Is God a good teacher?

[polytropos]

The problem is that the church admits that it is not in the position of knowing even the simplest case: “the fate of a miscarriage, or a not-implanted zygote, which is flushed out of the woman’s system”. How could it then speak about the complicated issues? Yes, I heard, that there was never a “revelation” about this specific issue, but that is exactly the problem I am pursuing: “why is there no clear revelation about the all these problematic issues?”. How can you reconcile God’s alleged “love” for us, by keeping us in the dark? And what you consider a “revelation” is not sufficient in the eyes of the non-strictly-super-ultra-orthodox catholics.

It is false that the miscarriage of zygotes is the “simplest issue.” I was commenting on the fact that the Church does provide extensive, unambiguous material on how one should live life if one wants to be saved in Part 3 of the Catechism. Pointing to an issue that has no bearing on your salvation does not change that fact. The fact that we don’t know what happens to miscarried zygotes does not change the way you do or ought to act. It doesn’t affect whether you’re getting to heaven, unless you fallaciously take it as evidence against the Church’s claims.

That is funny. Since I do not accept even the concept of “sin” (being an atheist), does that give me a “get out of jail free” card? Does that make me “invincibly ignorant”? Not according to the church, but again, the church is not an authority for a non-Catholic. As such the question: “what constitutes full knowledge” is of utmost importance. If person “A” says that action “X” is sinful, while person “B” say that it is not sinful, then there is a valid need for an objective epistemological method to decide, which opinion is correct, and which one is not. Don’t you agree?

I doubt an atheist would be fully responsible for every sin he undertakes while not believing in God, although if the atheist were to convert, he would still confess them out of love and repentance, since whether or not he is culpable, he knows they offend God.

As for what atheists are culpable of - I don’t know. I don’t have access to their minds and I can’t say that any given atheist is going to heaven or hell. It doesn’t really matter if an atheist who engages in extramarital sex knows that it’s a mortal sin, because atheism is another mortal sin.

If one is trying to read into the word “full knowledge” some kind of ambiguity that would excuse him, then one probably has full knowledge.

I know you love to discuss epistemology, but I believe that would be getting away from the topic at hand, and I think (you will have to correct me if I’m wrong) you would reject most of the sources that flesh out my understanding of Christian morality, like the teachings of Jesus.

Sorry, but none of us is in the position to speak authoritatively about what kind of a believer God “wants”.

I agree, and that is exactly the point. The argument that God is a bad teacher hinges on you knowing what type of believer he wants and arguing that his teaching style does not result in the largest amount of that type of believer - because he is teaching people in order to make them good believers.

 

[Portofino]

It is false that the miscarriage of zygotes is the “simplest issue.” I was commenting on the fact that the Church does provide extensive, unambiguous material on how one should live life if one wants to be saved in Part 3 of the Catechism. Pointing to an issue that has no bearing on your salvation does not change that fact. The fact that we don’t know what happens to miscarried zygotes does not change the way you do or ought to act. It doesn’t affect whether you’re getting to heaven, unless you fallaciously take it as evidence against the Church’s claims.

This becomes self-serving as a definition, though, as if to say, “if the Church isn’t certain about something, then it mustn’t be necessary for salvation.” In the case of baptism, it hits closer to home – the Church ultimately is not certain whether baptism for an infant is absolutely necessary for salvation, or not.

Likewise, when a Spaniard colonized the Americas, I would say it was essential to know if the natives they were mistreating possessed immortal souls! One justification for mistreating those natives, of course, was doubting that they did possess immortal souls; but the Church, as I understand it, unambiguously affirmed that, yes, they do have immortal souls, souls that can be saved; and harm done to those souls can incur damnation. This provided needed “moral clarity” to the issue, as opposed to saying, “they are human…but…we just don’t know if they have souls…but it’s still wrong to kill them!” It muddies the waters, it is murky, if one says, “it’s a mortal sin, and that’s all you need to know; just don’t do it, and you’ll have nothing to worry about.” Masturbation is a mortal sin, but there is clarity over the kind of mortal sin it is, vis-a-vis rape or murder.

