Do you believe there is one true church?

[Iowa_Mike]

jmcrae;2149376:

What is the difference between this and brainwashing. I intend no offense, and I do not wish to start a major calamidade. But I honestly cannot find it possible to imagine that an intelligent, well-educated, thoughtful, Catholic would subscribe to such fixed, immutable and plodding belief: there is one absolute truth, there is on church, there is one pope, there is one interpretation of the bible, there is one perfection, and I hold it in my hand.

This seems antithetical to Christ’s example, to the way we understand Him as a person of love, lively affection, understanding and perspicacity. It seems antithetical to reality from the time of humankind’s entrance on the scene as a civilisation about 12,000 years ago. It seems antithetical to a sound, well-informed faith which is based on a real understanding of the interpretations of the Church/Magisterium as well as the social realities that the world, God’s world is facing from the time of Christ to the present day.

It is impossible, it seems to me, to trust blind - and at times arrogant and solitary - belief that allows for no other alternative even for people of other faiths and cultures. I find this sad, and ultimately quite unacceptable.

Carol,

The difference between ‘this and brainwashing’ is about the same as your need literal proof verses your ability to accept in faith. This is something that completely eludes you.

Iowa Mike

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Certainly. But ultimately if the purpose of our actions is merely to relieve distress (not to denigrate the importance of that for a minute), life remains rather purposeless. In the traditional Christian view, the purpose of life is union with God, not merely absence of distress. So our attempts to serve others should be direct toward leading them to God. Alleviating people’s distress is good, period. But it’s part of a bigger picture. And I think a unified Church is necessary to that bigger picture. As I see it, the purpose of Christ’s coming to earth was to gather human beings into His Body. This will only be entirely fulfilled at the Eschaton (one of the reasons why I can resist the claims of Catholicism and Orthodoxy). But we should be working toward the Eschaton–that is to say, we should be moving ourselves and others toward greater wholeness of body and spirit, and that includes a unified earthly Church insofar as this is possible.

eschaton: (literally) last thing; Used in theology to refer to the climax of history, culminating in the Last Judgement.

I am thinking of Christendom, but not one generated necessarily and inevitably by the Catholic Church - insofar as this is possible.

If God’s will is for Christians to be unified, and if Catholicism is not the right way for this to happen, then we need to have an alternative. … Frankly, I find your concept of the One Church unsatisfactory.

I do not have an alternative ready to hand (!). I have a jumbled head trying to make out the puzzle. You have said we need to be looking for a universal church of Christendom (if I understand you correctly) but that my suggestion is not useful. Or perhaps that the concept of One Church (of Christ on earth, and universal?) is not useful.

Can you suggest the alternative that would, in your mind, be useful. I could sure use some help here in designing a universal Church of Christ which is in certain of its aspects superior to the denominations of Christianity, including the Catholic Church. As I write this, I realise that the Catholic Church will for the foreseeable future never agree to join a universal church of Christ but will insist always on its primacy. That does not mean that is God’s will, or that it is the right thing, or that it is the wrong thing, or that we should give up the concept of a unified Christendom, or that the Catholic Church *is *the one true church now and for the future.

I find your language here to be confusing.

You use the loaded term “infects,” but obviously this is only an “infection” if it is not God’s will. It does not seem to me that you have addressed the Catholic arguments for why it is God’s will.

I have observed some of the arguments, but when I was told to accept them gracefully and in all humility, in the mode of the Virgin Mary, I sort of stopped thinking about this. As a social historian and development specialist, I feel intuitively that it is not my prerogative (without profound study) nor my principal concern as a Christian. I cannot challenge RCC Teachings on this issue because it is a hiding to nothing. I hear, I understand, I accept or not within the paradigm of historical evidence.

You have suggested that doctrinal diversity is desirable. You seem to think that diversity is simply a good thing, period. I don’t see how this can be the case. Obviously there are some views that are simply wrong and harmful–the view that only white people are the chosen of God, for instance. You wouldn’t surely allow for this as part of doctrinal diversity? Your insistence on diversity works from certain assumptions about what makes some views acceptable and others unacceptable. You aren’t really advocating that all views are acceptable.

