ELCA and Catholic Unity (?)

[MichaelP3]

Did Moses consider divorce good?

Is it good to apply capital punishment (to take another example)?

The answer is that capital punishment is not in itself an evil, and thus it may be permitted.

What about the punishment of solitary confinement (which some consider a torture)?

Whether instances of these acts are immoral is a matter of intentions and the prudential consideration of circumstances.

Separately, it is important to distinguish the teaching of the Church - something Catholics believe is guided by the Holy Spirit - from the actions of the Church (which are only ever acts of men). Priests who abused children, even bishops who failed to properly react to these incidences, behaved starkly contrary to what is taught. The latter (what is taught) was guided by the Holy Spirit, the former (behaviour) are evil acts of men.

See, this sounds like a much better argument. Why I said rather use that one then the eyebrow raising one previously.

 

[Duane1966]

Are you kidding me? Is that the argument? Allowing your kid to go on a sleepover doesn’t mean you think it’s good, but what’s the harm? Allowing torture and just staying neutral, oh my … Wow.

Rather just revert back to the default argument “it was the people in the Church, and not the Church” and let it be.

No I am not kidding you. In allowing divorce, is Moses saying divorce is good? By your logic…which makes my jaw drop and go WOW, you are saying yes. Innocent, never said torture was good. Innocent never taught torture was good. He did say it was allowable as a last resort. That is a far cry from equating something with being good.

Your sleepover analogy made me laugh.

 

[MichaelP3]

No I am not kidding you. In allowing divorce, is Moses saying divorce is good? By your logic…which makes my jaw drop and go WOW, you are saying yes. Innocent, never said torture was good. Innocent never taught torture was good. He did say it was allowable as a last resort. That is a far cry from equating something with being good.

Your sleepover analogy made me laugh.

The humour was intended maybe just to point out the different severity of cases.

The Moses analogy I did not understand. No it didn’t mean he thought it was good. Just like no Protestant should say it is good (and I am not sure where it is official teaching, seeing everything must be official for an argument about it). Glad the jaw dropped, wasn’t even thinking of Moses in that reply.

Although taking history into account it seems the Inquisitions had many last resort cases. (And by the way, I never brought up the being good part )

 

[Tomdstone]

What is the answer in the US? What about in New Zealand? Discussion is easier if you select contemporary topics where the meaning of the events described, and the circumstances are understood.

The teaching today of the Catholic Church is that: Torture is fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person, and its practice is absolutely prohibited in all circumstances.
The teaching in the past was that torture was allowed in the Inquisition to extract confessions.

 

[Duane1966]

The humour was intended maybe just to point out the different severity of cases.

The Moses analogy I did not understand. No it didn’t mean he thought it was good. Just like no Protestant should say it is good (and I am not sure where it is official teaching, seeing everything must be official for an argument about it). Glad the jaw dropped, wasn’t even thinking of Moses in that reply.

Although taking history into account it seems the Inquisitions had many last resort cases. (And by the way, I never brought up the being good part )

Is torture always wrong? I guarantee you, I can set up a hypothetical for you where you would say it is not wrong in the hypothetical I provide. Regrettable? Yes, but necessary.

 

[Tomdstone]

Only in the United States was shed for all in the prayer, due to a mistranslation of the Latin, which Rome for years told the USCCB to correct. But, Rome in the official prayers from which the English drew it’s translations, quite clearly taught that the blood was shed for many. .

When Pope Benedict said the Mass on the feast of the Baptism of our Lord (Jan 13 2013), he said “pro omnibus” instead of “pro multis”. The office of liturgical celebration of supreme pontiff on page 34 clearly indicated for this particular celebration in the consecration of the wine, in the formula, the pope will say “pro omnibus.”

 

[Tomdstone]

Is torture always wrong? I guarantee you, I can set up a hypothetical for you where you would say it is not wrong in the hypothetical I provide. Regrettable? Yes, but necessary.