It’s also a paradox because, if I accept that knowing whether a zygote/embryo is ensouled, or knowing the fate of an unbaptized infant, is non-essential to salvation, then why am I to believe that the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary “body and soul” into heaven, or her perpetual virginity, or even the virgin birth, is necessary to salvation? Or is it? Common sense, reason, tells me that it is utterly unimportant, morally speaking, whether one believes in these Marian doctrines, or not. Or does one say that it…helps? But, by the same standards, it could “only help” to know the answers to these other theological questions, as well. So it’s as if one is saying, “if we know it, it’s important (e.g., all the details of Mariology); if we don’t know it, it’s not important” (e.g., the moment of ensoulment, or the fate of infants who were not baptized). But I see no rational, “common sense” grounds for why having clarity over Mary’s Assumption is of greater theological import, than the salvation of infants who were not baptized, or the moment of ensoulment for the unborn. It’s as if one’s knowledge or ignorance defines the relative importance or non-importance of a theological question, which becomes a self-fulfilling definition.

But ultimately, I think Tyrion was planting the seed of doubt that, "if the Church can be uncertain about these things, what else is it not certain of? And when it declares that, though fallible, it has infallible teaching on “faith and morals,” why believe that it is infallible regarding its own infallibility? I have no problem with invoking faith – and trust – but, if one invokes reason alone, one can always plant a seed of reasonable doubt.

 

[Ion]

Yes, I “know”…

• where is it reported? in the bible.
• who compiled the bible? the catholic church.
• It is also reported in the “holy tradition” of the church.
• So the church asserts (infallibly) that God established the church…
• But wait!
• How do we know that the church is infallible?
• It is declared infallibly by the church.
• …
• And the dog just keeps chasing its own tail…

I think this guy have swallowed some History Ch. documentaries where christianity was presented as part of the world’s religions, and generally speaking religions were created by the rich in order to keep the poor in submission; there can’t be a more idiotic view of religions.

 

[jonathan_hili]

But ultimately, I think Tyrion was planting the seed of doubt that, "if the Church can be uncertain about these things, what else is it not certain of? And when it declares that, though fallible, it has infallible teaching on “faith and morals,” why believe that it is infallible regarding its own infallibility? I have no problem with invoking faith – and trust – but, if one invokes reason alone, one can always plant a seed of reasonable doubt.

The Church basis her claim to infallibility upon Jesus Christ, not upon reason alone. If you do not accept that Jesus is who he said he was, obviously it would be hard indeed to swallow what the Church says. Yet if you do, you can see the clear connection.

The problem, as I see it, with this argument is that it assumes that if one is fallible with regards to one aspect of knowledge, one cannot be infallible with another aspect of knowledge, which is false. For example, I may be fallible about what I see or hear (it could be an illusion of some kind) but I am infallible in knowing my own conscious experiences of such things. And remember, the Church can only pronounce infallibly upon things she knows, not on things she does not know. Hence, the Church can declare a person in heaven, but not a person in hell. You can only believe that the Church is infallible regarding her own infallibility if you believe Jesus because he substantiates this claim. If you don’t believe Jesus, well, I’d think you have larger things to deal with than the Church’s claim to infallibility.

 

[polytropos]

This becomes self-serving as a definition, though, as if to say, “if the Church isn’t certain about something, then it mustn’t be necessary for salvation.” In the case of baptism, it hits closer to home – the Church ultimately is not certain whether baptism for an infant is absolutely necessary for salvation, or not.

No, that is not what I was saying. I’m not defining what the Church doesn’t know as unnecessary for salvation. I am saying, in this instance, the one thing the Church does not know does not bear on salvation. Tyrion made the claim that the Church does not clearly articulate what the do’s and don’t’s are for getting into heaven. And whether the Church knows what happens to unbaptized infants or not, that claim is false. A reasonable man would not act differently based on that knowledge.

I think it is a little strange to conflate knowledge about ensoulment with Marian doctrines. Knowledge about morality, strictly speaking, is not what affects salvation. Living out the Church’s moral doctrines and loving God is what affects salvation. Since the precise moment of ensoulment does not change the way one should act, it is nonessential knowledge to salvation. But Marian doctrines are not moral doctrines, they are proper devotions to the Mother of God.

jonathan_hili covered the other points well.