Diversity *can *be good, but not necessary, perhaps desireable but not inevitable. Making a plan is hard; it is difficult to negotiate; it is difficult to assess the criteria, the resources available, the goals, the context etc. That should not be our concern here I think: these are technical and managerial problems. Some of them may seem grave stumbling blocks to unity, but I think that ultimately concerns over the beliefs of certain sects and alternative spirituality can be overcome in order to achieve the broader goal, along with technical difficulties. (I am fully aware that this sounds trite, but it is as true as I can make it). We are starting to see this wrt global warming.

Blessings

Jabulani!

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Aries. It’s one of those very influential theses that scholars in the field tend to find highly questionable but educated people outside the field accept without question. I don’t claim to be an expert on family history myself (though I can recommend one book on the subject that I read in grad school giving a more up-to-date picture than Aries: Beatrice Gottlieb, The Family in the Western World), but my impression, as a historian of sixteenth-century theology who did some coursework in social history, is that contemporary scholars would mostly agree that Aries was profoundly wrong. There was a conception of childhood as a distinct stage in human life from at least Roman times right through the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period. I would argue that the practice of unisex clothing actually works against your argument–it shows that childhood was considered a very different stage in human life from adolescence or adulthood. In traditional European society it would have been considered shocking to dress adolescent or adult males in that kind of clothing.

There certainly was a certain sense that children were still “unformed” and the clothing probably reflected that. I’m not sure how common it was not to name children at all, though I do know the story of the peasant who had a son named Anselmo (or whatever) five years younger than the previous Anselmo, and responded to a query about it by saying “that Anselmo died, and I made another.” I don’t think that shows that children were not valued. Practices such as swaddling were motivated (however misguidedly) by a belief that children were fragile (the “unformed” idea again) and needed to be protected and literally “kept in shape.”

I’m not sure how important this is to the broader argument, but Aries is somewhat of a bugbear among early modern historians, because he wrote so persuasively and has shaped how modern people think about historical perceptions of childhood, even though most scholars in the field seem now to think that he was wrong.

Edwin

Thank you. Off topic but erudite and interesting.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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. (Guanophore)

Why should people cringe: it is no big deal is it? I cannot put Noah, of Ark and two by two fame, into my framework of provisional belief in a big way. If I have to think about things, it is not Noah. He was not a real person, a historical fact, but part of the creation myth of the Semites. He was made up for reasons that I have given or perhaps as part of an allegory relating to baptism; as part of the creation myth; because he filled in a gap in history which was difficult to explain - evidence of a big flood that was visible to even early communities but inexplicable without a Noah. These are guesses. I assume lots of other people might make more informed guesses. But is it important to most of us? Why do you ask?
What makes it evident I do not believe in miracles? The Flood, Noah, the animals are not a miracle surely? Miracles take place every day - according to Catholic Christians in the transubstantiation; as answers to prayer; as gifts of time, energy, healing, joy from God; in intimacy with Christ; in the knowledge of God’s love for us; small things in the intimacy of our daily life, as opposed to stigmata and the heart at Lanciavo(?).

Carol’s remarks above, intended or not, suggest that choices people make are OK with God because they are “Gods work”. Taken literally one would have to accept that if a woman believes abortion is OK and needs one, it must be OK with God because it is God’s work. Obviousy this is wrong. (Iowa Mike)

You are putting words in my mouth again. I would never say that an abortion is God’s will and I do not know why you persist in this erroneous perpetration. If a woman opts for an abortion, according to her informed conscience, or if she does not opt for an abortion because she does not wish to disobey God’s law as disbursed by the Magisterium, why is this God’s work? You said it; perhaps you could explain it.

Go Google. (CEC to Guan)

Google is a fabulous way to find out anything about the Catholic Church when used judiciously. It is only a pathway to resources like the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Bible Pathways - and it is clear that a whole bunch of people on the Forum use it lots.

