaven. Remember, it is impossible to sin mortally if one has no idea that one has sinned at all.

But that doesn’t mean that there is nobody in Hell. Nor does it preclude a long stay in Purgatory, to wash away the effects of actions that the person didn’t realize at the time were sinful.

 

[Contarini]

Taking a “shot in the dark” here, but he may be suggesting that Jesus never uttered the word “church” in any language other than if he said “assembly” or “congregation”.

As I reminded Nevim, Jesus did not speak English! The Gospels use the word “ekklesia,” which could be translated as “assembly” or “congregation” as well as “church.”

The gospels were written decades after his death, the gospels are not “word for word” diaries of his sayings…much tradition is bound up in them. He may be refering to the “authentic” sayings of Jesus never containing the word “church”.

While I realize labels tend to polarize people into camps, I’ll use a label for clarity sake…more…“liberal” scholars would agree with him…Jesus never said the word…“church”…some of the “words” attributed to him are statements of faith from the growing Christian community of the first century “put into the mouth” of Jesus at “interpretation” of what they were coming to believe he meant.

Publisher, I don’t think that’s what Nevim is talking about. He mentioned the 13th century, after all, and he’s a Messianic Jew–they usually don’t go in for the views you have expressed.

You and I could argue this point separately, but I think Nevim and I are agreed that the Gospels are authentic representations of what Jesus said and did.

I do not believe that they are word-for-word transcripts, of course, but I do believe that

1. They are essentially accurate; and
2. They are all we have and all attempts to get behind them land in swamps of subjectivity and special pleading.

Edwin

 

[StevenFrancis]

…2

These authors have informed my understandings,

Hi Carol:

I know how sensitive you can be to responses on these forums, and I have refrained from posting on this thread for a while now. I am compelled however, to offer some advice here on the subject of reading material.

You have told me that you are currently going through the RCIA journey. This is one of the most important and special times in a persons’ life. I did not come to the Church until I was 48 years old, and I converted from Buddhism. My life was filled with the study of theological material from all aspects of the religious spectrum of experience, for most of my life. While I was in RCIA, I decided to refrain from study on any other faith traditions, and allowed myself to read and study only Catholic Christian doctrine and theology. After all, it was Catholicism I was seeking in RCIA. I already spent a lifetime everywhere else. This was only fair in my estimation. To give Catholic thought my undivided and fully disciplined attention for this brief period of time in my life. To let the Holy Spirit guide me through what He wanted me to see of Catholic thought. I read only the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Summa Theologica (Aquinas), Papal encyclicals and exhortations, the Roman Missal, etc. Even in my meditation, (I was a Buddhist), I reflected on Catholocism and Catholic Dogma, tradition etc. I prayed for understanding of Christ’s Church. I reasoned that all the other material would still be there should I have decided that I was not going to become Catholic. But for that space in time, my body, mind and soul belonged to God, the Saints (Francis and Therese are both very attractive to those converting from Buddhism and Hinduism), and other writers and thinkers of the Roman Catholic Church. I had a particular affinity to Scott Hahn, who is perhaps the writer that the Holy Spirit spoke most strongly through in my journey. His book, “The Lamb’s Supper”, in fact, was the seed planted in my life by God which set up that incredible moment in my life, which I find nearly impossible to describe to someone, where the Holy Spirit whispered in my heart…“follow”… and brought me to an open pew at the marriage feast of the Lamb of God. Praise be to Lord Jesus Christ.

During my ‘fast’ from outside material, something pretty amazing happened. My path to Catholic understanding was made clear and present in ways that were crystal clear. Now, that my fast is over, and I am allowed in my heart to read anything I would like, I find that the depth of material out there on Catholicism alone, is more than enough to keep me reading and thinking for the rest of my temporal existence.

The books you listed are all fine books for someone who is already converted, or still searching a broader field, but while in formation, and in the process of conversion? I’m not so sure.