Apparently you disagree with Pope Benedict XVI who said in September 2007: “The prohibition against torture ‘cannot be contravened under any circumstances’”

 

[MichaelP3]

Is torture always wrong? I guarantee you, I can set up a hypothetical for you where you would say it is not wrong in the hypothetical I provide. Regrettable? Yes, but necessary.

Let’s say there is a nuclear bomb that will detonate and wipe out the entire human race but the guilty person with the knowledge to stop it has been caught? So torture him, get the knowledge and save the human race? Something like that I guess…

Do you normally make such statements and demand yes/no answers? And say, well if you say this, you agree with this and then you mean this and therefore grass is green. I think we are on here to discuss rather. I am sure we can both set up numerous hypotheticals and “ifs” but I don’t think that’s the point. And it’s not even my point. I never gave an opinion that it’s right or wrong in whatever circumstances. Rather just raising my eyebrow…

 

[Tomdstone]

Since this thread is on ELCA and Catholic unity, please focus your posts on events in the present showing how that affects that potential unity.

ELCA tolerates differences of opinion on certain issues. Is this incompatible with Catholicism or not? Does Catholicism ever tolerate differences of opinion on theological issues. Does the fact that ELCA tolerates difference of opinions on certain issues mean that there cannot be unity with Roman Catholicism?

 

[Duane1966]

Apparently you disagree with Pope Benedict XVI who said in September 2007: “The prohibition against torture ‘cannot be contravened under any circumstances’”

Read the entire talk, and you realize he is talking about torture by certain authorities, in a certain context. He says something else in that talk that quite clearly shows he is not making the blanket condemnation of torture that your ripping that quote out of context seems to imply.

 

[Duane1966]

Let’s say there is a nuclear bomb that will detonate and wipe out the entire human race but the guilty person with the knowledge to stop it has been caught? So torture him, get the knowledge and save the human race? Something like that I guess…

Do you normally make such statements and demand yes/no answers? And say, well if you say this, you agree with this and then you mean this and therefore grass is green. I think we are on here to discuss rather. I am sure we can both set up numerous hypotheticals and “ifs” but I don’t think that’s the point. And it’s not even my point. I never gave an opinion that it’s right or wrong in whatever circumstances. Rather just raising my eyebrow…

I always raise my eyebrows when reading you. I said Innocent said torture was regrettable, but allowable. You took offense at that statement, and yet now you realize that there could becircumstances which call for it. Are you not saying the same thing as Innocent?

 

[SyroMalankara]

When Pope Benedict said the Mass on the feast of the Baptism of our Lord (Jan 13 2013), he said “pro omnibus” instead of “pro multis”. The office of liturgical celebration of supreme pontiff on page 34 clearly indicated for this particular celebration in the consecration of the wine, in the formula, the pope will say “pro omnibus.”

Misleading “quote” due to lack of context, lifted from: suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=608.35

 

[SyroMalankara]

Doesn’t the Catholic Church admit contradictory positions? for example:

1. Some say that the Blood was shed for all, whereas others will say the Blood was shed for many.

Shed for all potentially, shed for many (the elect) actually.

1. Some say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, whereas others will say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father stjosephukr.com/resources/liturgies/divine-liturgy/fulltext/

Patristic Traditions vary, the theology behind each is complementary though, not contradictory. Otherwise these two Churches would not be in Communion.

1. Some say that capital punishment is allowed, whereas others will say it is not allowed.

It’s “allowed” but is to be used in a limited manner.

1. Some will agree with the Bible (Luke 14:26) and say that unless you hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even your own life, you cannot be a disciple of Christ. Others will say that you must love, honor and respect your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even your own life in order to be a disciple of Christ.

You seem to lack nuance

1. Some will say that you should use unleavened Bread at Mass, others will say that you should use leavened Bread at Mass.

Again complementary Patristic Traditions.

