Does Doctrine Matter?

[GreggAlvarez]

The beauty of our doctrine and their relevance to our lives is what is important. Not just the sheer letter of the belief. The Resurrection of Christ, Assumption of Mary, Queen of Heaven, Indulgences, Faith and Works, Sacrament of Confession, Anointing of the Sick, Liturgy of the Hours, Purgatory, Communion of Saints, Incarnation, The Fall, etc… They are all doctrine but they contribute to how we should live our lives. It is like a puzzle: Even the most remote pieces (corners or sides) contribute to the ultimate picture. If one piece is missing, the picture is not aesthetically pleasing anymore. We are called to live these things and be holy as Our Father in heaven is perfect

As I probably have stated several times, I put my trust in God and not in churches, preachers, or theologies.

True, people believe in ghosts and such today. As I recall some poll found that as many as 25% of American believe in ghosts, and millions turn to the horoscope every day. To be honest, there are things within traditional Catholicism that smack too much (in my opinion) of such ideas. All those rather wild stories about past saints. I see stories of Padre Pio, a ‘modern’ saint, and how he levitated, bilocated, etc. Millions believe in such things, but I remain a skeptic. Many Protestants as well as Catholics accept on faith all manner of faith healings, exorcisms, and whatnot. Sorry, I have a problem with such things, though I go along with the idea that faith can help overcome illness and sometimes help with various forms of psychological illness, Demons? No.

Other points. Remember when the lawyer confronted Jesus and asked him point-blank how he could have inherited eternal life? It always has struck me that he avoided any theological doctrine in his response but simply said love God and your neighbor. Then, when the lawyer persisted, Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. The hero? A Samaritan, who had intermarried, held to a different faith, and was despised by the Jews. This suggests to me that we are not be judged by our doctrines but by our love. Remember, too, when Jesus told about those going to heaven and hell - the sheep and the goats, as I recall. When did we see you hungry? When did we visit you in prison? Etc. Not a word about doctrine, again.

Oh, and by the way. I;ve always been puzzled by that passage in which someone refers to Jesus as good. Jesus replies: “Why do you call me good? There is only one good, and that is God.” Hm! Still causes me to wonder what Jesus meant by that.

If you are comfortable being a devout Catholic, accepting the Church’s doctrines as infallible, fine. Obviously, I can’t. I am finding myself attracted to ‘big tent’ Christianity.

I do thank you for being nice to us. We are attacked a lot and you do admit that these are just observations and you are being honest. Thank you.

Anyway, the fact that He does not explicit state anything about doctrine does not say anything about living it. Those are actually about love and charity (I think the Greek word is agape) which leads to our doctrine one faith and works. The story of the man and eternal life is about love, but without faith rooted in Him and the hope of eternal salvation, love/charity cannot exist. It is all tied in to doctrine and not just the word of it. Doctrine is there for a reason. That reason far surpasses our idea rules. As stated above, we do not look at the letter of doctrine, we look at the reality of it in the relevance of our lives. Well, we should anyway. Whether or not we do is a different story altogether.

We too put our trust in God and in God alone. That is why we believe the Church and its theology. That is because we believe God gave the Church authority through His human form. Keep in mind I am just saying what we believe. Although we certainly have reasons for it, I am not opening this for discussion. I am just saying that people think we only trust the Church and not God. That notion is absurd. Whether or not you meant it like that, I certainly hope you did not.

Take care,
Gregg

 

[Cat_Herder]

A few random comments

Philthy. I don’t connect independent thinking with being a sinner, as you apparently do. I know many people were put to death because they were heretics, then viewed as a serious sin, but I hope that notion is long dead. I recall my shock when, in reading Aquinas I discovered that he favored the execution of heretics! I must say that this suddenly weakened by respect for his opinions even though he obviously was a great and systematic scholar.

Every religion in the world, especially atheism, has executed heretics.

You apparentlky question my qualifications to come to different conclusions on theology than those arrived at by ancient and medieval councils. I understand this. Traditional Catholicism teaches, of course, that God will preserve the church from doctrinal error. I simply can’t believe that.

Well, then there is no truth.

I respect the theological opinions of others and wish that the Catholic Church showed more respect for those who disagree. They are dogmatic when it comes to only ‘one true church’ and it’s theirs. As I probably have stated several times, I put my trust in God and not in churches, preachers, or theologies.

Jesus is Lord. That is truth. He made certain promises about the Church of which you are well aware. Either you trust His promises or you don’t.

I think it’s great that a host of Christian scholars express different views re this magnificent universe and our life here.

Problem: you are giving every “Scripture scholar” equal authority.

Suppose some person comes up to you and proposes that Mary is not the Mother of God but rather only a surrogate. That is a view that is common among Baptists and other “evangelical” Christians (quotes because all Christians are evangelists.)

You might agree with that or you may take a position of “why should I care?” Or even one of “well, Mary isn’t that important.”

Well, I’ll tell you why you should care.

When the Nazi Party was plotting its ascendancy in 1920-30s Germany, Hitler and his cronies ran on a platform of German or “Aryan” ethnic supremacy. He had to pitch this platform and the associated anti-Semitism to a Christian nation that was well aware that Jesus took from His Mother the royal lineage of David–and that of Abraham as well.

How could Hitler convince the German Christians that the Jews were sub-human when God’s Son was a Jew?

Hitler’s answer was to get rid of Mary. He demoted Her to a mere surrogate or incubator so that he could revise history and make Jesus an Aryan.

At the core of World War II and the Holocaust, a heresy against Mary.

Doctrine matters.

 

[Roy5]

Three quick thoughts

** First, I am not to be confused with sola scriptura Christians.** They get a lot of publicity because they are very busy evangelizing, including several networks on TV and several hundred radio stations in the US. Sola scriptura does exist among mainstream Protestants because those denominations permit a wide variation on matters of doctrine. There are, for example, Methodist churches - especially in the South - that are evangelical. The same division, to an extent, exists among Presbyterians and even Baptists, most of whom are evangelical. The famous Riverside Church in Manhattan, renown for its liberalism (both religious and political) had as its founding pastor Harry Emerson Fosdick who, for example, did not insist that parishioners believe in the virgin birth, etc. He himself did not believe in it. Fosdick was technically a Baptist, even though his church attracted Protestants of various flavors.That’s the spirit of most mainstream Protestantism: ‘think and let think’.