Every person is different of course, and I don’t presume to know you. I’m not about to stand here and tell you not to do whatever it is you must do. I am simply SUGGESTING, as a person who has just come through all this, that you take a little break from non-Catholic reading material, and perhaps these sometimes argumentative, exhausting, (and, unfortunately at times, even counter productive and frustrating), forums to reflect, pray, read your Bible and Catechism, maybe a little Hahn, Aquinas, Ott, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and such. Have Catholic discussions with your sponsor and Parish Priest, your RCIA team and mostly with God about what it means to be a Catholic.

After you’ve experienced the incredible transforming sacraments of Baptism, Reconciliation, Confirmation and Eucharist, all the rest will still be there to read and think about, but I promise you, it will be through a new pair of eyes from then on. In fact, you may decide, as I did, that temporal life is too short, even to read the important readings of my own Church, to even want to spend too much more of that time elsewhere. Been there. Done that.

You are deeply intellectual. You may have to give yourself permission to take a break from applying that intellect in the broad sense that you are accustomed. You are, after all, already as far as RCIA. Something already took you that far. Now, perhaps, it’s time to turn it over, (temporarily, at least), to God alone, in order to complete your journey into the heart of the Church. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Take this, (along with all else that I say), as the single grain of sand on a long beach that it truly is. From one small Catholic convert in a sea of many who has gone from Om to Amen. Peace be with you on your amazing journey ahead,

Yours in Christ,

Steven

 

[Publisher]

As I reminded Nevim, Jesus did not speak English! The Gospels use the word “ekklesia,” which could be translated as “assembly” or “congregation” as well as “church.”

Publisher, I don’t think that’s what Nevim is talking about. He mentioned the 13th century, after all, and he’s a Messianic Jew–they usually don’t go in for the views you have expressed.

You and I could argue this point separately, but I think Nevim and I are agreed that the Gospels are authentic representations of what Jesus said and did.

I do not believe that they are word-for-word transcripts, of course, but I do believe that

1. They are essentially accurate; and
2. They are all we have and all attempts to get behind them land in swamps of subjectivity and special pleading.

Edwin

You may be correct concerning Nevim’s stance on scripture…I was suggesting perhaps an alternative understanding…“Jesus never said the word church” made complete sense to me from the standpoint I mentioned…one I do agree with by the way…I enjoy many of the writings of Bart Erhman, Marcus Borg, John Spong(gasp!), and Burton Mack.

I find the idea of scripture coming to us layer upon layer to be more compelling than that the gospels were written by the apostles or associates of the apostles that bear their names…but that’s ok, I’ve been called a heretic here already…so it’s no biggie.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol Coombe;2146923:

Dear Steven,

I thank you for your gracious generosity. I thank you too for your helpful recommendations which I shall follow, particularly with regard to reading. I remain hopeful that perhaps my own journey will reflect in some small way the wonderful journey you have made into Christ. Despair sets in at times, but I remain hopeful.

You have come from a different belief system. I took the chance in recent years, as I travelled professionally, to read as much as I could about other belief systems, other faiths. When I was unexpectedly given a chance to take time out and look at life, I decided to undertake my spiritual journey (sannyasi). I chose to concentrate on my own religion, Christianity, to focus hard on it, and to wish myself on the Catholic Church, for a variety of reasons not all of which have to do with faith and doctrine, or any Absolute Truth.

That has in fact meant that my broader reading has

taken a back seat, and my engagement with the spiritual leaders of Catholicism - Vanier, Nouwen, Merton, de Chardin - has become a priority. I feel hopelessly inept at understanding the full import of what I read, and at remembering. But I am told that if I repeat the reading, the searching of documents, the thrashing through of Vatican publications, something will stick.

I do find that the CCC is at times an exceedingly annoying document: it feels as if it has been written for very young people; it rambles; in some places it seems to contradict itself (sin, evil, informed conscience); and of course it is gender insensitive. But it is authoritative, and if read with the Jerome Bible Commentary in the other hand, will eventually make sense.

