How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong?

[Contarini]

Well, palatable to the liberal intelligentsia, of course, just like you mentioned.

Fair enough. I suppose they’re proposing that God has revealed this and even if they don’t agree they must proclaim its truth?

Perhaps this may be true, but, in reality, I’ve never heard a member of TEC proclaim that he disagreed with, say, the teaching on priestesses, but that if that’s what God had revealed he was going to obey.

I’ve certainly heard people speak of overcoming their homophobic and sexist prejudices.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve certainly heard people speak of overcoming their homophobic and sexist prejudices.

Edwin

That’s quite different, Edwin. The CC proclaims that one must “overcome their homophobic and sexist prejudices”, too.

What we are discussing is whether members of the TEC who are in support of priestesses really feel they are in obedience to God’s will, at the expense of their own.

I have not found that to be the case.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Homophobic is a typical liberal elitist catch phrase. It’s nonsense. Someone who disagrees with the gay lifestyle is somehow in possession of a phobia of the person who lives that sinful lifestyle. It’s a silly term really. And equating sexism with a rejection of women’s ordination is equally goofy and cliche. It’s just a cheesy attempt to demonize those with whom we disagree. Typical. I heard it from plenty of liberal college professors. Good to know nothing ever changes…

 

[JohnnyReb]

I know its odd responding to the second half first…but stay with me.

In the end Anglicanism was a political state church of England that spread out into the big world around us and after a few hundred years it has been swallowed up by either Catholicism or Evangelicalism or downright atheism.

I already see a huge Charismatic/Evangelical influence in many Continuing Anglican groups. I guess that is more a positive thing for me than negative. England is already a very secular nation, as is all of Europe. Even Pope Benedict has spoken of Europe as being in need of re-evangelizing.

Its political nature in England led to its unavoidable embrace of secular, watered-down values. The emergence of women “priests” and homosexual rights and moral relativism was inevitable given the secular links as a political church. It’s too bad. Yet with all its ruffles, its wrinkles, its pimples, it has always maintained a charm. For me it was a thinking-man’s church where I could disagree from time to time and not be branded a “cafeteria Anglican” or a traitor or coward.

Thats certainly a huge part of the appeal, especially when juxtaposed against Catholicism, where the faithful must accept the teachings of the Magisterium with docility. Its like Catholicism wants nothing to be in question, but with Anglicanism nothing is certain. Is there a happy medium. I struggle with this one badly. I’m finding both extremes frustrating, yet with Catholicism I can make a leap of faith. If the church was promised that it would lead into all truth and not err, even I have a hard time with a teaching, I can trust the church.

Its liturgy has always been dignified and lovely, almost poetic. Its clergy can be quite wonderful—in my case here for sure, and there is a charm, a certain something that I came to love about it. Anglicanism is almost like Rod Stewart. It has a raspy, almost ratty voice but you want to keep listening and you can’t quite explain why. I think back to singing Christmas carols in that charming little brick church into the midnight hours, coffee hours, my kids in the christmas play dressed as wise men and Caleb dressed like a sheep, Father James letting my kids ring the church bell, a lot of hours talking with my rector, the bishop making time to stay in the parish hall and talk to me for 90 minutes straight, house calls from Anglican priests, hospital visits to my family from Anglican priests, good times…like I said, there’s an emotional element to it all, sentimental…and yet I can’t tell you any good memories hardly from the Catholic side of things except for Father Gerry, a priest since moved on, who married Kate and I again in order to give us a sacramental marriage. I’ve had a TON of bad experiences in the Catholic Church…and yet I keep going back…

Thats a good analogy. I know I had some bad experiences with Pentecostalism from an institutional side, but if that is why I left, I am wrong. It could, could be that despite your bad experiences, you believe the CC is right and true. If I felt the same about Pentecostalism, the right thing for me would be to go back. There is too much I disgree with however. You also have to, and I think you do, take your family into account in this. What is going to bring up your children in the Lord with a firm foundation, so when they are older, they can make the right choice to be Christians?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Very interesting thoughts. May I offer some of my own that came after reading what you said? Well I’m going to…

I don’t think there’s a lot about Anglicanism that hasn’t already been said by most of us. It’s in a sad state of disrepair. And I think it’s not just Anglicanism. I’ve read a lot of articles about the fact that the “mainline” Protestant churches are dying on the vine while the new evangelical non-denoms and megachurches are on the rise. It’s really too bad. I see it out “in the field.” My sons and daughter attend a Lutheran school. The attendance numbers at the school are good but the poor little parish is just struggling to pay the bills. They have just a few hundred parishoners and it was once a proud, thriving LCMS parish.