 

[Ismael]

I think you’re wrong on a lot of your understandings of Catholicism. ‘Private Revelations’ such as Limbo, indulgences and prayers for those in Purgatory are all merely that – Private Revelations. Private Revelations are merely traditions, which should be considered as being merely ‘unharmful’ to Catholic faith. we’re not forced, as Catholics to believe in them unlike Public Revelations such as the existence of Purgatory, which are Truths provided by the Holy Spirit through the scriptures.

Ehm ‘Limbo’ is not a private revelation but come from theology.

We have the Lombo Patrourum (where good people went before Christ) which is what the OT called “Sheol” (according to the fathers). The Limbo Patrorum is based on scriptural passages

The Limbo of Infants was thought to be the place where unbaptized kids went, since they committed no sin, but were still stained by the original sin.

Not all theologians agreed that the Limbo of infants was a valid idea (since many though God saved such people in a different way) and these days, most theologians refute it.

It remains a ‘theological speculation’, nothing more. Not a private revelation.

indulgences and prayers for those in Purgatory are all merely that – Private Revelations

Also… NO.

Indulgences is a ‘practice’ instituted by the Church (based on the concept that the Church has the power to bind and lose on Earth and Heaven as Jesus tells Peter).

Prayers to the souls in purgatory… is just that PRAYER. You pray for someone else, alive or dead…

Praying for the dead is founded on BIBLICAL texts NOT some ‘private revelation’. That’s why we pray for the dead even in normal liturgy.

Of course some prayers and practices can come from private revelations, like the prayers of St Faustina that she received though mystical visions.

---

you seem to be confused about what private revelation is

A private revelation (PR) is a ‘revelation’ outside scriptures about some supernatural truth (or something we cannot know by natural means). Usually revealed to some saint.

Like if someone said that St. Joseph died of an heart attack at the age of 57, because an angel told him so, it would be a ‘private revelation’ (of course not all claims are true revelations!).

For example the ‘Divine Mercy’ revelations from St. Faustina Kowalska are a ‘private revelation’.

Private revelation is not dogmatic, i.e. you do not have to believe in it.

the Church doesn’t claim to have the fullness of all truths, but at the same time, she does posess infallibility on those truths that have been revealed to her.

that I agree with.

Tyrion

Yes, I “know”…
where is it reported? in the bible.
who compiled the bible? the catholic church.
It is also reported in the “holy tradition” of the church.
So the church asserts (infallibly) that God established the church…
But wait!
How do we know that the church is infallible?
It is declared infallibly by the church.
…
And the dog just keeps chasing its own tail…

Yes maybe you should stop chasing your own tail Tyrion.

The Church based itself on the ‘testimony of witnesses’ first and foremost in its history, even before new testament scriptures were written or compiled into a ‘single volume’, nor does it state that the ‘Church is infallible because the Church says so’.

So it does not work as you claim. So stop trying to bite your own tail.

 

[Portofino]

Hi Portofino, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I’d like to clarify a couple of points you made, as you seems to have misunderstood how the Church lays claim to knowledge. The sources of knowledge for the Church can be categorised under two broad headings: reason and revelation, with the former including the deliverances of reason, scientific data, philosophy, etc. and the latter including Scripture and Tradition. The Church can’t just magically come up with something she claims to be knowledge, but rather must rely on what can be known through these means.

Thank you for your responses, Jonathan_hili.

I respect that the Church lays claim to two forms of knowledge – reason and revelation. Obviously, I’m skeptical of the latter in particular, not convinced that revelation is taking place (“inspiration”, perhaps, but not in a way that is different than Buddhist or Sufi inspiration, or the inspiration of a metaphysically-minded poet).

, I agree with you that this is an important theological issue and the Church would love to be certain about it. However, on the whole Scripture and Tradition are silent on the matter, as is philosophy.

I think the Church knows its own history and knows that there was never unanimity either as regards when ensoulment takes place, or what happens to babies who die prior to baptism. For this reason, it says that it does not know for certain.