As I went through my own books today in order to make a bibliography that might be useful to others, I realised what a chasm exists between the reading I had been doing on one hand, the sense of intimacy with Christ I had been feeling, and the broken-ness and healing which taught me so much, and the harsher climate of the Forum on the other. There has been much trauma, intellectual and spiritual, which has perhaps had a negative effect on my insights and spiritual growth. I felt very much at home with my old friends in the books, and expect to return to spend more time with them.

We must all be relieved that learning to be a Catholic is a learning curve, a lifelong process, slow at the start, but perhaps picking up with the kind of help, support and advice you and others have given. Thank you, you are too kind.

Blessings,
Love from Carol

Jabulani!

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol Coombe;2146923:

#501 ff
Re Bibliography

Hi Carol:

I know how sensitive you can be to responses on these forums, and I have refrained from posting on this thread for a while now. I am compelled however, to offer some advice here on the subject of reading material.

…
Yours in Christ,

Steven

Dear Steven,

I thank you for your gracious generosity. I thank you too for your helpful recommendations which I shall follow, particularly with regard to reading. I remain hopeful that perhaps my own journey will reflect in some small way the wonderful journey you have made into Christ. Despair sets in at times, but I remain hopeful.

You have come from a different belief system. I took the chance in recent years, as I travelled professionally, to read as much as I could about other belief systems, other faiths. When I was unexpectedly given a chance to take time out and look at life, I decided to undertake my spiritual journey (sannyasi). I chose to concentrate on my own religion, Christianity, to focus hard on it, and to wish myself on the Catholic Church, for a variety of reasons not all of which have to do with faith and doctrine, or any Absolute Truth.

That has in fact meant that my broader reading has taken a back seat, and my engagement with the spiritual leaders of Catholicism - Vanier, Nouwen, Merton, de Chardin - has become a priority. I feel hopelessly inept at understanding the full import of what I read, and at remembering. But I am told that if I repeat the reading, the searching of documents, the thrashing through of Vatican publications, something will stick.

I do find that the CCC is at times an exceedingly annoying document: it feels as if it has been written for very young people; it rambles; in some places it seems to contradict itself (sin, evil, informed conscience); and of course it is gender insensitive. But it is authoritative, and if read with the Jerome Bible Commentary in the other hand, will eventually make sense.

As I went through my own books today in order to make a bibliography that might be useful to others, I realised what a chasm exists between the reading I had been doing on one hand, the sense of intimacy with Christ I had been feeling, and the broken-ness and healing which taught me so much, and the harsher climate of the Forum on the other. There has been much trauma, intellectual and spiritual, which has perhaps had a negative effect on my insights and spiritual growth. I felt very much at home with my old friends in the books, and expect to return to spend more time with them.

We must all be relieved that learning to be a Catholic is a learning curve, a lifelong process, slow at the start, but perhaps picking up with the kind of help, support and advice you and others have given. Thank you, you are too kind.

Blessings,
Love from Carol

Jabulani!

 

[Yerusalyim]

The short answer to all this is that Christ has only ONE CHURCH…the nature of Christ’s Church is that it is ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. Humans have created divisions within the body of Christ…the Church…but all who are called Christian are still part of this one church regardless of denominational affiliation.

Read the Cathecism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 846 and 847.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I have posited several times that Christ knew - because he was omnipotent and omniscient - that his Church would bifurcate. But he did not intervene, or make alternative arrangements for the future.

Why? If he knew, and assumed that only the Catholic Church would represent Christendom, would he not have made provision for this as he must have forseen the schism and all the rest? Why did he not? This puzzles me.

Nice thoughtful jingle:

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

Jabulani!

Carol,

God gave man free will and does not interfere when we exercise it. People are free to do what they wish even if it condemns them. So I think it is safe to conclude that He didn’t provide for the schism deliberately. Instead He established His Church, the Catholic Church, and calls all mankind to enter into it.