I’m not 100 percent sure why this is, but I can say that post modernity has had some impact. Denominational loyality is not there as much anymore. I saw it more from my parents generation who were "Born Baptist and will die Baptist (or Methodist etc…). I myself have hopped around and not thought twice about it.

St. Paul’s, my charming little ole Anglican parish is really in decline. Besides being sued to death by TEC, they have just 300 parishoners and there are practically no children and very few teens. You could number all the kids and teens on two hands it seems. The congregation is all grey-haired and mostly over 60, heck really more over 75. The Rite I early service is staunchly senior citizens. The Rite II is mostly 50’s and up. At St. Paul’s a Mass with 40 year olds is the “youth” service IMO!

LOL when I took my sister to my parish she said “it looks like a nursing home”. Admittedly, there are only a few children and youth, but we are a small and growing parish, 70 or so members. There are about ten of us 20-30 somethings in our parish, and I am one of them. However, I have noticed that this is a problem thoughout American churches, except for Evangelicalism. I really think that in 25-50 years, the US will be like Europe is now in our church going habits. People no longer go to church just because its a socially acceptable thing to do.

The old mainliners are on the way out. Many closing their doors. The evangelicals are on the up. I notice around here non-descript groups like “Grace Community Church,” which is a non-denominational church, is HUGE now. It has grown into thousands and thousands of parishoners. The Evangelical Free Church, “Gateway Bible Church” and Assembly of God are all the super biggies in my area. Of course the only opposition they have are-----THE CATHOLICS who number in the 7,000 families range with many, many unregistered folks

People don’t seem to want a denomination now. They seem to intentionally want vagueness. They want to hear about Jesus and a Bible lesson. They don’t seem to care about Luther’s views or commentaries or theology. They don’t want the Book of Common prayer or Lancelot Andrewes and Thomas Hooker. They could care less about Calvin or Bucer or the Wesleys. They want a vague feel-good message of hope with no strings attached I think. And I think that’s sad.

I understand what you are saying, but in some ways I feel thats an unfair characterization of many of these groups. In the A/G churches I was a part of for years, we received relevent but challenging messages that were Bible based. They were deep in the scriptures. Many of these “Community Churches” are affiated with larger groups when one looks at them-denominations so to speak, but not necessarily the historical ones. I know in seminary we studied Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Augustine, Aquinas etc…and that was at a Pentecostal Seminary. They very much cared about theology.

I’m not sure how to put this: God is going to work through whatever people and institutions will yield themselves to him and his will. Why are the Evangelical churches so healthy? They preach the word of God, and apply it practically to peoples lives. The Holy Spirit is moving among them. If Catholics would be honest about it, the reason the CC continues to grow here in the USA or remain steady is the influx of Latinos. Why do you think the CC has such a liberal position on immigration? Amoung native born Americans, the CC is losing numbers fast-at least amoug those who practice their faith and attend Mass regularly-some studies say at the rate of almost a 10 percent a year loss.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hey Johnny,

It’s pretty rare when we disagree but I think you’re right, we do diverge here. The Assemblies of God and other Protestants pay lip service to Augustine, Aquinas, and even Anselm and the boys in seminary, but do they choose to look at targeted beliefs from those fathers and saints or do they look at the complete picture? That’s what I’m saying. I’m not saying Protestants are dullards who have no clue about the fathers. But I am saying that these seminaries tend to target one aspect and not the whole picture. For example, let’s take St. Augustine of Hippo. Protestants, beginning with Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers, looked at very specific, targeted teachings of Augustine—predestination, the fallen and corrupt nature of humanity, grace, justification through faith, etc. They focus on those things more than anything else because they want support for their agenda. They neglect to discuss how Augustine was emphatically pro-Rome, pro-episcopal polity only, and accepted Catholic views on so many other things. Some of these seminaries might study the Fathers to see how they fought against gnosticism or arianism, but do they focus on the Eucharistic views of the Fathers or their views on the episcopacy, the sacrifice of the Mass, works with faith, sacramental theology, and the rest? That’s my point. They might quote Ignatius of Antioch to support their own view of “orthodoxy” in one area but they’ll ignore Ignatius’s statements that the flock should regard the Bishop of their diocese as Christ Himself!