**Second. mainstream Protestantism makes less out of doctrine generally.** The Methodists, for example, are free to use or not use the ancient creeds. Some pastors incorporate them into worship often. Some will omit them always, either because they don't subscribe to them or because they know many in their congregation do not. Of what value is "sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty" - a medieval concept out of touch with today's world? Back then they could wasily envision a heaven up in the sky somewhere with God, like a great king, on a great throne.  And must we believe in *our* physical resurrection - "I believe in the resurrection of the body". Could we maybe live in a spiritual sense in the world to come? Etc. Personally, I find the ancient creeds too reflective of another era and cannot bring myself to say "I believe" things which I don't believe.

** Third, as to Hitler**. there were some clergy in Hitler’s Germany who went along with him. The Catholic center party finally made a deal that permitted Hitler to become Chancellor in 1933. As you know there are those who charge Pius XII with being timid about speaking out against Hitler, who, of course, was himself a baptized Catholic - as were Mussolini and Franco, the other two dictators in western Europe. The majority of Hitler’s earliest and most enthusiastic supporters were in Bavaria, a heavily Catholic area. As I recall both the Slovak and Croatian allies of Hitler were strong Catholics. The Slovak collaborators were led by a priest, Fr. Tiso (if my memory serves me right). My own take on this situation is that the Vatican was severely conflicted on World War II. To begin with, Italians were especially influential there and some were naturally influenced by patriotism, possibly even Pius XII. But more important, they regarded the Communists as the major foe - more than Hitler - as Communism so clearly persecuted the Christians. Hitler persecuted some Christians, those who opposed his regime (which most German Christians did not), but he often used God as a propaganda tool against the USSR, against ‘godless Communism’ and in defense of western civilization. This propaganda was very effective within Germany. This is not to suggest that Pius XII supported in any way the extermination of the Jews, but his critics argue that if he had spoken out more forcefully the enemies of Hitler would have been strengthened. This debate will go on forever, probably. Catholics and Protestants both were targeted by the Nazis. Fr. Kolbe is a good Catholic example (although some suggest that Kolbe’s publication in previous years had carried anti-semitic material). Bonhoeffer is a sterling Protestant example. Both laid down their lives and are to be admired. I have an older friend who fought in WWII -a devout Catholic. He recalled what an impact it had upon him personally when his unit passed by a German soldier who had died holding a rosary.

  **Doctrine is interesting but, in my view, is mainly speculation by ancient, medieval and modern theologians.** To say that it is ultimate truth is - forgive me - naive. As I keep saying, if Catholics (or sola scriptura Protestants) can believe it, fine. But I don't think some of the faithful realize how simplistic and even 'paganistic' much of religious doctrine can seem to those who have sidelined it in favor of an emphasis on faith, hope and love - and especially love. They regard the drive for doctrinal confirmity as having too often overshadowed love with a form of totalitarian thinking to achieve unity. Sorry to be so blunt and no offense intended.

**  God bless everybody.**

 

[Cat_Herder]

** Third, as to Hitler**. there were some clergy in Hitler’s Germany who went along with him. The Catholic center party finally made a deal that permitted Hitler to become Chancellor in 1933.

The Nazis formed their coalition with the DNVP, which was not a Catholic party.

As you know there are those who charge Pius XII with being timid about speaking out against Hitler, who, of course, was himself a baptized Catholic - as were Mussolini and Franco, the other two dictators in western Europe.

Sadly, Catholics sometimes lapse, often because of people who spread disinformation about the Church. (Think about what you are doing here.)

The majority of Hitler’s earliest and most enthusiastic supporters were in Bavaria, a heavily Catholic area.

… which had just been under atheist Communism shortly before Hitler staged a coup.

As I recall both the Slovak and Croatian allies of Hitler were strong Catholics.
The Slovak collaborators were led by a priest, Fr. Tiso (if my memory serves me right).

Then and now, canon law did not allow priests to be politicians, so by getting involved in politics he was acting against the Church. (Can. 287 §1)

My own take on this situation is that the Vatican was severely conflicted on World War II.

Say hello to my little friend.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?pictureid=7727&albumid=1125&dl=1288406115&thumb=1

“Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty.”

They regard the drive for doctrinal confirmity as having too often overshadowed love with a form of totalitarian thinking to achieve unity. Sorry to be so blunt and no offense intended.

You say the Catholic Church is totalitarian? Uh, excuse me? The Church has been Public Enemy #1 of every single totalitarian regime in history, from Imperial Rome to the British Empire to Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union.

Do you even know how the Soviet Union fell? Search that article for “Karol.”

  **Doctrine is interesting but, in my view, is mainly speculation by ancient, medieval and modern theologians.** To say that it is ultimate truth is - forgive me - naive.

As I keep saying, if Catholics (or sola scriptura Protestants) can believe it, fine. But I don’t think some of the faithful realize how simplistic and even ‘paganistic’ much of religious doctrine can seem to those who have sidelined it in favor of an emphasis on faith, hope and love - and especially love.

I guess it’s time to just ask you flat out: Is Jesus Christ God?

 

[diggerdomer]

If a tree falls in the woods…

Maybe this will clear it up.

It is my [perhaps erroneous] assertion that what constitutes theological doctrine exists independently of when and how it is revealed to man.

What I mean is that God defines what constitutes doctrine by His very nature and existence. i.e. If there is no God, there is no doctrine. If God exists, then what constitutes doctrine is defined by Who He Is.

Maybe I need a new word, or a modifier. Something like “True Theological Doctrine” to differentiate what I’m thinking about from the “rules” of some particular religion.

I maintain that Truth is defined by Who God Is and therefore has existed for all time.

What constitutes right or wrong, a loving or non-loving act, is defined by Who God Is, and therefore does not change.

I also maintain that we can only “know” what is loving or non-loving in relationship to what we know about God, that is through His revealed doctrine.

I believe some of that truth was revealed to us in our very creation through the natural law engrained in our vary souls.