Of course, from my outsiders’ perspective, just because Church tradition has reached unanimous agreement on an issue – an issue that it deems important – does not mean that it is correct. It may be, or may not be; or it may be partially correct, but with what I would call “human distortions.”

The Church didn’t choose to know this and not that, but rather has a given set of data with which to work. And certainly on some aspects, as you rightly point out, the Church doesn’t know any more than you or I precisely because the Church is people not some kind of magical society.

I think that, as a logical possibility, it could be true that the Church is infallible in some areas – in “what’s important”, let’s say – and fallible in others. Rightly or wrongly, the fact that the Church is human in what it doesn’t know – in its fallibility – makes me feel less persuaded that it is “super-human”, as it were, in what it does know.

But I do give the Church points for honesty; it could say, “we have all the answers”, but it doesn’t. That in itself is a show of character, instead of pretending, “yes, we know everything there is to know.” Of course, it makes me uncomfortable when a Catholic confidently proclaims, “we have Truth.” I would always qualify that, out of caution or out of mere humility, to read, “we believe we have Truth.”

 

[Portofino]

And whether the Church knows what happens to unbaptized infants or not, that claim is false. A reasonable man would not act differently based on that knowledge.

I deem that the fate of unbaptized infants would be important to know, because it would be a means of comforting the broken-hearted – to parents whose children were stillborn, or miscarried, or who died in early infancy. It would be useful to know in the Church’s role as a healer; in this sense, that God could give the Church this knowledge, but does not, could be part of the wider “problem of evil” argument that Tyrion is making.

We all know that this question has rent the heart of many a grieving parent – aggrieved at the idea that their child could be barred from heaven for an eternity, and that they may never see that child in heaven.

Many priests break the rules, of course – certainly your baby is in heaven, resting with angels. Of course, given Benedict’s clear pronouncement on the subject, it is not off limits for a priest to say that “we have every reason to hope that they’re in heaven”; but my sense is that many priests, as well as Catholic laypeople themselves, go even farther than that.

In a different sense, a material sense, one’s own starvation has no bearing on the issue of one’s salvation, yet nonetheless raises the question mark as to how a loving, compassionate God would permit it. Just so, parents have obviously suffered enormously (often in silence) or uncertainty regarding the fate of these babies. Yet the Church doesn’t know for certain; God hasn’t revealed it to them. It knows that Pope John Paul II is in heaven, but it is not certain of the fate of a stillborn infant (of course, the doctrine of original sin complicates matters, even though no one would dare say that this baby was anything but “innocent life”).

My own somewhat cynical assessment of the matter is that, in a sense, the Church finds itself between a rock and a hard place – it perhaps “wants” to assure parents that their unbaptized infants are heaven bound, but – at the same time – it cannot ignore the doctrine of original sin, nor does it want to make it appear that baptism is not mandatory, or even serve to *discourage *baptism.

With whether zygotes or embryos, or fetuses have souls, it is similar – no bearing on the question of salvation, none whatsoever, but great bearing on the Church’s ability to comfort the aggrieved and the suffering – namely, those mothers whose pregnancies have ended in miscarriage. Just so, it was the death of Christ that saved; but it is the resurrection of Christ that gives certain hope, that death is not the end, that salvation exists. It is a priest’s knowledge of what happens in the afterlife that enables him to minister to his flock, and that leads parishoners to lend him their ear. They are convinced that the priest, that the Church, knows.

But, again, I do have the impression that priests, out of personal initiative, will often tell a mother, “your unborn baby has a soul and we have hope to believe he is resting with God.” They know better than to say, “we don’t know for your sure whether the 3-month old fetus has an immortal soul, but we do know it was human. It probably has a soul; we just can’t be sure. And if it does, we can hope that’s it’s in heaven, but we can’t be sure.”

think it is a little strange to conflate knowledge about ensoulment with Marian doctrines.
polytropos;10986756:

That could my bias; I find Marian doctrines comparatively more abstract. From my perspective, the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity (for example) is more of a “high order” theological question. As mentioned, knowing that a miscarried fetus was ensouled, and knowing that there is nothing barring this soul from heaven would help to serve, to reinforce, not only the Church’s love of humanity, but - - presumably – God’s love of humanity, God’s sending of the great “comforter,” taking comfort in truth.