I’m not sure what you’re after. It seems as though you want the Church to be something that doesn’t even exist - an invisible organization that somehow binds people together without having any authority over them. (jmcrae)

Why are you obsessed by the need to have authority over you? Are you not capable of wisdom, clarity, understanding, and reflection through prayer and contemplation in your own right? I do not want the church you have described. What I thought I would find was a Catholic Church that would provide a home for me and my relationship with Christ, not always on my own terms (I know the Church well enough), but in such a way that I would be guided, sustained, and believe with a network of like-minded Christians. This is not an invisible organisation - it is the real Church, the one you belong to. But, what I am saying is that if it is to exert the authority over my life, mind, soul and heart that you describe, then I doubt that it will provide me with a home that I could tolerate. That is my misfortunate; that is my sorrow; that is my loss. But my relationship with God and Christ is too important to hand it over lock, stock and barrel to however competent and richly ritualistic a Church.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

The submission to authority to which you are unused seems to be a persistent impediment.

On the other hand, submission to earthly authority may not help save the planet; submission to a divine authority is another matter. Do you mean that if I were less obstinate and confrontational I would be hurt less; if I accepted humbly and graciously what I am told I would find a home in RCC? Or what?

Perhaps it is time to work on submission, rather than exploitation?

This sounds easy, perhaps trite. I am exploiting your patience, your knowledge, your time, your faith. I may grow in wisdom and understanding, I may learn what I need to learn. Would it be the same if I were utterly submissive to you, to the Church?

…I think folks consider you are trying to convert them to your religion [when you say] what you think “we” need to do.

Eish! is it not evident I have nothing to convert people to? What is ‘my religion’? A personal intimacy with Christ informed and enriched by engaging with faiths and people. Sounds like I am plotting a coup.

Google and Wikipedia do not meet my standards for theological veracity.

Absolutely, but if you are in a hurry then you pick the closest resource eg Google Catholic Encyc. If you want ‘theological veracity’, then you need to close the Forum. It troubles me that we are all (exceptions?) effectively undereducated on the matter being discussed here, and rely on opinions and best guesses for the most part.

What puzzles me is that you don’t consider Peter and Paul as authoritative with regard to the credibility of the person of Noah!

Poor old Noah. I am sorry Guan, but I have said my say earlier. I put him in the same bag as Isaiah, who, famous as ‘he’ is, was 3 people. (I learned this at Church and in RCIA.)

I think this must be an example of what others consider proselytizing. You are saying “we need” to…

If the majority of others are happy to believe that there is one true church, and that that Church is the Catholic Church, then that should end of this discussion. There may be people out there who see ‘needs’ in terms of unity in Christendom, but they are being pretty silent. So shall we just close down?

It is as though you think our understandings of God’s intentions are stale, and need refreshing within our historical, social, and economic context. In a way, it seems to imply Catholic doctrine is not in step with the times.

I think the understanding of some Catholic Christians is behind the times, but that is true of many others globally. Keating has referred to a meeting of liberal Catholics (e-letter ‘projects’) and proposals to liberalise this Church. I believe they are looking at reality through their own experience and their understanding of God’s will, rather than the rose-tinted spectacles of sentimental Christianity. This is a hard world. (Sorry if I have offended, but I needed to use the word ‘sentimental’ because it applies to many things said on the Forum.) I also see in the Dogmatic Constitution Vatican II things that are opposite of what believers on this site have served up as Absolute Truth. The third source of evidence is the Vatican’s book on *How to Read the Bible *- see my bibliography (#499 ff), and quote. All indicate there is - certainly in the Vatican, as well as among laiety - a distinct movement in the Church towards a more liberal approach to doctrine, dogma and practice particularly in Latin America, Africa and Asia. And Catholics are voting with their feet if 85% of Catholic Americans confessed they use artificial contraception, and if only 5% of Quebec Catholics attend Church on a steady basis although 85% claim to be Catholic (Binney).

Catholic teaching is that when people are left to themselves, we are fallen creatures, and make terrrible messes of His creation and plans.