Some of that truth was revealed to us through special revelation from God’s prophets and in these last Days by God Himself through the Church He came to Earth and created.

So I don’t disagree that man can experience and know real love independent of a religious institution. But I only think that is the case because some portion of what constitutes “True Theological Doctrine” has already been written into our hearts.

Maybe “Doctrine” is simply the wrong word for what I’m thinking of….?

Chuck

Ok, but how humans understand such realities/truths, despite God’s intention, has always changed through time. Even if it involved “doctrine.”

In other words, ok, sure, God is eternal etc. as is God’s will, love, and so on.

But does that mean that we humans have always “got it” correctly throughout the ages? Of course not. So, humanly, doctrine changes.

 

[Roy5]

Cat Herder

I don't mean to point the finger at Catholicism and suggest that it was particularly pro-Hitler. Most Protestant and Catholic Germans fell in line behind Hitler when he seemed to be 'restoring' German honor after the humiliation of Versailles and as long as the German armies were winning.

 But a few points, without getting into a complex history of the rise of Nazism to power.

1. **The Catholic Centre Party came to terms with Nazism** when it finally compitulated and the majority supported the Enabling Act of 1933. The Bishops also lifted the ban against cooperation with Nazism at about the same time. I don't believe that any of these Bishops were sent to Dachau or other concentration camps because of their opposition to Nazism, as Niemoeller, a major Protestant, was in 1947. (This is not to defend Protestants, either, most of whom went along, except that some tried to organize anti-Nazi activity through the Confessing Church.) It was about this time that the Nazi government signed a Concordat with the Vatican, which was interpreted as an arrival at an accord between the two. Then again, some of the leaders in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler were devout Catholics. Few heroes in this tragic scenario.

1. As for the Einstein quote, that (like many other quotes) has been questioned as to its authenticity. Einstein himself apparently questioned at after the war. The rumor was even spread that Einstein embraced Catholicism, converted through the efforts of a Jesuit priest. Einstein fervently denied that - according to one quote - and even didn’t recall ever talking with a Jessuit priest. The same rumor was spread about Niemoeller, which also was a fabrication. As for Niemoeller’s famous quote (or misquote) - re the Nazis coming for the labor unions, the Catholics, etc. - that has been quoted in many different versions. He seems to have said that he started the quote with the communists (often omitted by others thereafter), and that he never mentioned Catholics because they did not have to confront persecution. (About a third of Germany was Catholic, so that would have been self-defeating in Hitler’s struggle for national unity.) Some now add to the quote the gays, even the gypsies and Jehovah Witnesses, all of whom were targeted, etc. We have to be careful of spurious quotes used to promote some special cause or group. There are many out there.
2. Hitler seemed ambivilent about Catholicism and Christianity generally. On the one hand, he cited Christianity in some of his propaganda speeches to rally popular support. Was it Speer who said he remained Catholic all of his life? It doesn’t make any difference. The German churches generally failed to stand as a bulwark against Nazism. Would the churches in this country do much different in a similar situation? I’m not at all sure. Fortunately, we have a much longer and stronger democratic tradition than Germany had, but we also have millions who seem ready to embrace the thinking of “my country right or wrong.” I prefer: “My country, and may it always be right!” I hope our beloved USA can avoid such a fate but sometimes I wonder. Both the extreme left and the extreme right can be so convinced that they are right and their opponents are demonic that they appear open to totalitarian-style thinking. May God spare us!

God bless everybody.

 

[Cat_Herder]

1. The Catholic Centre Party came to terms with Nazism when it finally compitulated and the majority supported the Enabling Act of 1933.

Hitler had SA men with guns to make sure they acquiesced.

The Bishops also lifted the ban against cooperation with Nazism at about the same time.

False.

I don’t believe that any of these Bishops were sent to Dachau or other concentration camps because of their opposition to Nazism, as Niemoeller, a major Protestant, was in 1947.

They were.

It was about this time that the Nazi government signed a Concordat with the Vatican, which was interpreted as an arrival at an accord between the two.

Said agreement being reached at gunpoint, as further evidenced by the fact that Hitler violated it immediately.

1. Hitler seemed ambivilent about Catholicism and Christianity generally.

False.

On the one hand, he cited Christianity in some of his propaganda speeches to rally popular support.

His version of Christianity in which Mary is an incubator and Jesus is an Aryan, and in which Luther’s anti-Semitism was embraced wholeheartedly.

I’m not at all sure. Fortunately, we have a much longer and stronger democratic tradition than Germany had, but we also have millions who seem ready to embrace the thinking of “my country right or wrong.” I prefer: “My country, and may it always be right!”

Please define democracy.

I hope our beloved USA can avoid such a fate but sometimes I wonder.

We can start by not sacrificing our children to Molech.

Both the extreme left and the extreme right can be so convinced that they are right and their opponents are demonic that they appear open to totalitarian-style thinking.

There is no middle ground. There is only the culture of life and the culture of death. Doctrine is what keeps the culture of death from obtaining political and other forms of power. History has borne this out repeatedly, especially in the 20th Century.

 

[Roy5]

I** tend to think that the 20th Century proves that extremists of the Right (fascists) and extremists of the Left (communists) both lead down the wrong and disastrous road**. I hope you’re not on either extreme, but what you write does make we wonder.

** Naturally, you are going to take issue with the other points I have made.** I have watched EWTN enough so that it always makes excuses for just about every wrongdoing in church history. It can be almost funny, rather like the way Glenn Beck mixes fact with fiction when he summarizes American history. There are many different ways to interpret history. Consider the different ways our history is presented. Should we portray Jefferson as a great pioneer of democracy, or should we see him as a slave-holder who bore several children by one of his slaves and never freed them? Was Abraham Lincoln the Great Emancipator and a man of enormous compassion and intelligence, or was he a dictator who ordered an unlawful invasion of the South, violated states rights, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation primarily for political reasons.

** By the way, I do not laud Protestantism for its history either.** Yes, Luther wrote a diatribe against the Jews which may have helped infect the minds of many Germans. In our Civil War, Protestant ministers in the South often found Biblical bases for continuing slavery, while Protestant ministers in the North, as a whole, were aligned with those opposing slavery. Etc. It was interesting to read a poll recently, indicating that white Protestants are two out of three of those associated with the Tea Party.