So it would be good to know, not in the sense that it is necessary for salvation; rather, in the sense of comforting the afflicted or the aggrieved, thus better fulfilling the Church’s role of being in a position to offer

that comfort, that comes from certain knowledge.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Thanks for the response, Portofino. It’s understandable that an outside would be sceptical of the Church’s claims. Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, cannot simply be reasoned to. It is a faith that needs to be personally experienced. Unlike, for example, Buddhism, where one could in a sense philosophise to the ultimate truth of reality, Christianity is based on the experience of the risen Lord Jesus. If you don’t accept the experience, there is little reason to accept the Church. That makes sense.

Just want to respond on what you’ve said here:

I think that, as a logical possibility, it could be true that the Church is infallible in some areas – in “what’s important”, let’s say – and fallible in others. Rightly or wrongly, the fact that the Church is human in what it doesn’t know – in its fallibility – makes me feel less persuaded that it is “super-human”, as it were, in what it does know.

I don’t think the Church would look at infallibility as deciding on “what’s important”. There are lots of truths that are important over which the Church has no magisterial province (at least, infallibly), for example, how to solve world poverty, end war, whether certain mathematical formulae are valid, the biological origin of life, etc. Infallibility rests more on “what is necessary for salvation”, since that is the Church’s mission. That’s why, for example, when ensoulment occurs has not been definitively defined (because the fact of the matter does not pertain to salvation) but abortion has been definitively stated as a mortal sin (because killing an innocent human being, even assuming he or she does not have a soul, is always wrong and threatens salvation). The Church isn’t super-human, but rather inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t mean she doesn’t make mistakes but rather, when defining specific doctrines related to salvation, she doesn’t make mistakes - in fact, it doesn’t even mean that she teaches fully all truth all the time.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Oh, just to reiterate the point, Portofino, here you say:

I deem that the fate of unbaptized infants would be important to know, because it would be a means of comforting the broken-hearted – to parents whose children were stillborn, or miscarried, or who died in early infancy. It would be useful to know in the Church’s role as a healer; in this sense, that God could give the Church this knowledge, but does not, could be part of the wider “problem of evil” argument that Tyrion is making.

Certainly, I agree that it is emotionally important, but it does not pertain to salvation. In fact, the Church doesn’t even pronounce on the fate of baptised people (generally, anyway). We trust in God and His mercy. Even if the Church cannot definitively pronounce on this matter (and it may be possible in future with more theological reflection and discovery - who knows), she can still be a healer, and often is, in comforting parents. In fact, the mercy and love of God can be very comforting indeed when you face grave evil in your life.

As for its role in the “problem of evil”, well, I think this problem (of evil) is less about knowledge than about spiritual or emotional angst. Job asked lots of questions but got no answers, because answers only lead to more questions. It was the presence and experience of God that satisfied Job, as it does many grieving people.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

Yes, I “know”…

• where is it reported? in the bible.
• who compiled the bible? the catholic church.

At the time Jesus gave authority to who we regard as our first pope, Peter, there was no Bible that was compiled at that time, only the Torah (Old Testament). The Church wasn’t how it is today. The eyewitnesses who accepted this were also eyewitnesses to many of Jesus’ miracles. In fact, when Jesus gave Peter the authority, I believe it was the Resurrected Jesus that did so. And Peter went on to die for this along with the other apostles. Peter didn’t accept this “because the Bible said so”, he saw and experienced everything first hand.

• It is also reported in the “holy tradition” of the church.
• So the church asserts (infallibly) that God established the church…
• But wait!
• How do we know that the church is infallible?
• It is declared infallibly by the church.
• …
• And the dog just keeps chasing its own tail…

We can see the claim of the infallibility of the Catholic Church and we see it authenticated every time we see that it does not bend the rules of morality to suit the masses. We see that in regards to faith and morals it has never been incorrect and has stayed absolutely true to morality for 2,000 + years.