If the Church is teaching you that you should not esteem yourself, that you - as God’s Beloved - are frail and unreliable, that you are generally incapable of not messing up, then there a lot of traumatised Catholics. You are God’s child. You have in you a spark of the divine. God have given us each prerogatives and responsibilities, and He assumes we will carry out our obligations using the talents He has given us. Yes, if we work without Him, we may mess up worse than we would have otherwise. And perhaps, if we work with the guidance of the Catholic Church we might do better. But it is God that counts - and your relationship with Him.

You need perhaps to clarify what you mean by ‘when people are left to themselves’: by God? or by the Catholic Church? Please.

 

[lak611]

I think the understanding of some Catholic Christians is behind the times, but that is true of many others globally.

The Church is not “behind the times”. The Church is outside of time. Expecting the Church to conform to the world is another example of relativism.

 

[guanophore]

*Assent that whatever the Church teaches me is true? *Is that really really true? The only one to whom one could possibly assent on every single occasion is God in Christ.

Ahh! But “we have the mind of Christ”!

No body on earth is or could be mandated to teach one absolute truth (I know that is past a pre-school mind, but that is where my mind at least is at).

This has been the persistent stumbling block, as I see it. Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me”. In Him, in His person, is the one absolute truth. Where I think you get hung up is not believing that divine intervention really happens. It seems incomprehensible to you that, if Jesus said he would send His Spirit to guide us into all truth, that this might be true where the magesterium is concerned.

Problem is also that *whatever the Church teaches *varies from place to place, from teacher to teacher, as we have seen in our discussions, in our readings, and in publications from the Vatican.

I think it might be more proper to say that what is taught varies. What actually is taught from place to place does sometimes (regrettably) differ from the Teachings.

This would be a huge sumbling block in an era when people are taught to think for themselves, to question authority and pronouncements, and actually, well, to think for themselves.

Clearly it has been a huge stumbling block. Everyone thinking independently and questioning authority has created a plethora of divisions in the body of christ. However, we are not being asked not to think, question, or be independent of mind. What we are being asked is to recognize that Christ has already revealed Himself and placed a divine deposit of faith to guide us, and keep us safe while we do that thinking and questioning.

I know that this is a problem for you and for others who like to have strong rules to which to cling, which perhaps order your life and your relationship with God. There are others too who see the rules and regulations, the doctrines, as freeing, but I have not yet unbundled this concept.

This is not really fair, especially to those of us wh have struggled so hard much of our lives against “the rules”. Some of us have had the experience of having our lives ordered by the spontaneous expression of the Spirit, and therefore have found the “rules” difficult to embrace. However, you are right, Jesus’ yoke is easy, and His burden is light. He did not say we would be able to run amok without a yoke. He said the yoke would fit well, and He would help us to wear it.

God is freeing, not the Church which guides. It provides a kraal of safety surely for her children, and provides guidelines for Cathlic Christian behaviour. But if I had to make an informed decision and it came down to a choice between God and the Church, one would choose God.

I think this is because you have not perceived God working through His church. At least the authoritative teaching end of it. Perhaps in the corporate works of mercy. It is not an either/ or choice. In today’s readings, we hear about Saul getting knocked to the ground. Jesus says to him “why are you persecuting me?”
Saul was attacking His body, the church. But Jesus’ identified Himself with His church. It is His body.

By the way, Google suggests (article in Boston Globe on meeting of Bishop’s November 2006) that only 5 per cent of Catholics in a US area scanned before the Conference do not use artificial contraception. The others have presumably made an informed decision. It is not a decision against God, but not for the Church.

Most Catholics that use artificial contraception are NOT informed, either in conscience, or in technology. I know this by the level of surprise and even horror I encounter when teaching classes. They have no clue what they are doing to themselves, and to innocent life.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

The Church is not “behind the times”. The Church is outside of time. Expecting the Church to conform to the world is another example of relativism.

God is outside time and space. The Church is an institution composed of people, who are guided for the most part by God.

How do you mean it is another example of relativism?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

By Carol: This sounds easy, perhaps trite. I am exploiting your patience, your knowledge, your time, your faith. I may grow in wisdom and understanding, I may learn what I need to learn. Would it be the same if I were utterly submissive to you, to the Church?

Carol:

Temper, temper…I think that in your responses [below] to Janet S your intellectual arrogance is showing again. No one is looking for your submission…just your open mind, which todate has been missing.

