S
st_felicity
Guest
God Bless you too, and Merry Christmas!
I’m going to post my response now anyway…for what it’s worth…
**Per your explanation concerning the ambiguity of the New Catechism, I do see what you are saying with regard to how a reader may interpret a passage, but to interpret such as your examples show, an individual must interject a personal assertion into the statement rather than take the statement for what it says. To poll a group of 100 Catholics to determine whether the CCC is ambiguous or not is a straw man—all that would show is whether the 100 Catholics found some consensus in their interpretation—and would prove nothing of what the CCC “actually” says. I believe it is incumbent upon the reader to read what the text “actually” says rather than assign a meaning not explicit in the text. The CCC cannot “communicate error to the intellect of the reader,” it is the reader’s error. **
**Secondly, why are we “interpreting” anything in the CCC? It IS the explanation. Aren’t we supposed to take what it says at face value? I personally do not find the New CCC ambiguous—but then again, I’m an English teacher, and a pretty good reader. **
**Ultimately, the rest of your response dealt with the tendency toward relativism in the modern Church and how this is a tool of Satan. I read the article you linked to—it was very interesting. I agree that if as the article states, the “primary focus [is] on the exception, rather than the rule,…[the truth] becomes obscure and eventually meaningless.” But again—careful readers note the equivocating phase “primary focus.” Of course that’s the case! It’s the old cliché of “you can’t see the forest for all the trees!” Again—it is incumbent upon the faithful to avoid such pitfalls through obedience and prayer and a heart open to receive the grace of God. **
If the article was meant to clarify your stance concerning “no salvation outside of the church” it expressed my understanding of that quite clearly and also addressed the issue of invincible ignorance—again, I think you’re preachin’ to the choir! My mention of it was not to find an excuse for someone, but rather offer humble charity to those 1 or 2 out there who truly are invincibly ignorant…I am a convert from Protestantism, and I was absolutely clueless to the True Church until I was 18—(and if truth be known quite a while longer than that, although I don’t think I could claim invincible ignorance at that point). Had I died when I was a child beyond the age of reason, but prior to my introduction to the Church, I believe God would not have forsaken me to Hell. (I may have spent near eternity in purgatory…and I may still…)
I do take exception to one small point in the article, and actually it is what is NOT in the article. The last few paragraphs deal with the bastardization of the virtue of “tolerance” in our society. The article warns** of “the exaltation of ‘human life’ to the exclusion of ‘supernatural life’, or ‘love of neighbor’ to the exclusion of love of God,” but fails to acknowledge that the reverse can also be true. You remember the story of the Pharisees and their dirty cups…**
I think our points of view are probably the result of life experience. I would wager that you, RSiscoe, are a man—(if you’re not, well…my analogy falls apart…)—I am a woman. There is balance between our two temperaments in this conversation that I think reflects the gifts given the sexes. I still contend that we are of like minds, but our method and focus are unique. Both, I believe, are rightly formed and from God.
I thought there was only one God.