It was ORDERED. If that is not the strongest endorsement, I don’t know what is. Along with the endorsement of slavery / indentured servitude. Along with corporal punishment… and a whole lot of other practices. So don’t try to whitewash the bible.

Ordered by who? Can you provide an example and quote an excerpt where God orders genocide? Please be sure you know the context of your quote as well without conflating the orders of the people with the orders of God Himself.

Only in your opinion.

Absolutely not my opinion at all. Can you provide an example where loving your neighbor and God would not be clear direction in any given situation?

Portofino answered this perfectly.

Portofino did not answer it at all, as his premise was incorrect as well as the comments that followed that were based on that incorrect premise.

 

[Portofino]

Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, cannot simply be reasoned to. It is a faith that needs to be personally experienced.

And thank you for your responses, as well. I quoted the above line that you wrote because I agree with you.

rests more on “what is necessary for salvation”, since that is the Church’s mission.

Perhaps you choose your words very deliberately there – “rests more on what is necessary for salvation.” In the “faith and morals” pairing, there are articles of faith that do not appear to be necessary for salvation in the direct sense, and yet are nonetheless declared infallible – for example, the Assumption of Mary, body and soul, into heaven. Before this was known – in the 15th century, say, before it was finally declared infallible in the late 19th – I’m not sure that souls were being endangered, because it had not been declared.

Which is a paradox of infallibility, I suppose – if its being declared infallible were strictly necessary for salvation, it would have made sense to declare it with such force from the very beginning of the Church’s history.

doesn’t mean she doesn’t make mistakes but rather, when defining specific doctrines related to salvation, she doesn’t make mistakes - in fact, it doesn’t even mean that she teaches fully all truth all the time.

Well, I respect this faith, and it’s refreshing that you actually call it faith, instead of strictly intellectual understanding. I realize that the Church teaches that reason and faith are not at odds, but the limitations of reason have to be reached at some point, beyond which only faith (or a conversion of the heart) can take you the rest of the way, I would think.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Perhaps you choose your words very deliberately there – “rests more on what is necessary for salvation.” In the “faith and morals” pairing, there are articles of faith that do not appear to be necessary for salvation in the direct sense, and yet are nonetheless declared infallible – for example, the Assumption of Mary, body and soul, into heaven. Before this was known – in the 15th century, say, before it was finally declared infallible in the late 19th – I’m not sure that souls were being endangered, because it had not been declared.

I’d suggest that the issue here with salvation is the authority of the Church, moreso the Assumption of Mary, as has often been the case with declarations of infallibility. In fact, and this sounds paradoxical, many of the infallible doctrines are not strictly necessary for salvation - people can be saved without knowing or even assenting to them in some cases. The issue rests with the Church’s authority, and accepting the Church as such an authority. So, in some cases, when people question a doctrine, like Mary’s Assumption, the Church declares it infallibly not just to confirm faith in the doctrine but also faith in the Church. And this continues with your second point…

Which is a paradox of infallibility, I suppose – if its being declared infallible were strictly necessary for salvation, it would have made sense to declare it with such force from the very beginning of the Church’s history.

The content of infallibility isn’t as important as the acceptance of infallibility, and that is, the Church. When Church authority wasn’t seriously threatened…

Sorry can’t continue - but will do so later - as my (school) kids are calling me…

 

[Portofino]

I’d suggest that the issue here with salvation is the authority of the Church, moreso the Assumption of Mary, as has often been the case with declarations of infallibility. In fact, and this sounds paradoxical, many of the infallible doctrines are not strictly necessary for salvation - people can be saved without knowing or even assenting to them in some cases. The issue rests with the Church’s authority, and accepting the Church as such an authority. So, in some cases, when people question a doctrine, like Mary’s Assumption, the Church declares it infallibly not just to confirm faith in the doctrine but also faith in the Church. And this continues with your second point…

Yes, someone like Luther certainly challenged the authority of the Church, partly because of the “sinful behavior” that he saw going on around him. Interestingly, for Protestants at the time, allowing priests to marry was actually a step towards virtue, in their mind; as one early Anabaptist, Michael Sattler, had put it to the tribunal that later executed him for heresy, “how many chaste priests do you know?” This was meant as a rhetorical question; it may indeed have resonated! The Protestant reasoning seems to have been, “better to marry than to fornicate, and there is too much fornication going on in the ranks of the clergy.”