All I hear from you is a load of intellectual, humanistic meanderings as you aggressivly try to refute belief after belief of the RCC. God endowed man with free will and you can use yours as you wish. If you want to be a free spirit and take a dab of beliefs from the Dahli Lama, Budda, Ghandi, Luther, mix them up with those of your favorite historians and philosophers and then toss in what-ever-it-is that you believe, great, go for it. But, your understanding of the Catholic Faith will only increase when you examine it’s beliefs with an open mind, an open heart and in the spirit of humility. Instead, you spend all of your time telling us misguided Catholics how wrong we are.

By Carol: Eish! is it not evident I have nothing to convert people to? What is ‘my religion’? A personal intimacy with Christ informed and enriched by engaging with faiths and people. Sounds like I am plotting a coup.

As I’ve said in other posts I believe your religion is the religion of relativism. Your posts indicate that you want relilgious doctrine to change to accept the mores of current culture and the individual. We differ because I believe the teachings of Christ are timeless and require no updating what-so-ever. Instead, Christ is expecting man to live to the precepts he laid down for us 2000 years ago, something you cannot grasp or refuse to accept. So Janet S is dead on…you are trying your level best on this forum to persuade people to your way of thinking…your religion of relativism.

By Carol: I think the understanding of some Catholic Christians is behind the times, but that is true of many others globally. Keating has referred to a meeting of liberal Catholics (e-letter ‘projects’) and proposals to liberalise this Church. I believe they are looking at reality through their own experience and their understanding of God’s will, rather than the rose-tinted spectacles of sentimental Christianity.

You apparently think you are on the leading edge of thought as compared to Catholic Christians but your understanding of Keatings remarks and Vatican II are completely off the mark.

Previously you referred to “mushy” Catholics, is that the same thing as a “sentimental” Catholic? Contrary to your understanding Keating is calling the faithful’s attention to the activities of Catholic dissident groups that are actively working to undermine Church teaching and the beliefs of us poor “sentimental” Catholics. This subject will be covered in more detail when Keating’s, “Wolves in Sheeps Clothing” is released. Many, many of the groups to which he refers, and you seem to admiire, have been excommunicated.

Your claims that about Vatican II are also completely baseless. Vatican II did nothing to weaken or change the Church’s teachings on faith and morals…not one iota.

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Oh my Carol!

Originally Posted by Carol Coombe
By the way, Google suggests (article in Boston Globe on meeting of Bishop’s November 2006) that only 5 per cent of Catholics in a US area scanned before the Conference do not use artificial contraception. The others have presumably made an informed decision. It is not a decision against God, but not for the Church.

There you go again…the religion of relativism…if the crowd wants to do it then it must right and God should be OK with it. Certainly this logic must hold ture else you would risk bringing down the rath of God. So, if the culture decides that all babies with birth defects should be killed, by your logic I guess that would be OK too; and abortion; and euthanasia; and divorce; and stem cell research and and and.

Very sad Carol, very sad.

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Carol,

Originally Posted by lak611
The Church is not “behind the times”. The Church is outside of time. Expecting the Church to conform to the world is another example of relativism.

I think lak611’s observation here is smack on!

Exactly what backs up your claim that the Church is “behind the times”? Maybe I’m not understanding but it sounds a lot like you think the Church is behind the “present times” and needs to update their beliefs and teachings to reflect current times. I believe that Lak611 is saying that Church teachings are “timeless” and as such are outside of the effects of time; something to which I subscribe and support.

QUOTE=Carol Coombe;2152393]God is outside time and space. The Church is an institution composed of people, who are guided for the most part by God.

How do you mean it is another example of relativism?

Christ is the Head and we are the body of the RCC. While the Church is composed of people it is lead by the Pope who is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is infallible in matters of faith and morals; another Catholic belief you have rejected. At the risk of repeating myself, your words would suggest that you expect the Church to ‘change their beliefs and teachings’ to ‘conform’ to what is happening in today’s culture. Relativism.

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

eschaton: (literally) last thing; Used in theology to refer to the climax of history, culminating in the Last Judgement.