As to the other discussion, is the Holy Spirit using Evangelicals? I don’t know? I think one could try to make the case that the Holy Spirit is guiding Mormons and JW’s and I would wholly disagree but it’s all speculation. Tough to tell what the HS is doing.

Is Catholicism growing solely because of Latinos? Possibly. But so are evangelical groups…I think Catholic media like EWTN, Catholic Answers, and all the other outlets are also having a positive impact. After September 11th a lot of people in my area re-evaluated their lives and there was a tremendous spike in attendance that didn’t just spike temporarily, it stuck. We’ve had this HUUUUGE attendance ever since 9/11 and the people in these parts have stuck to it I think.

But I think over time these non-denoms are going to balloon and then the air will come out swiftly. These non-denoms have a temporary charm and it’s inviting that they’re not attached to any one denominational creed or historical group but then after a while they deflate.

Very interesting thoughts. May I offer some of my own that came after reading what you said? Well I’m going to…

I’m not 100 percent sure why this is, but I can say that post modernity has had some impact. Denominational loyality is not there as much anymore. I saw it more from my parents generation who were "Born Baptist and will die Baptist (or Methodist etc…). I myself have hopped around and not thought twice about it.

LOL when I took my sister to my parish she said “it looks like a nursing home”. Admittedly, there are only a few children and youth, but we are a small and growing parish, 70 or so members. There are about ten of us 20-30 somethings in our parish, and I am one of them. However, I have noticed that this is a problem thoughout American churches, except for Evangelicalism. I really think that in 25-50 years, the US will be like Europe is now in our church going habits. People no longer go to church just because its a socially acceptable thing to do.

I understand what you are saying, but in some ways I feel thats an unfair characterization of many of these groups. In the A/G churches I was a part of for years, we received relevent but challenging messages that were Bible based. They were deep in the scriptures. Many of these “Community Churches” are affiated with larger groups when one looks at them-denominations so to speak, but not necessarily the historical ones. I know in seminary we studied Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Augustine, Aquinas etc…and that was at a Pentecostal Seminary. They very much cared about theology.

I’m not sure how to put this: God is going to work through whatever people and institutions will yield themselves to him and his will. Why are the Evangelical churches so healthy? They preach the word of God, and apply it practically to peoples lives. The Holy Spirit is moving among them. If Catholics would be honest about it, the reason the CC continues to grow here in the USA or remain steady is the influx of Latinos. Why do you think the CC has such a liberal position on immigration? Amoung native born Americans, the CC is losing numbers fast-at least amoug those who practice their faith and attend Mass regularly-some studies say at the rate of almost a 10 percent a year loss.

 

[PRmerger]

Its like Catholicism wants nothing to be in question, but with Anglicanism nothing is certain.

This is absolutely NOT true, Johnny. Catholicism proclaims fides quaerens intellectum–faith seeking understanding. One is certainly free to question.

Are you not familiar with the magnificent encyclical Fides et Ratio? There’s a reason it’s not called “Faith, and not Reason.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But ultimately the CC wants obedience to their dogmas and theological opinions and you have no right to your own opinion or divergent thinking, period. So it’s one thing to say they encourage formation of intellect, curiosity, and thinking, but another to say they expect all your intellect, thinking, curiosity, and cerebral activity to agree with them 100% on everything. I see it as “you have every right to your opinion…as long as it’s ours!”

This is absolutely NOT true, Johnny. Catholicism proclaims fides quaerens intellectum–faith seeking understanding. One is certainly free to question.

Are you not familiar with the magnificent encyclical Fides et Ratio? There’s a reason it’s not called “Faith, and not Reason.”

 

[PRmerger]

But ultimately the CC wants obedience to their dogmas and theological opinions and you have no right to your own opinion or divergent thinking, period. So it’s one thing to say they encourage formation of intellect, curiosity, and thinking, but another to say they expect all your intellect, thinking, curiosity, and cerebral activity to agree with them 100% on everything. I see it as “you have every right to your opinion…as long as it’s ours!”