** There is evidence, of course, that the Vatican saved Jews**. But to claim that Pius XII spoke out boldly against Hitler (or Mussolini) during World War II is to warp history. I recognize that he was in a tough situation, especially as Soviet forces moved into Poland, Hungary and other Catholic areas. He knew that Stalin would try to crush Catholicism, which Hitler never did. He had sent aid to Franco during the Spanish Civil War, who also was supported by the Vatican. The entire picture is extremely complex and, as I said, there are few heroes on either side. The real heroes were those little-known men (and women), most of them young and really innocent, who laid down their lives for their country. They become the cannon fodder of those in power, as has been true throughout history.

** I was in Germany many years ago,** when its major cities still were largely in ruins. The impact on me was enough to turn me into a virtual (95%) pacifist. My heart went out to the German people who also were victims of Nazism, just as it had gone out before to the millions of Chinese, Filipinos, Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, French, British, Americans and many others - maybe 60,000,000 altogether - who lost their lives in that ugly war. I felt the same compassion for the average Japanese who were so badly misled by their aggressive, warrior government.

** Let me repeat. I do not consider Pius XII a friend of Hitler, but** I do think he did his best to stay somewhat aloof and avoid taking sides as he had millions of faithful on both sides, and he did dread the spread ol Communism, which meant more persecution of the church. There also seems to be some evidence that the Vatican, or some people in it, helped fascists escape to Latin America once the Allies had won.

** Such are some of the complexities, nuances, and contradictions of history.** But it is exciting, and I wake up each day eager to find out the latest chapter in this unfolding drama. I’m sure God will work things out in ‘His’ own time. (God is beyond gender, of course, but English is limited.)

** God bless everybody. **

 

[Roy5]

I should have said, of course, that I don’t believe that any German bishops were sent to concentration camps. I checked over the list you footnoted quickly, and don’t think any of those listed were Germans. True, there were Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox clergy - along with rabbis, of course - at Dachau and elsewhere. Many died there.
Incidentally, I visited Auschwitz in Poland in 2004.

 

[Philthy]

A few random comments

Philthy. I don’t connect independent thinking with being a sinner, as you apparently do.

Not at all Roy5 - I never said or implied that being an independent thinker meant one was a sinner. You implied that it was somehow a bad thing that people left the Church because of an alleged limitation on independent thought. Your independent mind, however, has simply failed to grasp my basic point: just because people leave the church over something doesnt mean that the church is wrong on the issue or that it should alter its stance on it. That’s true for their stance on, for example, sin separating you from God. People will leave over the Church’s stance on abortion being a sin, for example. The fact that they leave adds no credibility to their leaving, and that reality undermines your implication that people leaving the church over lack of independent thought indicates something wrong with Church policy. That was my point.

I know many people were put to death because they were heretics, then viewed as a serious sin, but I hope that notion is long dead. I recall my shock when, in reading Aquinas I discovered that he favored the execution of heretics! I must say that this suddenly weakened by respect for his opinions even though he obviously was a great and systematic scholar.

None of this has anything to do with my comments or the thread.

You apparentlky question my qualifications to come to different conclusions on theology than those arrived at by ancient and medieval councils. I understand this.

Actually I did much more than that. What I did was to expose that the FACTS YOU PRESENTED argued against the value of independent thought. And you didnt respond to the very clear question I asked you in justifying your adherence to independent thought. I will put before you again, and instead of offering “random thoughts” why don’t try and concentrate on answering the question clearly and concisely?

What good is your intellectual freedom in the pursuit of spiritual truth when you acknowledge that brilliant, intellectually free minds scatter on the issues of spiritual truth???

Traditional Catholicism teaches, of course, that God will preserve the church from doctrinal error. I simply can’t believe that.

You mean that you “don’t” believe it, right? Not that you “can’t” believe it. There’s a big difference.

I respect the theological opinions of others and wish that the Catholic Church showed more respect for those who disagree.

More respect? I have no idea what you mean. Actually I do know what you mean, its just that you are expressing yourself poorly. In reality, it’s not disrespectful to disagree with someone. The Catholic Church recognizes the inherent dignity of every human life and has done more than any other entity in the history of civilization to proclaim that truth. That is a tremendous amount of respect given to those that the Church disagrees with. What you mean to say is that you wish that they gave those whose opinions they disagree with more credence, and that would simply be a breach of faith for the Church.

As I probably have stated several times, I put my trust in God and not in churches, preachers, or theologies.

Yes, you have repeated this largely meaningless statement several times. You trust God how, exactly? And how does that relate to the thread? You trust him to not care about the doctrine we choose to believe in? Or do you trust him to be ok with following your independent thoughts that you know do not lead to reliable conclusions about truth in spiritual matters?

I see stories of Padre Pio, a ‘modern’ saint, and how he levitated, bilocated, etc. Millions believe in such things, but I remain a skeptic. Many Protestants as well as Catholics accept on faith all manner of faith healings, exorcisms, and whatnot. Sorry, I have a problem with such things, though I go along with the idea that faith can help overcome illness and sometimes help with various forms of psychological illness, Demons? No.

I fail to see the relevance of your opinion on these issues.

Other points. Remember when the lawyer confronted Jesus and asked him point-blank how he could have inherited eternal life?
…This suggests to me that we are not be judged by our doctrines but by our love. Remember…Jesus told about those going to heaven and hell - the sheep and the goats, as I recall. When did we see you hungry? When did we visit you in prison? Etc. Not a word about doctrine, again.

The declaration that we have an obligation to everyone in need and not merely to those we have emotional, social or cultural affinity with is, in fact, a form of doctrine IMHO.

Oh, and by the way. I;ve always been puzzled by that passage in which someone refers to Jesus as good. Jesus replies: “Why do you call me good? There is only one good, and that is God.” Hm! Still causes me to wonder what Jesus meant by that.

Perhaps he wanted to know if the person asking the question actually knew who Christ was; as in, “Do you actually realize I am God?”

I really don’t understand the rapid change. Some say delayed backlash to church dominance for 350 or so years???