I am thinking of Christendom, but not one generated necessarily and inevitably by the Catholic Church - insofar as this is possible.

I do not have an alternative ready to hand (!). I have a jumbled head trying to make out the puzzle. You have said we need to be looking for a universal church of Christendom (if I understand you correctly) but that my suggestion is not useful. Or perhaps that the concept of One Church (of Christ on earth, and universal?) is not useful.

**Can you suggest the alternative that would, in your mind, be useful. I could sure use some help here in designing a universal Church of Christ which is in certain of its aspects superior to the denominations of Christianity, including the Catholic Church. As I write this, I realise that the Catholic Church will for the foreseeable future never agree to join a universal church of Christ but will insist always on its primacy. That does not mean that is God’s will, or that it is the right thing, or that it is the wrong thing, or that we should give up the concept of a unified Christendom, or that the Catholic Church *is ***the one true church now and for the future.
I have observed some of the arguments, but when I was told to accept them gracefully and in all humility, in the mode of the Virgin Mary, I sort of stopped thinking about this. As a social historian and development specialist, I feel intuitively that it is not my prerogative (without profound study) nor my principal concern as a Christian. I cannot challenge RCC Teachings on this issue because it is a hiding to nothing. I hear, I understand, I accept or not within the paradigm of historical evidence.

Diversity *can *be good, but not necessary, perhaps desireable but not inevitable. Making a plan is hard; it is difficult to negotiate; it is difficult to assess the criteria, the resources available, the goals, the context etc. That should not be our concern here I think: these are technical and managerial problems. Some of them may seem grave stumbling blocks to unity, but I think that ultimately concerns over the beliefs of certain sects and alternative spirituality can be overcome in order to achieve the broader goal, along with technical difficulties. (I am fully aware that this sounds trite, but it is as true as I can make it). We are starting to see this wrt global warming.

Blessings

Jabulani!

Carol,

For future reference, the Catholic Church is Christ’s Universal Church…the One True Church…and as such has no need to join itself.

Iowa Mike

 

[lak611]

Exactly what backs up your claim that the Church is “behind the times”? Maybe I’m not understanding but it sounds a lot like you think the Church is behind the “present times” and needs to update their beliefs and teachings to reflect current times. I believe that Lak611 is saying that Church teachings are “timeless” and as such are outside of the effects of time; something to which I subscribe and support.

That is exactly what I am saying.

Christ is the Head and we are the body of the RCC. While the Church is composed of people it is lead by the Pope who is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is infallible in matters of faith and morals; another Catholic belief you have rejected. At the risk of repeating myself, your words would suggest that you expect the Church to ‘change their beliefs and teachings’ to ‘conform’ to what is happening in today’s culture. Relativism.
Iowa Mike

This is very true. The Church cannot and never will change beliefs and teachings to conform to any culture. God cannot change. It is God, the Holy Spirit who leads the Church which is headed by the Pope.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae;2149376:

What is the difference between this and brainwashing. I intend no offense, and I do not wish to start a major calamidade. But I honestly cannot find it possible to imagine that an intelligent, well-educated, thoughtful, Catholic would subscribe to such fixed, immutable and plodding belief: there is one absolute truth, there is on church, there is one pope, there is one interpretation of the bible, there is one perfection, …

Why not ? Mathematicians and scientists do it all the time. The only difference is, we can see their results, so we don’t question them. But there is only one truth in mathematics, and there is only one truth in science, as well - even though as human beings, we can’t grasp all of it. It’s the same with revealed religion.

What God has revealed of Himself to us through Christ and Christ’s Church is all true. That’s glad news, because it means that He really is God, and that He really does love us.

and I hold it in my hand.

Actually, She holds me in Her hand. That’s a minor point, though.

This seems antithetical to Christ’s example, to the way we understand Him as a person of love, lively affection, understanding and perspicacity.

I don’t understand how this is the opposite of truth? How does being loving equate to being confused about stuff, and all over the map willy-nilly with self-contradictory beliefs?