Because God is omniscient and knows all things, can forsee all events, see all sins, knows all souls, etc. He took all of these things into account when He set down his precepts and created His Church, there is no reason for him to change anything. He expects mankind to live according to his precepts and calls them to join His Church.

Iowa Mike

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Thanks for the crit.

Originally Posted by jmcrae

We will not succeed in doing God’s will …

Does this mean that in all instances imaginable, Church interpretation of God’s laws take priority over any problem solving? If an axman intends to kill your child, would you stab and perhaps kill him to save your child? Is an informed conscience involved here?

…so we need God’s Church to tell via the Magesterium)**

Is it possible to live fully as Christians if we are commanded to follow, in every instance, the rules laid out by God 10,000-2,000 years ago. Are we so bound by interpretation of the Church that we have no free will? What use an informed conscience? Is there no other insight as to God’s intention beyond the Magisterium and Bible?

The difference between Noah

and Thomas Andrews ….The difference was that Noah was not a real person, and Andrews was. I really do find it hard, sorry, to believe that you subscribe to this level of belief – that the Titanic sunk for reasons you have suggested.

It is impossible to be under and above God …

I suggested elsewhere He leaves it up to us to deal with social disaster. But, and this is made clear by the Vatican (How to Read the Bible – see biblio above), when we are dealing with social issues related to oppression and poverty (Liberation Theology eg), we may have to take a new approach to understanding the intent of the scriptures.

** I believe Magisterium is the correct spelling, deriving as it does from the Latin ‘magister’, teacher.

I found the following on contraception helpful:

The Catholic Church forbids the use of barrier methods of contraception such as condoms. The Church’s policy was ‘reemphasised’ by Paul VI’s encyclical letter ‘Humanae Vitae’ in 1968. This draws a distinction between ‘Natural Family Planning’ where couples seek to have sex when the woman is not ovulating, which the church allows, and unnatural barrier methods which the church considers a sin. The logic behind the distinction is that whilst both methods prevent fertilisation, the former is based on natural rhythms of life created by God. Condoms can prevent both HIV/AIDS (a fact which the Catholic Church now recognises after years of denial) and high population growth which afflicts some of the world’s poorest countries. The Catholic Church believes that abstinence and Natural Family Planning are viable alternatives to the use of barrier methods in solving both of these problems and whilst Natural Family Planning is not effective for casual sex (which the Catholic Church condemns in any case), it can be effective as part of stable marriages.

The Catholic Birth Control Commission (1963-66) voted 30 to 5 in favour of allowing the use of contraception but was overruled by the Pope. However, the Church maintains that the use of contraception is a violation of natural law, that it is forbidden by the biblical passage in Genesis which describes the spilling of Onan’s seed, and that it is prohibited in the Apostolic tradition by the teachings of the First Council of Nicaea and St. Augustine. Recently the debate has been reignited by the statement by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a senior Cardinal under Pope Benedict, that condoms are the “lesser evil” in the fight against AIDS. Such a stance allowing limited use of condoms has long been taken by liberal African and Latin American clergy. International Debate Education Association idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=521

 

[Carol_Coombe]

You keep saying this, and I have tried to address it before, but I remain confused as to what you are arguing. I have pointed out that God foresaw all sorts of evils and this does not make them his will. You seemed to agree. So I simply don’t get your point. As you said, God clearly chooses not to intervene to prevent everything that is contrary to His will. But surely it is our business to find out what His will is, and to be instruments to bring that about. Scripture and Christian Tradition are both crystal clear that the unity of Christians is His will. Perhaps God is calling us to be His instruments to overcome the evil of schism, just as He has called you (for instance) to fight the evil of AIDS (which God also foresaw).

How is what you are saying any different from saying that since God foresaw AIDS therefore you are being presumptuous in trying to cure it? Wouldn’t that be just as logical?