Perhaps they value their independent thought more highly than the stifled minds that were able to build that monestary and maintain it for 350 years…

I do my best to love everybody.

On this we agree whole heartedly!

Blessings!

 

[paul_c]

Roy,
Have YOU noticed that everything in what you write is about YOU.

YOU want to be independent in YOUR thinking…
YOU don’t believe this or that…
YOU disagree with this position or that position…
YOU think the church should be more accommodating to people like YOU…

YOU want the world and God to bend to YOU… But YOU know, it doesn’t work that way. No matter how great we think we are, we have little to no power.

Try thinking about this beatitude from Matthew 5: The MEEK will inherit the earth.
or this paradox proposed by Jesus in Matthew 16: “Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it but whoever loses his life for my sake will ind it.”

Its very hard in this ego-centric world to lay aside our egos, but ultimately, that is what will define the saved: Those that are williing to serve God and others without worrying about what they will get in return. Isn’t that what Jesus taugth by word and example?

You see, the reformantion was a rebellion against the Church and ultimately against God.
What continues to matter: Faith in Jesus’ mercy because this allows everything else not to matter: In the eyes of the reformers

The church and the ordained priesthood doesn’t matter; we are all priests
The sacraments don’t matter: We have God’s mercy
Sin doesn’t matter: We have God’s mercy
Doctrines don’t matter: We have God’s mercy

Unfortunately for those with this view is that God is also Just.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I** tend to think that the 20th Century proves that extremists of the Right (fascists) and extremists of the Left (communists) both lead down the wrong and disastrous road**. I hope you’re not on either extreme, but what you write does make we wonder.

I’ll show you my true colors, but first you need to answer something.

Should we portray Jefferson as a great pioneer of democracy, or should we see him as a slave-holder who bore several children by one of his slaves and never freed them?

Is Jefferson not both?

If he is not a pioneer of democracy irrespective of his personal faults, then how do you explain how you have the right to log on to the Catholic Answers Forums and the claims that you do without government intrusion?

 

[Roy5]

Okay, a few brief responses, since other duties call. And this is Halloween, when we will soon need to respond often to the doorbell.

Philthy. Why do ‘brilliant minds’ scatter on the issues of spiritual truth? Your question. Because many have come to believe that full spiritual truth is known to God alone, that the rest of us do our best to discover it but often conclude, as I do, that none of us has the ability as mortals to discern the ultimate answers to the ultimate questions. As a result we do not take pride in our conclusions and we also are inclined toward respecting the conclusions of others. We do have trouble, however, with any system, whether political (fascism, communism, etc.) or religious (traditional Catholicism, fundamentalist Protestantism, radical Islam, etc.) that claim to have a monopoly on truth. I hope this answers your question, which I thought I had answered in diverse ways already - my general thesis, actually.

No, I can’t believe it! Frankly, I would if I could, but just to accept it on paper or in words and yet reject it in my mind and heart would be hypocritical. It would certainly be easier in many ways if I could accept on faith the claims of traditional Catholicism or ‘Bible-believing’ fundamentalism or Mormonism or any other dogmatic system.

I find an enormous connection between, say, the wild and weird miracles attached to numerous saints, both ancient and modern, and the whole question of doctrine. Take Padre Pio, again, a modern saint. No, I do not believe that he levitated and bilocated (among other miracles attributed to him). Do you? He has been canonized, which indicates that the Church accepts those miracles. Such acceptance of these miracles attributed to him and others has had a major influence upon my thinking re Catholicism. I have watched the Lords on EWTN as they have expounded on other saints and their miracles. Sorry. Just more than my mind will accept. My guess is that many other Catholics feel as I do. One of my Catholic friends assures me that most Catholics, including priests, don’t believe them either, but stay with the church for personal, family, social, cultural and/or emotional reasons.

Now, Paul c. You put forth the usual argument against skeptics like me. We are arrogant, proud, rebellious, stuck on our own opinions, etc. My only response is that if you can’t find a better response forget it. That is an attempt to answer by demeaning the person and not engaging the questions at hand. It reveals, to me, a deep resentment that anyone should dare defy the magisterium. What if I said that you are arrogant and proud and boastful because you claim to belong to the one and only religion that has the ‘full splendor of truth’? Would I be dialoging with you or just engaging in an ad hominem rebuttal? We have too much of such negativism in our current political campaign without using it in what should be a civil discussion of religion.

Cat Herder. I was simply using Jefferson and Lincoln to illustrate how differently history can be presented. True, Jefferson was something of a contradiction. On my first trip to Germany years ago I visited a Catholic family that still admired Hitler. They were thoroughly convinced that he had been trying to save western civilization from Bolshevism and, secondarily, from arrogant British imperialism. They firmly believed that Germany had been badly mistreated at Versailles after World War I, that Hitler had initially saved Germany from the Great Depression, that he was totally committed to family values and cracked down on pornography and other social poisons, that he was a champion of the working man, that the collapse of Nazi Germany was in large part because Britain and the USA were under such strong Jewish influence, that the democracies should have joined Hitler against the USSR, that Americans had been fed lie after lie about Germany because of our press, and on and on and on. Apparently there were (and probably still are) people who see World War II differently.

A Japanese friend used to argue that while the Japanese militarist government was too-‘war happy’ Japan had been right in its argument “Asia or the Asians”. He reminded me that most of southeast Asia was under European control - India, Burma, French Indo-China, Dutch East Indies, Phillipines, etc. - that the only really independent nation was Siam, an ally of Japan! Different perceptions by different people.

In like manner, Catholics, Protestants and other can provide in a quite convincing way very different ‘histories’ when it comes to, say, the Reformation as well as more modern history. I recall a Protestant who declared that some of his relatives fled France after the St. Bartholomew Massacre which slaughtered so many Huguenots, including some of his family. He was still incensed that the Pope had ordered a Te Deum mass to celebrate the event! I really don’t think it does any good to live in the past. How much evil was done in the name of God, starting back in the Old Testament when - it says - God ordered Joshua to murder the inhabitants of Jericho once the walls fell and commanded Saul to kill every remaining Amalekite, even ‘sucklings’ as the Bible says. I have trouble believing that God arranged for a flood that drowned everybody on earth but for Noah and his immediate family. This must have meant that hundreds or thousands or more innocent little ones (even babies still in the womb) must have been drowned. How does that fit into the Christian teaching that God is just and merciful and loving? Moreover, I thought God was pro-life.