It seems antithetical to reality from the time of humankind’s entrance on the scene as a civilisation about 12,000 years ago. It seems antithetical to a sound, well-informed faith which is based on a real understanding of the interpretations of the Church/Magisterium as well as the social realities that the world, God’s world is facing from the time of Christ to the present day.

I really don’t see how. In fact, the very opposite. If we couldn’t know God, we would be less civilized, and less loving - not more.

It is impossible, it seems to me, to trust blind - and at times arrogant and solitary - belief that allows for no other alternative even for people of other faiths and cultures. I find this sad, and ultimately quite unacceptable.

Other faiths have a certain share in the truth. Just as people of ancient times knew a certain amount about math and science. These other religions exist because these other people are also looking for God.

Imagine if you were (let’s pretend) a mathematical genius, and you encountered some people on the other side of the world who had just discovered the abacus. Wouldn’t you want to go to them, and help them to learn even more? That’s exactly how we Catholics feel when we encounter people who are looking for God.

I’m afraid I don’t understand how truth negates culture, though. People of every culture can certainly be Catholic. I see them every day in my parish Church at Mass.

 

[jmcrae]

Why are you obsessed by the need to have authority over you?

It’s not that I want it. It’s that it exists aleady, God gave it, and my happiness in Him consists in part of taking seriously the duties of my state in life, which includes my God-given authority over certain other people, and other (different) people’s God-given authority over me.

Keep in mind, the root word of “authority” is “author.” God, of course, is our ultimate author. When we want to know who has authority over something, we look to the author of that thing.

Just a very small example - a few days ago I had reason to call my cable company about something, and while I was on the phone, the person said, “I notice here that you are having a problem with such-and-such. Would it be okay if we came over tomorrow afternoon to fix it?” I told him, “Sure,” and the following afternoon, a nice young man came over and fixed the problem.

What happened there was that the “author” of the cable system that we have in our home noticed that something he has “authority” over was having a problem. So he asked my permission to come to the house (since I have authority over the house) and when I granted it, he came over and took care of the thing over which he has authority.

Yes, I grumble at times, especially when my priest wants me to do something that I think is dumb. But I keep my grumbling to myself, suggest to him that I think there’s a better way, and he usually disagrees, and I do the thing anyway, and, guess what - things usually work out better than my way would have. (And if they don’t, my priest has the sense to take my suggestion and do it a different way. And that works, too.)

Are you not capable of wisdom, clarity, understanding, and reflection through prayer and contemplation in your own right?

Nothing about the fact that others have God-given authority that I do not possess takes anything away from my gifts. In fact, people in authority over me are always taking advantage of my gifts.

Rather, it places my gifts into a context where they can be used to glorify God in a functional community, instead of just entertaining myself. What I get back is infinitely richer than what I give.

I do not want the church you have described. What I thought I would find was a Catholic Church that would provide a home for me and my relationship with Christ, not always on my own terms (I know the Church well enough), but in such a way that I would be guided, sustained, and believe with a network of like-minded Christians. This is not an invisible organisation - it is the real Church, the one you belong to. But, what I am saying is that if it is to exert the authority over my life, mind, soul and heart that you describe, then I doubt that it will provide me with a home that I could tolerate. That is my misfortunate; that is my sorrow; that is my loss. But my relationship with God and Christ is too important to hand it over lock, stock and barrel to however competent and richly ritualistic a Church.

St. Francis had a saying that we repeat in his famous prayer: “It is in giving that we receive.” It is in total surrender to Christ that we become most fully alive, and most fully our free selves.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

That is exactly what I am saying.

This is very true. The Church cannot and never will change beliefs and teachings to conform to any culture. God cannot change. It is God, the Holy Spirit who leads the Church which is headed by the Pope.

Amen brother!

Iowa Mike

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol Coombe:

to Janet S your intellectual arrogance is showing again. No one is looking for your submission…just your open mind, which todate has been missing.