Well, I guess it’s the same way as a parent telling a child: here, figure out why 5-3 equals 2. Don’t just take my word for it. I’ll give you 5 cookies. Then I’ll eat 3. How many are left?

Son, you are free to believe that it’s still 5, but you’ll be really, really sad when you realize you don’t have 5.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That analogy would be good if we could “prove” religion and theology and dogma. The Orthodox, Anglicans, and Catholics make solid arguments in many theological, dogmatic, and moral areas and nothing adds up like 1 plus 1 is 2. The papacy itself can indeed be argued from Christian antiquity but dang the East can present one darn good opposing position that shoots it down fast. The same is true on a myriad of Catholic issues. It’s not this easy. And morally we can’t arrive at all conclusions with mathematical ease, plain as day. I think the analogy is a poor one in this context, good ones for other situations.

Well, I guess it’s the same way as a parent telling a child: here, figure out why 5-3 equals 2. Don’t just take my word for it. I’ll give you 5 cookies. Then I’ll eat 3. How many are left?

Son, you are free to believe that it’s still 5, but you’ll be really, really sad when you realize you don’t have 5.

 

[PRmerger]

That analogy would be good if we could “prove” religion and theology and dogma. The Orthodox, Anglicans, and Catholics make solid arguments in many theological, dogmatic, and moral areas and nothing adds up like 1 plus 1 is 2. The papacy itself can indeed be argued from Christian antiquity but dang the East can present one darn good opposing position that shoots it down fast. The same is true on a myriad of Catholic issues. It’s not this easy. And morally we can’t arrive at all conclusions with mathematical ease, plain as day. I think the analogy is a poor one in this context, good ones for other situations.

I would have to disagree with you, gurney, on almost all points above. And I am surprised to see you argue the above as a believer.

Firstly, as a believer–not merely as a Catholic, or as a Christian, but only as a believer–I can profess that there is much data that “proves” religion.

And this data becomes even more verifiable, reliable, and objective for Christians, who have the Datum par excellence, Jesus Christ.

I refer you to this, written by Peter Kreeft.

We have Scriptural data. We have ecclesial data. We have historical data.

And, again, I refer you to another article by Peter Kreeft.

 

[mackbrislawn]

That is your belief concerning the workings of other faith traditions…it has no basis in fact how they…or I arrived at our understanding of scripture…true…we did not embrace your Catholic understanding. It was arrived at with much soul searching prayer and discussion on how to remain faithful to the testimony of scripture and still embrace a faith that speaks to the needs of people in the 21st century.

It is not YOUR understanding…nor the understanding of your church community…but it is one we have embraced as the will and mind of God for us…we are accountable to Him and Him alone…not you…nor your church tradition.

You may choose to impose your caricature upon us…but it does not speak to our condition nor does it address the procedure we undertook with much “fear and trembling” to discern the Mind and Will of God for our lives.

How you determine it for yourself…is between you, your faith tradition and God.

Peace to you friend.

“…how to remain faithful to the testimony of scripture and still embrace a faith that speaks to the needs of people in the 21st century.”

Indeed. This statement seems to admit a tension between scripture and a 21st century faith. As if it is recognized that scripture says one thing yet we today want something else. So, how to get around it, how to guide our own steps according to contemporary desires? The solution given allows us to make up our religion as we go along, yet do it according to the permission of God. Actually, that does appeal to me personally as a natural man, so I can understand why others would like it as well.

“…to discern the Mind and Will of God for our lives.” This appears to mean that for different lives God has a different Mind and Will. And, as corollary, for lives of different times and ages, God also has a different Mind and Will. Mebbe so. At least this in in accord with modern relativism.

Modern relativism does away with absolutes, and perchance, even with the absolute of God.

