S
Son_of_Niall
Guest
Great method of apologetics there dude. You might want to consider the person behind the username.
- Status
D
Duane1966
Guest
When he said that Jesus was being metaphorical in John 6, I explained the differences between phago and trogo in the Greek. He then stated that John might have originally been written in Aramaic, implying that somehow this would impact that part of John. When he says he is not sure of the translation, I simply pointed out that if this is the case with John, it would certainly affect how sure we can view any of the books of the bible, as we have no originals.Great method of apologetics there dude. You might want to consider the person behind the username.
I fail to see your problem with what I wrote in the post of mine that you quoted. Nor was there any disrespect in what I wrote.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
It is very funny. I am at a stage of my life as I move to the end of my pilgrimage where I have not a lot of patience for Catholics who are not in alignment with the Holy See on the ecumenical imperative, Wannano. This is not a new way of engaging non-Catholics…the dispositive documents have been in place for FIFTY years. Fifty years.
There was an ecumenical council; the bishops of the world told each and every individual Catholic:
The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council /…/ it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call /…/ The Sacred Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism
If a Catholic has read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and can quote it, they should be fully versed and in full compliance with Unitatis Redintegratio, which is a conciliar document that they have had a chance to read for many years before the Catechism. If they can quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they should be able to quote from Ut Unum Sint.
I live the approach of the Holy See of TODAY. We have apologised for the actions of Church leaders of 400, 500, 600 years ago. And we are moving on.
It is well said in From Conflict to Communion:
In the sixteenth century, Catholics and Lutherans frequently not only misunderstood but also exaggerated and caricatured their opponents in order to make them look ridiculous. They repeatedly violated the eighth commandment, which prohibits bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. Even if the opponents were sometimes intellectually fair to one another, their willingness to hear the other and to take his concerns seriously was insufficient. The controversialists wanted to refute and overcome their opponents, often deliberately exacerbating conflicts rather than seeking solutions by looking for what they held in common. Prejudices and misunderstandings played a great role in the characterization of the other side. Oppositions were constructed and handed down to the next generation. Here both sides have every reason to regret and lament the way in which they conducted their debates. Both Lutherans and Catholics bear the guilt that needs to be openly confessed in the remembrance of the events of 500 years ago.
As a priest, I am looking forward to being part of that open confession beginning on October 31, 2016…as Catholic bishops and priests use our voices to speak in the name of the Catholic Church to publicly confess, as the Holy Father will in Sweden when he inaugurates with the Lutherans the joint commemoration of the Reformation, the faults and failings of our side just as our Lutheran clergy counterparts will do, too – as Catholic and Lutheran clergy co-officiate at these services of Common Prayer that will be held around the world during the one year of commemoration.
People arguing various points as though they were arguing Catholic points against non-Catholics need to understand what are the positions of the Holy See TODAY…not what they were in an ever receding and distant past.
As Pope Saint John Paul II said in Ut Unum Sint:
Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.
As we also read in From Conflict to Communion:
238. Catholics and Lutherans realize that they and the communities in which they live out their faith belong to the one body of Christ. The awareness is dawning on Lutherans and Catholics that the struggle of the sixteenth century is over. The reasons for mutually condemning each other’s faith have fallen by the wayside
This is where the Holy See is today. People who wish to argue as though we were in the 19th century would do well to recognise that we actually are in the 21st century.
God bless you, Wannano.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
It is good that you inform our non-Catholic friends about the stance of the Holy See with regards to Christians of other denominations. I think those are good pieces of information for those who do not know.
But with due respect, I disagree that you should reprimand other Catholic posters in their replies in discussion with non-Catholics here.
This is a forum, sometimes for exchanging of ideas but specifically for the Non-Catholic Religions section, it is about ‘comparing and contrasting beliefs’ which is clearly stated.
Nobody think that we are still in the 19th century. Please do not under estimate the laity grasps of the situation. More importantly is to adhere to the Forum’s rule, which we all try to do but sometimes discussion can get quite heated and that is where the moderators would come in to cool things down.
Unnecessary policing the Forum would kill the discussion where people would not be free, within the rule, to speak out their mind. I hope you understand. This is just a forum, not ecumenical conference. Posters participate in their personal capacity. If you want something more formal, perhaps the apologetic section would be a better place to go to.
Some people just like to hear what individual Catholics say. Of course that includes the clergy as well, but how the individuals say it.