All I hear from you is a load of intellectual, humanistic meanderings as you aggressivly try to refute belief after belief of the RCC. God endowed man with free will and you can use yours as you wish. If you want to be a free spirit and take a dab of beliefs from the Dahli Lama, Budda, Ghandi, Luther, mix them up with those of your favorite historians and philosophers and then toss in what-ever-it-is that you believe, great, go for it. But, your understanding of the Catholic Faith will only increase when you examine it’s beliefs with an open mind, an open heart and in the spirit of humility. Instead, you spend all of your time telling us misguided Catholics how wrong we are.

As I’ve said in other posts I believe your religion is the religion of relativism. Your posts indicate that you want relilgious doctrine to change to accept the mores of current culture and the individual. We differ because I believe the teachings of Christ are timeless and require no updating what-so-ever. Instead, Christ is expecting man to live to the precepts he laid down for us 2000 years ago, something you cannot grasp or refuse to accept. So Janet S is dead on

…you are trying your level best on this forum to persuade people to your way of thinking…your religion of relativism.

You apparently think you are on the leading edge of thought as compared to Catholic Christians but your understanding of Keatings remarks and Vatican II are completely off the mark.

Previously you referred to “mushy” Catholics, is that the same thing as a “sentimental” Catholic? Contrary to your understanding Keating is calling the faithful’s attention to the activities of Catholic dissident groups that are actively working to undermine Church teaching and the beliefs of us poor “sentimental” Catholics. This subject will be covered in more detail when Keating’s, “Wolves in Sheeps Clothing” is released. Many, many of the groups to which he refers, and you seem to admiire, have been excommunicated.

Your claims that about Vatican II are also completely baseless. Vatican II did nothing to weaken or change the Church’s teachings on faith and morals…not one iota.

Iowa Mike

Thank you. Your comments are totally off the mark, as I have indicated before. You cannot engage with the discussion, and I cannot simplify it further.

Let us agree to disagree, and call it quits. I do not agree with you; you do not agree with me. So we don’t need to talk to one another. You can put me on your ‘ignore’ list if you don’t mind.

 

[I_Thirst]

I believe in one, true Church–which I’d imagine is just another way of saying the Catholic Church.

 

[MelanieAnne]

When we are called to faith, it is not so we can pick and choose which aspects of faith we agree with, and choose a faith on that basis. We are called to conform ourselves to God.

God is under no obligation to conform Himself to us.

I think a lot of this discussion appears to be veering off into that place where God is supposed to conform Himself to how we want Him to be. But that’s not how it works. You can fuss and fume and disagree, but God doesn’t have to conform Himself to you EVER. It’s your job to conform yourself to God.

This may be difficult in a world where “anything goes” and “if it feels good, do it” but God didn’t create those ideas, people did.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Christ is the Head and we are the body of the RCC. While the Church is composed of people it is lead by the Pope who is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is infallible in matters of faith and morals; another Catholic belief you have rejected. At the risk of repeating myself, your words would suggest that you expect the Church to ‘change their beliefs and teachings’ to ‘conform’ to what is happening in today’s culture. Relativism.

Iowa Mike

You have not explained what you mean here. I can assume that you mean that you believe there is an Absolute Truth which was given to the Church 2000 years ago, which remains absolutely constant, and which has never and will never adjust to changing circumstances (material or social), and which is absolutely owned by the absolutely unique One True Catholic Church.

I may be relatively sure that I am not putting words into your mouth. Perhaps I am, but I think not.

Everything is relative; everything is conditional - except God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Church is manmade, although the keys were handd over by Christ, and that makes it only relatively inaccurate part of the time (during phases of its history, and during transitions from Pope to Pope in particular vix Leo X, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI who have their personal idiosyncratic understandings of doctrine, which will inevitably influence Vatican and Magisterium proceedings - Benedict XVI, for example is a leading theologian, while John Paul II was not. It is said that Cardinal Ratzinger had to sit on John Paul II to prevent him from publishing an infallible bull which would enhance Mary’s status to one equal to Christ (he was a Mariologist). Who had access to the Absolute Truth - about Mary, and about God;s intentions for her status, for her veneration, for her worship, and about the response of Catholicism had John Paul II had his wishes? What he wished did not happen - because Ratzinger was there. You might suggest that Ratzinger was sent by God. Perhaps.

[Moderator Note: Removed uncharitable comment]