I understand the Catholic argument that it was a mistake for those Protestants – or for anyone else – to conflate the Church’s “perfect doctrines” with its at times very imperfect, sinful behavior. Of course, there are naturally consequences to bad behavior; even if bad behavior on the part of the Church is incapable of violating the truths of which the Church is the guardian, it nonetheless damages the Church’s image. So there are always consequences to sin, you could say. Even in our ordinary lives, someone who would be a spokesperson for morality must also be a role model of that morality – walking the walk. People, not entirely without reason, do not want to be preached to by those who do not practice what they preach; that person has no credibility, in their eyes. They don’t want a couch potato to lecture them on staying in shape (“you see the splint in your neighbor’s eye, but not the log in your own eye…” and “physician: heal yourself”).

But, of course, the Protestants also disagreed with much of the Church’s thinking. And here I would say that a Catholic could conceivably say that, in many cases, the Protestant critics were in the right; where they were wrong, would say the Catholic, is that the “time had not yet come.” In order words, they were preaching the right thing, but not at the right time.

So – again, from a Catholic perspective; I’m not claiming I agree with this, entirely:

—Luther was preaching the right thing – Mass in the vernacular – but at the wrong time
–Jan Hus was preaching the right thing – greater laity participation, the chalice not denied to the laity during Communion – but at the wrong time
–the Anabaptists were preaching the right thing – separation of church and state, religious liberty, abolition of capital punishment, abolition of wars fought in the name of Christian orthodoxy – but at the wrong time

I don’t think this relativizes the truth of the Church, per se, but it is true that – from a Catholic perspective – someone preaching the reforms of Vatican II, in the year 1550, would have been deemed to be in error, and would have been deemed in error for disobeying the Church in advocating those particular reforms, at that particular time.

I’m not sure what to make of this, but this could be a way of reconciling Catholics and Protestants; in other words, a Catholic could say, "Luther preached many of the right things, but at the wrong time; and the Church knew that it was the wrong time. Luther’s disobedience of the Church was in error, because he believed he knew better than the Church. What the Church knew, that Luther didn’t, was that the time was not yet ripe for such changes, even though they eventually did adopt use of the vernacular in worship, or absolutely free and unrestricted access to vernacular translations of the Bible.

A paradox, though – when John XXIII said that the Church needed to “throw open the windows” of the Church, it was almost as if it he was saying, “because the time is long overdue; because we can do better.”

can’t continue - but will do so later - as my (school) kids are calling me…

no problem

 

[jonathan_hili]

I understand the Catholic argument that it was a mistake for those Protestants – or for anyone else – to conflate the Church’s “perfect doctrines” with its at times very imperfect, sinful behavior. Of course, there are naturally consequences to bad behavior; even if bad behavior on the part of the Church is incapable of violating the truths of which the Church is the guardian, it nonetheless damages the Church’s image. So there are always consequences to sin, you could say. Even in our ordinary lives, someone who would be a spokesperson for morality must also be a role model of that morality – walking the walk. People, not entirely without reason, do not want to be preached to by those who do not practice what they preach; that person has no credibility, in their eyes. They don’t want a couch potato to lecture them on staying in shape (“you see the splint in your neighbor’s eye, but not the log in your own eye…” and “physician: heal yourself”).

I completely agree, Portofino, that moral authority cannot simply - in real human terms - rely on theological authority alone but must be practiced, lived out. This is particularly why, I believe, the saints are the best examples of moral authority.

With the rest of your points, Portofino, again, I don’t really disagree, however, would like to make a distinction between the Church’s doctrine and practice. Many of Luther’s points were accepted at the time by the Church hierarchy and certainly reforms to that affect were instituted during the Council of Trent. Yet the real issue with Protestantism from a Catholic perspective isn’t the practices as such but the doctrines that underpin them.