Sadly, so many Christians (Catholics and Protestants) still insist that we must believe such horrible tales of God-ordained genocide. I simply won’t. The God I worship would never be so hypocritical and commit such crimes. And I tire of those who make excuses for their vengeful deity. Sounds more like Satan than the God Christ taught us to love.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy. Why do ‘brilliant minds’ scatter on the issues of spiritual truth? Your question.

Uhhh, no Roy, that wasn’t my question. My question was why, if you recognize that brilliant, independent minds fail to arrive at spiritual truth, do you still pursue the independent, brilliant mind method of attempting to arrive at spiritual truth?
It’s a different question, Roy.

Because many have come to believe that full spiritual truth is known to God alone,

Ahhh - so you are an independent thinking agnostic of sorts?

I hope this answers your question, which I thought I had answered in diverse ways already - my general thesis, actually.

Not really, except to say that you pursue independent thought because you are more comfortable with it, but not because you believe it allows you to arrive at a knowledge of truth.

He has been canonized, which indicates that the Church accepts those miracles.

No it doesn’t.

Such acceptance of these miracles attributed to him and others has had a major influence upon my thinking re Catholicism.

It’s based on some flawed logic then. I think you will struggle to find any Church document discussing the specific miracles attributed to St Padre Pio, except those which occurred after his death and which were attributed to his intercession through answered prayers.

How much evil was done in the name of God, starting back in the Old Testament when - it says - God ordered Joshua to murder the inhabitants of Jericho once the walls fell and commanded Saul to kill every remaining Amalekite, even ‘sucklings’ as the Bible says.

I have trouble believing that God arranged for a flood that drowned everybody on earth but for Noah and his immediate family. This must have meant that hundreds or thousands or more innocent little ones (even babies still in the womb) must have been drowned. How does that fit into the Christian teaching that God is just and merciful and loving? Moreover, I thought God was pro-life.

You seem to be quite ignorant of some basic spiritual truths. The life we live here on earth Roy? It is not the end of the story - not even close. All those babies that died? What if God chose to exercise his mercy and love by welcoming them to Heaven for all eternity. Would that be just enough in Roy’s world? How stupid would your protests that God was being unjust appear then? Very foolish in my opinion - that is certainly how they seem to me.

Sadly, so many Christians (Catholics and Protestants) still insist that we must believe such horrible tales of God-ordained genocide. I simply won’t. The God I worship would never be so hypocritical and commit such crimes. And I tire of those who make excuses for their vengeful deity. Sounds more like Satan than the God Christ taught us to love.

I get it. You believe what you believe because you believe it. Good luck with that. I do think you are on the right trail when you focus on loving God and neighbor, and on that critical point we are in agreement.

Blessings!

 

[paul_c]

Now, Paul c. You put forth the usual argument against skeptics like me. We are arrogant, proud, rebellious, stuck on our own opinions, etc.

Its not an argument against you. you miss my intent completely. I’m pointing out that we are called to be servants of God and each other. That is the path to God. I’m trying to help you find that path.

My only response is that if you can’t find a better response forget it. That is an attempt to answer by demeaning the person and not engaging the questions at hand. It reveals, to me, a deep resentment that anyone should dare defy the magisterium.

I don’t resent that you defy the magesterium. I worry about you.

What if I said that you are arrogant and proud and boastful because you claim to belong to the one and only religion that has the ‘full splendor of truth’?

I would tell you that it takes humility to be a member of the church. Any one can join. Its not exclusive.

Would I be dialoging with you or just engaging in an ad hominem rebuttal?

Not sure what you intent would be.

We have too much of such negativism in our current political campaign without using it in what should be a civil discussion of religion.

what has this got to do with politics?

 

[Roy5]

I foolishly take the bait each time.

** Philthy** People like me - and there must be millions of us, many of us active in churches - ‘suffer’ from independent spirits, minds that don’t easily submit to closed systems that tell us what we should believe, enormous curiosity about this amazing world, and a willingness to accept that our mortal brains simply can’t comprehend all the mysteries of this enormous creation we call the universe. We also have trouble, frankly, making the loving and omnipotent God compatible with injustice and suffering that has characterized the world from the outset. Now, we have a choice. We can accept on faith one of many theological systems - traditional Catholicism, fundamentalist Protestantism, some form of Judaism, Hindu-like ideas, Buddhism, etc. Some make politics or even sports their ‘religion’ - like the Communists and Nazis did.

My own inclination is strongly toward liberal Christianity, at odds both with traditional Catholicism and hard-core Protestantism. As I have stated several times, I bend toward the mainstream denominations - Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, etc. - that permit a wide variation when it comes to theology. I find that that seems to suit me better than a more dogmatic faith.

I am in no way agnostic when it comes to God. I am very God-centered in my daily life and try to maintain a personal life of meditation. In this, by the way, I find help from many sources, including ancient, medieval and modern Catholic ones. My problem with Catholicism is with all the ‘barnacles’ that have attached themselves to the church since the time of Christ. I often think: how comfortable would Jesus be at a major church conference in the Vatican, with all its ornateness, cardinals and others in their vestments, and the precision and prissiness that typifies such events? Jesus spoke of having no place to lay his head, while his Vicar on earth today behaves a lot like an ancient Roman emperor, riding around while the faithful shout out their adulation.

I have great difficulty with your suggestion that in ordering Joshua, Saul and others to slaughter all those people God may have been showing his love! Maybe that’s why he permits so many abortions - to bless those little souls by letting them escape the trials of life and go directly to heaven! Frankly, one reason Bible-believers trouble me is that they believe such stories of God’s alleged vindictiveness and justify them. I consider them an insult to God, when such vicious acts were justified because “God made me to it!” It would make much more sense to suggest that Satan was to blame! I personally think it was part of the evil that characterized war back then and also today.