Or at least, the absolute of one God: “How you determine it for yourself…is between you, your faith tradition and God.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re surprised by what I say? I fail to see why? Religion is about FAITH. Faith is the operative force behind our religion. There is reason as to the natural law and the idea of god but the actual “proof” isn’t there. It’s about faith in the testimony of the believers and witnesses to Christ’s death and resurrection. We Christians choose to believe it. Others do not. You’re trying to make me sound almost atheistic or agnostic because I say this, which is far from the truth. I’m simply saying that faith is the heart of our religion and we cannot show Jesus to people or the Holy Spirit or the creation of the world or the parting of the Red Sea or Elijah flying in a chariot into heaven. It’s faith, as Hebrews tells us, that imparts the wisdom and awareness of God. It’s a gift of the Holy Spirit and a powerful blessing. That being said, your analogy was a poor one. The 3 plus 2 is five kind of thing, the obvious physical mathematical “proof” of 5 doesn’t apply with religion. That’s all I was saying. If we could just “show” atheists or agnostics or burned-out Christians Jesus standing right there or Noah’s Ark or Jesus walking on water, I think the whole discussion would be a moot point. But we can’t. So we argue with the best reason we can but ultimately FAITH again is the main ingredient necessary along with all the other factors. When you say there is “data” that proves “religion” then you might satisfy a deist but not a person seeking to prove that Jesus Christ died on a cross, on the third day rose, ascended, cured the lame, raised the dead, healed the blind, etc. If you have proof for that then I think the game is afoot and you can now convert the entire world overnight.

When it comes to “historical data” or “ecclesiastical data” that boils down again to faith. We can read what we want into history and ecclesiastical history. We can put spin on it, not understand context, view things through different lenses, etc. I can refer “widsdom” from Tertullian that you give me as nonsense because he later became a montanist. I can tell you Augustine of Hippo (whom I adore) was blinded by pagan thinking and neo-platonic nonsense. I can tell you Cyprian was right or Stephen I was right in that debate. I can say the Orthodox were right in 1054 or the Catholics. I can say the Arians were misunderstood or they were right. I can defend gnostics as Elaine Pagels did so foolishly and blame the orthodox Christians of the day as being paranoid power-mongers and chauvenists. I can say or do so many things and arrive at different conclusions, PR. Anyone can. So religion boils down to faith. Obviously the folks in here who are Orthodox feel that the Catholic Church in the West fell into schism and heterodoxy. The Catholics believe the opposite. You cannot say, “well you Easterners 1 plus 5 is 6 obviously!” It doesn’t work that way. If it did, everyone would be Catholic right now. That’s my point.

I would have to disagree with you, gurney, on almost all points above. And I am surprised to see you argue the above as a believer.

Firstly, as a believer–not merely as a Catholic, or as a Christian, but only as a believer–I can profess that there is much data that “proves” religion.

And this data becomes even more verifiable, reliable, and objective for Christians, who have the Datum par excellence, Jesus Christ.

I refer you to this, written by Peter Kreeft.

We have Scriptural data. We have ecclesial data. We have historical data.

And, again, I refer you to another article by Peter Kreeft.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re surprised by what I say? I fail to see why? Religion is about FAITH.

No, gurney. Religion is about truth. Faith is a means of arriving at this truth, but it’s about truth nonetheless.

One can have faith in something that’s not true, but that would be as futile as having faith in Santa Clause, right?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m simply saying that faith is the heart of our religion

I would have to disagree with you again here. LOVE is the heart of our religion.

and we cannot show Jesus to people or the Holy Spirit or the creation of the world or the parting of the Red Sea or Elijah flying in a chariot into heaven. It’s faith, as Hebrews tells us, that imparts the wisdom and awareness of God. It’s a gift of the Holy Spirit and a powerful blessing.

True enough.

That being said, your analogy was a poor one. The 3 plus 2 is five kind of thing, the obvious physical mathematical “proof” of 5 doesn’t apply with religion.

Well, as all analogies do, it will fail. But it made my point rather trenchantly I believe. The CC does not simply proffer teachings that must be swallowed without understanding. She offers them to us and then says, “See! 5-3 =2. Look what happens if 3 are eaten.”

So we argue with the best reason we can but ultimately FAITH again is the main ingredient necessary along with all the other factors. When you say there is “data” that proves “religion” then you might satisfy a deist but not a person seeking to prove that Jesus Christ died on a cross, on the third day rose, ascended, cured the lame, raised the dead, healed the blind, etc. If you have proof for that then I think the game is afoot and you can now convert the entire world overnight.

You are correct in that faith is a component in any belief.

However, it’s also irrelevant to the discussion. For we all accept MOST things on faith, do we not? I mean, really, most people here will proclaim that Manila is the capital of the Philippines, even if they’ve never set foot on the island and seen the govt at work. They accept it on faith from the map, from google, or because they believe Mrs. Caltigarone, their beloved fourth grade teacher.