Edwin

I am confused too at your confusion. Sorry.
(1) Christ is omniscient and omnipotent.
(2) Christ foresaw that His church would be subject to attack and schism, but he left no guidebook for what to do about it; nor did He intervene when this happened.
(3) By suggesting that Christ foresaw what the future held, does not imply that it was in fact His will.
(4) As Christians we are indeed called to understand what His will is, and to respond to that will, principally by serving others and by alleviating distress on earth (at least for me that is the priority).
(5) If the Catholic Church perceives that it is God’s will that it heal the schism in Christendom by taking all believers under its wing, then that is its choice.
(6) This perception of God’s will may not be that of other Christians, who may perceive God’s will otherwise and work in that direction.
(7) Insistance on the primacy of Catholicism infects most discussions about unification; moving ahead may require an adjustment to this interpretation of God’s will - something that has to be done from time to time.

I hope this helps!

 

[The_Truthinator]

That’s bunk. Not because Scripture is written in code, but because it is a complex set of texts written in a variety of historical contexts long ago. Your naive hermeneutical confidence would ill serve you in interpreting Shakespeare, let alone the Bible.

And the historical contexts can’t be sought out and understand by the one willing to search? In the same respect that the Catholic Institution must rely on history in order to make sense of the texts, we also in this age must do so. If all matters of interpretation where up to the Catholic Church then truth herself would be lost, for even Peter erred. After he was dubbed “the Rock” (or rather, reaffirmed as such, given that John reveals the actual naming occurred much earlier) he is reprimanded as a tool through which Samael works! If the first bishop of Rome found himself in err, why not Benedict—why not even the Catechism? The fact is: the Apostles erred, the Apostles’ disciples erred … Yet “all Scripture is inspired by God.” What was determined by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church as the very words of God are reliable, inerrant. Yet apolistic succession makes a fatal mistake in assuming that an unbroken lineage means they shall never find themselves led astray … Did not Demas, Hymenaeus and Alexander desert Paul? the Way of Truth, for fear, for corruption? Yes! Likewise have those apostate saints whose words you quote as if it were Scripture! Were Polycarp and Justin Martyr and Augustine all righteous men? Very much so … but not without flaws (nor was their reasoning of the Scriptures). I am forced to be wary of any institution that follows men AND Christ.

Sure. The question is, to whom and under what circumstances is the Holy Spirit given? The Holy Spirit clearly does not guide all sincere believers to a correct understanding, since many sincere believers contradict each other. It is of course possible that the Holy Spirit is guiding you and not those with whom you differ. But one has to ask why you are so certain of this?

If we drown out the Spirit’s voice with songs of lies and creeds so corrupt, does that mean he isn’t speaking?

What on earth do you mean by “unbroken lineage”? There is no unbroken lineage that non-denominational Protestants can claim.

I wholeheartedly disagree. We (Christians in general, that is) have the one unbroken lineage that counts for something: the Word. That is enough.

How does the Word “seem to attest” these things if not via a persuasive argument? When someone says that water baptism is in no way necessary, don’t you have a persuasive argument to the contrary?

The Word attests to such things in simple statements. Is Paul not a theologian of sorts? And a persuasive one at that? Of course. Yet the Word makes claims and asserts certain truths without man’s cunning at times, and in these instances it is the Spirit upon whom we must rely and in whom we must trust. If someone said baptism was in no way necessary, I would point to the Great Commission, the numerous instances in Scripture where Paul (and others) speak of baptism as the necessary act of obedience (the “death to self”) required of the faithful and the admission into the Church, the fact that never is baptism separated from the salvation message (or the believer’s faith, for that matter), that circumcision was a necessity to the Jews and baptism is the new circumcision, and other such things. Would I paraphrase, simplify, or elocute myself? Yes. Of course. I am all-too-human and it seems at least to me the case that one who knows not the Spirit is less likely to accept the discernment he offers than one who indeed knows him.