Paul c Thank you for your more conciliatory tone. And thank you for trying to help me get on the right path. I have read and discussed and meditated on and researched religion for many years, and - as I previously stated - even spent some time at a Trappist monastery, read Catholic periodicals, watch EWTN, attend mass, etc., etc. Instead of drawing me closer to the church I have moved further away. Sorry. I am not particularly proud of this, but my study and analysis has led me away. I have not been attracted to evangelical Protestantism, the sort that is so aggressive on TV and through other media. But I do find liberal Protestantism appealing. I guess I simply need a faith that emphasizes faith in God and living as Christ would have us live but not narrow when it comes to theology. I have read much theology over the years - of many kinds - and respect theologians generally. But the notion that I must accept a whole set of doctrines that seem far-out to me, that seem to have sprung up over the centuries, doesn’t have any appeal to me. If if appeals to you, fine. Thank God we live in America today, where freedom of religion seems pretty safe.

I threw in the political reference because of my disgust with the ad hominem negattive campaigns that have been so intense and widespread this year - and because we vote on Tuesday. Hope you vote for the best qualified people regardless of party. As in religion, I am ‘independent’ when it comes to politics, too. Apparently I don’t find it easy to follow a ‘party line’ whether in religion or politics. I treasure my intellectual freedom too much.

God bless the whole world with peace, justice, and mutual respect. May religion serve as a bridge rather than as a barrier.

 

[paul_c]

I foolishly take the bait each time.

What bait is that? You are here of you own free will, aren’t you?

Paul c Thank you for your more conciliatory tone. And thank you for trying to help me get on the right path. I have read and discussed and meditated on and researched religion for many years, and - as I previously stated - even spent some time at a Trappist monastery, read Catholic periodicals, watch EWTN, attend mass, etc., etc. Instead of drawing me closer to the church I have moved further away. Sorry. I am not particularly proud of this, but my study and analysis has led me away. I have not been attracted to evangelical Protestantism, the sort that is so aggressive on TV and through other media. But I do find liberal Protestantism appealing. I guess I simply need a faith that emphasizes faith in God and living as Christ would have us live but not narrow when it comes to theology. I have read much theology over the years - of many kinds - and respect theologians generally. But the notion that I must accept a whole set of doctrines that seem far-out to me, that seem to have sprung up over the centuries, doesn’t have any appeal to me. If if appeals to you, fine. Thank God we live in America today, where freedom of religion seems pretty safe.

We can and have given you scripture readings that demonstrate the authority of the church to appeal ot your intellectual side and I’ve also shown you the scriptural support or humility and service to others. here’s a good one from 1 Timothy1:
5 The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith.
6 Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk,
7 wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.
8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law,
9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
10 the unchaste, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

You see, the problem has been with us since the beginning. The ground you are treading is not unique. In fact, many of the staunch Catholics on this website were in the same situation as you are. The converted or reverted, not typically because of intellectual discussions, but because something happened in their lives to change their hearts and make them see things differently, sometimes through a very humbling incident. Thus is the power of God.

I threw in the political reference because of my disgust with the ad hominem negattive campaigns that have been so intense and widespread this year - and because we vote on Tuesday. Hope you vote for the best qualified people regardless of party. As in religion, I am ‘independent’ when it comes to politics, too. Apparently I don’t find it easy to follow a ‘party line’ whether in religion or politics. I treasure my intellectual freedom too much.

To me, there is a distinct difference between following the teachings of the Catholic church and supporting a political party. Political parties are by their very nature trying to get something for their constituents. The Church on the other hand is selfless by design. Its only role is to help people get to heaven.

God bless the whole world with peace, justice, and mutual respect. May religion serve as a bridge rather than as a barrier.

Amen…

 

[Roy5]

Paul c

 The scriptures can be quoted to support all sorts of things, of course. Protestant fundamentalists, Jehovah Witnesses, and many others use them all the time to 'prove' they are right. In the case of Mary, as only one example, I find little if anything to support the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, the sinless life of Mary, praying to Mary, etc. The only two references to Mary between the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 and the crucifixion can even seem a bit dismissive of Mary.  Matt. 12:46-50, John 2:4. St. Paul doesn't mention Mary once in all of his letters to early Christians. Etc. I honor Mary as the mother of Christ but feel that Mariology has gone overboard within Catholicism, probably the influence of other faiths competing with Christianity during the early years of the Christian era. 

But I don't judge by scripture entirely anyway. Such stories as Noah and the Flood, Joshua murdering all the inhabitants of Jericho, Saul slating every last Amalekite, etc., convinced me that scripture is far from infallible. 

 It has been my experience that the evangelical churches around here are full of former Catholics. And many have joined more liberal congregations also. But none of this has impacted me. Even some evangelical preachers in this area are ex-Catholics. Then, of course, there are Protestants who have become Catholic. In addition, many have simply left religion. Only about 25% of the Catholics in this area attend mass except for Christmas and Easter. None of this proves anything, of course. You believe that the Catholic Church will be protected by the Holy Spirit always - "the gates of hell shall not prevail: etc - so you need not worry.

  As I keep repeating, if traditional Catholic suits you, great! I admire much about the church, especially its service to the poor, its work in education and medicine, etc. It's the theology and some of the incredible stories re saints and such that have been driving me away. Besides, I expect heaven to be full of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, and others, so I don't believe for a moment that our religious affiliation has anything to do with our eternal salvation. Love of God and our attempts to serve one another are at the core of the Christian faith and not all sorts of doctrines adopted by ancient councils which fought over them.

 We agree. Politics and religion are very different. I simply was indicating that I have an independent spirit in both arenas and am not quick to follow any church or party. I enjoy the freedom to think for myself without feeling constrained by any creed. You see this as egotism apparently. I see it as a freedom I deeply treasure, appreciate and use.

 God bless.

 

[paul_c]

Paul c

 The scriptures can be quoted to support all sorts of things, of course. Protestant fundamentalists, Jehovah Witnesses, and many others use them all the time to 'prove' they are right. In the case of Mary, as only one example, I find little if anything to support the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, the sinless life of Mary, praying to Mary, etc. The only two references to Mary between the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 and the crucifixion can even seem a bit dismissive of Mary.  Matt. 12:46-50, John 2:4. St. Paul doesn't mention Mary once in all of his letters to early Christians. Etc. I honor Mary as the mother of Christ but feel that Mariology has gone overboard within Catholicism, probably the influence of other faiths competing with Christianity during the early years of the Christian era.