When it comes to “historical data” or “ecclesiastical data” that boils down again to faith. We can read what we want into history and ecclesiastical history. We can put spin on it, not understand context, view things through different lenses, etc. I can refer “widsdom” from Tertullian that you give me as nonsense because he later became a montanist. I can tell you Augustine of Hippo (whom I adore) was blinded by pagan thinking and neo-platonic nonsense. I can tell you Cyprian was right or Stephen I was right in that debate. I can say the Orthodox were right in 1054 or the Catholics. I can say the Arians were misunderstood or they were right. I can defend gnostics as Elaine Pagels did so foolishly and blame the orthodox Christians of the day as being paranoid power-mongers and chauvenists. I can say or do so many things and arrive at different conclusions, PR. Anyone can. So religion boils down to faith.

See my comment above. Anyone who quotes Tertullian is really accepting it on faith, unless they actually witnessed the man putting quill to papyrus (or whatever implements were to his avail.)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Of course it’s about truth. That goes without saying. But “truth” is not something one can prove. One cannot prove empirically that Jesus was the Son of God or miraculous or rose from the dead, etc. Faith is the vehicle that helps us arrive at the truth. We cannot prove it mathematically as you suggest. You know what I am saying here.

No, gurney. Religion is about truth. Faith is a means of arriving at this truth, but it’s about truth nonetheless.

One can have faith in something that’s not true, but that would be as futile as having faith in Santa Clause, right?

 

[PRmerger]

Of course it’s about truth. That goes without saying. But “truth” is not something one can prove.

Did you get a chance to read those references I cited by Peter Kreeft? This might make you change your mind about “truth” not being something one can prove.

One particularly insightful (and prophetic) example of truth being proven is Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. He proclaimed the truth about the degeneration of society that would occur with the advent of artificial birth control…and it has “proven” to be true.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I thought you said Love was? Faith is the core that leads us to the love of Christ. We can argue this all day. Love, faith, hope, truth, fine, whatever you want to say but the fact is none of these nouns prove Jesus Christ. A Hindu would say Vishnu or Shiva is love, an atheist would say love can be had without a god. I disagree with them both. Why? My faith tells me otherwise. There’s nothing wrong with saying Christianity is a faith-based religion. Religion is faith. You can’t lay it out plain as day obvious. Faith is needed.

I’m not being combative here. I’m simply saying that religion isn’t as plain as day as your earlier post made it sound. It sounded mathematical, like physics or gravity. I’m simply saying that the Holy Spirit must be in play, faith is a gift of God, we can accept it or reject it. You were surprised I’d say that as a believer and I still don’t see why you were surprised.

Faith is a key component but we have guessing to do at some point and hope we’re right. Like your screen name. I’m guessing your name stands for Public Relations Merger and somehow you work in acquisitions for some big firm But my faith might be wrong there!

I would have to disagree with you again here. LOVE is the heart of our religion.

True enough.

Well, as all analogies do, it will fail. But it made my point rather trenchantly I believe. The CC does not simply proffer teachings that must be swallowed without understanding. She offers them to us and then says, “See! 5-3 =2. Look what happens if 3 are eaten.”

You are correct in that faith is a component in any belief.

However, it’s also irrelevant to the discussion. For we all accept MOST things on faith, do we not? I mean, really, most people here will proclaim that Manila is the capital of the Philippines, even if they’ve never set foot on the island and seen the govt at work. They accept it on faith from the map, from google, or because they believe Mrs. Caltigarone, their beloved fourth grade teacher.

See my comment above. Anyone who quotes Tertullian is really accepting it on faith, unless they actually witnessed the man putting quill to papyrus (or whatever implements were to his avail.)

 

[JohnnyReb]

This is absolutely NOT true, Johnny. Catholicism proclaims fides quaerens intellectum–faith seeking understanding. One is certainly free to question.

Are you not familiar with the magnificent encyclical Fides et Ratio? There’s a reason it’s not called “Faith, and not Reason.”

The Catechism says that the faithful are to receive the teachings of the church with docility.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought you said Love was?

Yes, LOVE is. Where did I say “something else” is the heart of religion?

BTW: PRmerger:

P-initial of DH
R-initial of me
m-initial of DD#1
e-initial of DD#2
r-initial of DD#3
g-initial of DD#4
e-initial of last name

And “r” added just to make it sound look a noun.