If you look at serious Catholic theologians such as Aquinas, they don’t teach that blood is literally being consumed. They teach that the substance of Christ’s real glorified Body is received in the Eucharist and is the reality underlying the physical manifestations of bread and wine.

Beautiful—poetic, even. This I might be able to accept! Yet nonetheless, failure to recognize the mystery of the Eucharist is to miss much of the point. I think you seem as though you grasp that this is … well, quite ungraspable—at least the fullness of such a great and powerful thing. Thank you for the enlightenment on this subject. I wish more Catholics knew this and thought not that at some time the bread and wine actually became flesh and blood! Him giving us the substance of his being underlying the physical …? Correct? Interesting.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

He wants us to choose Himself, but He will accept either choice. He has prepared a place for those that choose life, and a place for those that choose not to have fellowship with Him.

Yebo: remember Dogmatic Constitution, Vatican II, with regard to salvation particularly wrt Jews and Moslems (quoted more than enough times).

I am aware that there is some difficulty in interpreting the meaning of the last para - that those who deliberately turn away from Him may be rejected.

I find it hard to believe that moral non-Christians will be turned away, that those who serve, those who anticipate their obligations to mankind, and those who protect the rights of others will be turned away. Any help here?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Even Galileo knew that sex is for married people, and that it is ordered towards unity and procreation. I’m sure it would never even have occurred to him to suggest to anyone to have a surrogate mother for his child if his wife was unable to conceive, or to wear a condom if she was having “too many” children. (In those days, “too many children” was a bit like “too much money” - children were considered very valuable.) He certainly would not have considered such attitudes to be “scientific” or “enlightened.”

Do you have a reference for what Galileo thought? Surely it would not have occurred to him to think about surrogate motherhood or condoms, but perhaps he would have considered such ideas scientifically interesting at least. I mean if you can prove what he did, you can be sure he would be interested. I am interested in knowing how you know?

As to the value of children, we know that there was no perception of childhood until early in the 20th century, just as there was no idea of teenagers until about 1945-55. Children were more or less ignored until it was pretty sure they were going to survive; they were dressed, boys and girls, in identical ungendered clothing; they were sometimes not named for fear they would die. (I forget the reference - Philip Somebody).

We must understand the scriptures (or the Church’s interpretation of the scriptures) in their correct historical and social context.

 

[guanophore]

Does this mean that in all instances imaginable, Church interpretation of God’s laws take priority over any problem solving? If an axman intends to kill your child, would you stab and perhaps kill him to save your child? Is an informed conscience involved here?

I think it means that the conscience is best informed by the teachings of Christ, and that the best kind of problem solving will flow out of those teachings, rather than separately from them.

Is it possible to live fully as Christians if we are commanded to follow, in every instance, the rules laid out by God 10,000-2,000 years ago. Are we so bound by interpretation of the Church that we have no free will? What use an informed conscience? Is there no other insight as to God’s intention beyond the Magisterium and Bible?

It seems that you experience the guidance of God as cumbersome and limiting, rather than life giving.

The difference was that Noah was not a real person, and Andrews was. I really do find it hard, sorry, to believe that you subscribe to this level of belief – that the Titanic sunk for reasons you have suggested.

This is one of those statements that you make that make Catholics cringe, and lead us to believe that you don’t embrace the faith. On what basis do you assert that Noah was not a real person? Who made him up, and why? If you believe this, it is understandible to see why you don’t believe in miracles either.

I suggested elsewhere He leaves it up to us to deal with social disaster. But, and this is made clear by the Vatican (How to Read the Bible – see biblio above), when we are dealing with social issues related to oppression and poverty (Liberation Theology eg), we may have to take a new approach to understanding the intent of the scriptures.

The way this is worded makes it sound as if you think somehow “He leaves it up to us” in exclusion somehow of Himself. Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean here.

I believe Magisterium is the correct spelling, deriving as it does from the Latin ‘magister’, teacher.