Mary was chosen from among all women whoever lived to be the Mother of Jesus, the word incarnate. She was addressed by the Archangel Gabriel as " full of Grace." You can certainly see just on the face of those two statements that Mary was very special. I don’t see how the influence of other Faiths would have changed that. As for Paul not mentioning Mary, he was in his own sphere , ministering to the Gentiles and may never have met Mary.

But I don’t judge by scripture entirely anyway. Such stories as Noah and the Flood, Joshua murdering all the inhabitants of Jericho, Saul slating every last Amalekite, etc., convinced me that scripture is far from infallible.

So, Roy, what is your criteria for defining what is true and what is not? How do you decide?

 It has been my experience that the evangelical churches around here are full of former Catholics. And many have joined more liberal congregations also. But none of this has impacted me. Even some evangelical preachers in this area are ex-Catholics. Then, of course, there are Protestants who have become Catholic. In addition, many have simply left religion. Only about 25% of the Catholics in this area attend mass except for Christmas and Easter. None of this proves anything, of course. You believe that the Catholic Church will be protected by the Holy Spirit always - "the gates of hell shall not prevail: etc - so you need not worry.

Do you take consolation in that others have left as you have? The Catholic Church will not compromise the truth due to a lack of popularity. Did you know that half of all Catholics in Europe left the church in the first 50 years of the Protestant reformation. And did you know that 70% of them returned to the church in the next 50 years. (I learned this reading my son’s European history book last week). Public opinion can be fickle but the Church is unchanging, as it should be. Pope Benedict is on record saying a smaller, more devout church is better than a larger, less devout one.

  As I keep repeating, if traditional Catholic suits you, great! I admire much about the church, especially its service to the poor, its work in education and medicine, etc. It's the theology and some of the incredible stories re saints and such that have been driving me away.

Theology defines the Church. All the actions you admire are in support of the theology. As for miracles, the Church teaches that no one must believe in provate revelations or Miracles. The Church teaches that Faith is not based on miracles but reason (other than the Miracles of Jesus, I suppose).

Besides, I expect heaven to be full of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, and others, so I don’t believe for a moment that our religious affiliation has anything to do with our eternal salvation.

What is your basis for this belief? Do you really believe that God doesn’t care about what you believe? What happened To Faith alone, the calling card of Protestantism?

Love of God and our attempts to serve one another are at the core of the Christian faith and not all sorts of doctrines adopted by ancient councils which fought over them.

But love of God and our attempts to server one another are the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic church. You just happen to agree with this doctrine.

 We agree. Politics and religion are very different. I simply was indicating that I have an independent spirit in both arenas and am not quick to follow any church or party. I enjoy the freedom to think for myself without feeling constrained by any creed. You see this as egotism apparently. I see it as a freedom I deeply treasure, appreciate and use.

 God bless.

We got it. You are Proud to be your OWN man…

But to add one more thing, I definitely do not feel constrained by Catholicism. I see it as giving me direction for how to live my life and I am not adverse to getting advice. There is nothing it suggests that is in the least bit constraining to me. the more devout I become, the happier I become.

 

[Philthy]

I foolishly take the bait each time.

Bait? There is no bait. You enjoy these exchanges and that is why you continue to return.

Philthy People like me - and there must be millions of us, many of us active in churches - ‘suffer’ from independent spirits, minds that don’t easily submit to closed systems that tell us what we should believe, enormous curiosity about this amazing world, and a willingness to accept that our mortal brains simply can’t comprehend all the mysteries of this enormous creation we call the universe.

Your mind is no more independent than mine.

We also have trouble, frankly, making the loving and omnipotent God compatible with injustice and suffering that has characterized the world from the outset.

All theological systems that I am aware of share this difficulty.

My own inclination is strongly toward liberal Christianity, at odds both with traditional Catholicism and hard-core Protestantism. As I have stated several times, I bend toward the mainstream denominations - Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, etc. - that permit a wide variation when it comes to theology. I find that that seems to suit me better than a more dogmatic faith.

Im not sure what you mean that you “bend toward the mainstream denominations - Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, etc. - that permit a wide variation when it comes to theology.” It sounds like you don’t actually embrace any of them (there’s a reason why they all go by different names -because they hold to different doctrine) but find each of them the least offensive in your true religion: The Independent Church of Roy5.

I am in no way agnostic when it comes to God. I am very God-centered in my daily life…

I often think: how comfortable would Jesus be at a major church conference in the Vatican, with all its ornateness, cardinals and others in their vestments, and the precision and prissiness that typifies such events?

The truth is, though, you have no idea - so why waste your time thinking about it?

I have great difficulty with your suggestion that in ordering Joshua, Saul and others to slaughter all those people God may have been showing his love!

I dont know how to break this to you Roy, but your “difficulty” with it is, well, your problem. Furthermore, you have acknowledged that independent brilliant minds end up on often contradictory sides of spiritual questions. The facts are the facts. Our earthly life is brief and meaningful only in how it relates to our eternal life. God accomplishes his ends in ways we would never dream of accomplishing them. “For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so are my thoughts above your thoughts and my ways above your ways, declares the Lord”

Maybe that’s why he permits so many abortions - to bless those little souls by letting them escape the trials of life and go directly to heaven! Frankly, one reason Bible-believers trouble me is that they believe such stories of God’s alleged vindictiveness and justify them. I consider them an insult to God, when such vicious acts were justified because “God made me to it!” It would make much more sense to suggest that Satan was to blame! I personally think it was part of the evil that characterized war back then and also today.

I am not as impressed with the thoughts of your independent mind as you are! I think you confuse your ability to understand an issue with the question of what is the actual truth of the issue. If the actual truth of the issue is something you “can’t believe” or that you are unable to arrive at intellectually, you choose to believe something else! In essence you drift - IMHO - perilously close to gnosticism which properly expressed acknowledges the existence of God but not our ability to know Him in any meaningful way.

God bless the whole world with peace, justice, and mutual respect. May religion serve as a bridge rather than as a barrier.

Amen!

Blessings!