1. Some will say you should receive Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling and others will say that you should receive the Precious Bread in the hand while standing.

Options

1. Some will say that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, others will say that since Catholics worship the Trinity and Muslims do not admit the Trinity, Catholics and Muslims do not worship the same God.

As the definition of God is explained further, all would agree there is a disagreement on understanding of who God is.

 

[Thorolfr]

Separately, it is important to distinguish the teaching of the Church - something Catholics believe is guided by the Holy Spirit - from the actions of the Church (which are only ever acts of men).

It’s not always easy to tell what an official Holy Spirit led “teaching” of the Church is. In many cases, it seems that some things are official “teachings” of the Church (as opposed to the fallible opinions of men) until they aren’t. When they aren’t, it will be said that they were only fallible opinions of some pope or bishop all along.

 

[cfauster]

I have to admire someone who quotes from official dialogue. Gutsy.

Boring, I admit, and probably not very gutsy, at least not as gutsy as the conversations about torture, etc.

To explain: I looked up the documents because they provide each “side” - Catholic and Lutheran - a chance to articulate positions. We can agree to disagree. And for this thread, I thought the difference between where authority lies in the church to maintain truth down the centuries is relevant.

Personally, I think both approaches are valid, and that both have strengths and weaknesses, just as dictatorships and democracies each can either work out well or badly as political systems of civil government.

All the best,
cfauster

 

[SyroMalankara]

Boring, I admit, and probably not very gutsy, at least not as gutsy as the conversations about torture, etc.

To explain: I looked up the documents because they provide each “side” - Catholic and Lutheran - a chance to articulate positions. We can agree to disagree. And for this thread, I thought the difference between where authority lies in the church to maintain truth down the centuries is relevant.

Personally, I think both approaches are valid, and that both have strengths and weaknesses, just as dictatorships and democracies each can either work out well or badly as political systems of civil government.

All the best,
cfauster

Dictatorship or Monarchies?

Dictatorships have almost never worked out well - actually, can’t think of a one.

Monarchies have faired much better.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

People are going off the track of the thread. People have been attacking the Catholic Church since the first century. It’s ok to do that, but do that on a thread devoted to that topic. **If you want to denounce some Renaissance pope, or even that first pope who directly denied knowing Christ, do that on another thread. **

It does not make your cause persuasive if you try to elbow your way in on this thread, rather it makes your arguments silly. Since this thread is on ELCA and Catholic unity, please focus your posts on events in the present showing how that affects that potential unity. If someone feels the urge to write in, once again, about Luther’s personality flaws, burned Catholic fish fries, tacky Lutheran stained glass windows, Global Warming, or whatever, don’t respond to their posts. Go back to the last relevant post and respond to that.

:clapping:

 

[Rau]

The teaching today of the Catholic Church is that: Torture is fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person, and its practice is absolutely prohibited in all circumstances.
The teaching in the past was that torture was allowed in the Inquisition to extract confessions.

The first point to note is that you concede that - at least at a point in time, the Church teaches consistently for all. So this is unlike the ELCA which admits multiple contradictory positions (as we’ve seen in their approach to SSM).

The 2nd point is - do you remember our discussion about authoritative sources and the differences between teaching and actions? Could you cite the former that you rely on?

is solitary confinement torture Tom?

 

[Rau]

Let’s say there is a nuclear bomb that will detonate and wipe out the entire human race but the guilty person with the knowledge to stop it has been caught? So torture him, get the knowledge and save the human race? Something like that I guess…

Moral Evil may not be done, even for that end.

 

[Rau]

ELCA tolerates differences of opinion on certain issues. Is this incompatible with Catholicism or not? Does Catholicism ever tolerate differences of opinion on theological issues. Does the fact that ELCA tolerates difference of opinions on certain issues mean that there cannot be unity with Roman Catholicism?

The “tolerance” you describe manifests as a view there is no truth to be taught on serious matters. Unity can only extend where common truths are held.