But you don’t consider their teachings to be those of Christ?

(1) Christ is omniscient and omnipotent.
(2) Christ foresaw that His church would be subject to attack and schism, but he left no guidebook for what to do about it; nor did He intervene when this happened.
(3) By suggesting that Christ foresaw what the future held, does not imply that it was in fact His will.

Jesus DID leave a guide. He left His Apostles in charge, and he ensured apostolic succession,and he left his HS to guide them into all truth. He left His teachings, which, among other things, instructed us when we had disputes to take them to the elders of the church, the pillar and the bulwark of truth. The reformers did not follow this method, and separations resulted.

(4) As Christians we are indeed called to understand what His will is, and to respond to that will, principally by serving others and by alleviating distress on earth (at least for me that is the priority).

I understand that this is important, and part of His will, but what if this is not the priority for Him?

(5) If the Catholic Church perceives that it is God’s will that it heal the schism in Christendom by taking all believers under its wing, then that is its choice.
(6) This perception of God’s will may not be that of other Christians, who may perceive God’s will otherwise and work in that direction.
(7) Insistance on the primacy of Catholicism infects most discussions about unification; moving ahead may require an adjustment to this interpretation of God’s will - something that has to be done from time to time.

I hope this helps!

Yes, and hence the point of the discussion in this thread. In fact, I think it will not be possible to take all believers under the wing of Catholicism. I think that some of them have such resistance and hostility toward the Catholic church that this is not an option (the chic tract folks, for example).

What really matters here is not what Catholics and Protestants think should happen, but what Jesus wants to happen. We know that He wants unity.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

512​

Come on McRae, you know perfectly well that ***we ***are not

referring to the organizational entity established by Christ when He ordained the Apostles to its ministry, with Peter as its chief shepherd (John 21:15-19).

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Good point. In our RCIA group last night, it came up that God does not send anyone to Hell. People choose freely to go there, by choosing to reject Him, and by choosing to disobey His commandments.

I find it fascinating to find out how different teaching is in various RCIA programmes. Our deliberations took a different track to a different conclusion. God is Love.

 

[jmcrae]

Originally Posted by jmcrae

Does this mean that in all instances imaginable, Church interpretation of God’s laws take priority over any problem solving? If an axman intends to kill your child, would you stab and perhaps kill him to save your child? Is an informed conscience involved here?

Church law actually does make an exception for self-defense and the defense of the weak.

Is it possible to live fully as Christians if we are commanded to follow, in every instance, the rules laid out by God 10,000-2,000 years ago. Are we so bound by interpretation of the Church that we have no free will? What use an informed conscience?

What, that someone waved the finger at God, and God waved back? What’s so hard to believe about that - unless you think that God doesn’t really exist? I mean, yes, the Titanic sank because the workmen ran out of money, didn’t follow the plans - and then didn’t tell anybody. But it is still pride that goeth before a fall. If they had considered the possibility of sinking (or even the possibility of human error), they might have double-checked the hulls, and realized that the second layer was missing.

I suggested elsewhere He leaves it up to us to deal with social disaster.

Yes, He does - but He didn’t leave us completely on our own. He left us some rules and guidelines to keep in the back of our minds.

I believe Magisterium is the correct spelling, deriving as it does from the Latin ‘magister’, teacher.

Thanks, sorry for the typo - I was spelling it the way I pronounce it.

I found the following on contraception helpful:

It would indeed be interesting if it came from the Vatican, or even from someone in Holy Orders. It does not, however, appear to be an authoritative document. It’s difficult to tell if the author is even Catholic.

I’m not sure how being a World Open champion qualifies one to comment on Catholic theology in any manner apart from expressing one’s private opinions.

 

[jmcrae]

I find it fascinating to find out how different teaching is in various RCIA programmes. Our deliberations took a different track to a different conclusion. God is Love.

God was Love before there was ever anybody in Heaven, too.