T
twf
Guest
Father,
To be fair, I suspect some of the posters on this board, when they hear the term “Protestant”, are thinking more of the fundamentalist variety of North American evangelicals than the ecumenical, liturgical Lutherans of Europe. When I converted to Catholicism from Evangelicalism, I promptly received various vile tomes from relatives, one of which was called “The woman who rides the beast”. My grandmother told me my rite of confirmation made her “sick to her stomach” (she came to the mass but couldn’t resist commenting after). A baptist friend casually began a conversation with these very words “you know that pope who just died? He’s in hell now.” He went on to explain how Mother Teresa was also in eternal torment. (St John Paul II had just passed away). Of course we need to show Christ’s love even to these sorts, but it can be difficult when many of us regularly encounter Christians who truly, openly HATE the Catholic Church with a burning passion.
W
Wannano
Guest
Let me be the first to say your experience stated above is awful and unloving. This is not who I am or ever want to be. While my ancestors experienced equally as much hatred from Catholics in the past centuries it is time to move on. Can this be done with differing applications of the same words of Jesus? The Jesus of the Bible seemed to meet people where they are. Go and sin no more! That would answer it all in my opinion.
Peace.
T
twf
Guest
I should mention that in the decade since my conversion, my parents have transitioned to Lutheranism and my sister to Anglicanism…and my brother has expressed interest in Catholicism. Growing up the Lutherans and Anglicans were nearly as bad as the Catholics with their empty, hollow liturgy and lack of personal relationship with the Lord
. While we cannot share the eucharistic table, I can now pray the Liturgy of the Hours with family…and perhaps even the rosary with my mom (who does pray to the Blessed Mother even as a Lutheran…something she was taught was blasphemous once upon a time).
T
twf
Guest
Thanks for your words. As I noted in my follow up post many of the people in my life have come a long way since. I don’t think anyone ever meant to be unloving or cruel to me personally - they had just truly been instilled with a hatred for what they understood Catholicism to be. I remember my dad almost had a heart attack when he heard me quietly muttering “Hail Holy Queen” in my room over a decade ago…now, the last time he came to mass with me, I saw him kneel during the consecration for the first time.
W
Wannano
Guest
I remember a high school social studies teacher saying the only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn anything from history!You have read the same verses as me and come to a conclusion different than mine.
We can’t beat each other with scripture,for we see the same words differently. Only one of us can fall back on history.
F
fbl9
Guest
fair enough then.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I’ve not reprimanded anyone. That’s not my role. That task is the moderator’s. Who also would “police” the discussions, as you use the term. I can assure you that when I’ve had to use the authority given me to reprimand someone…there is no question on their side that they were reprimanded
What I’ve done on occasion in this thread is clarify what the Holy See articulates today on points incorrectly addressed in some point of fact in a given post
Across years of dialogue, I’ve worked through a variety of thorny issues with my counterparts who held positions different from our theology. That is not problematic at all. What is problematic is if someone is presenting a position as if it were the articulation of the Church when, in fact, it isn’t
If one wishes, for example, to speak of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, one would not send the person to the Summa Theologiae, tertia pars, q. 27 a 4. One would go to Ineffabilis Deus
To send them to the former would send them to a source in which they would be erroneously informed AND deprived of the more modern information (if we may speak of Blessed Scotus as modern!) that was critical to arriving at the conclusion the Church today holds…but which the Angelic Doctor did not for want of needed data
For Catholics, of course, it’s never simply a matter of articulating what one believes…it is a matter of faithfully transmitting what the Church articulates. That’s to say: what, in fact, the Church teaches or does not teach
Considering I normally comment only on topics I’ve actually lectured on – and in the case of this forum, on those Churches/ecclesial communities I have engaged in dialogue – I feel not only comfortable with the subject matter…I feel comfortable in evaluating a person’s grasp of what they express in this forum not unlike I did in evaluating a student’s competence in a given topic
While I would hope no one here is as deluded to think they’re living in the 19th century, there are those who seem unaware that positions they try to advance are, in fact, not only outdated, they are superseded; one surprisingly encounters at moments here concepts that are not only no longer in currency with the Holy See, they would actually be disavowed
Moreover, if a person is coming to a website called Catholic Answers for answers about Catholicism and the relationship of the Catholic Church to their Church/ecclesial community, I would presume such a person is not simply wanting musings and reflections of various provenance – but would appreciate being guided to the appropriate organ of the Church that deals with the issue…such as the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the dicastery of the Holy See entrusted by the Pope with this portfolio or canon law
I’ve no doubt people enjoy hearing the thoughts and reflections of non-theologians
If people were coming, though, to understand the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception…one would refer, of course, to Blessed Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. The non-theologian…whatever their ability or inability to explain it…could not contradict or misrepresent it. If one wishes to speak of the relationship of non-Catholic Christians to the Catholic Church, one would refer, of course, to Saint John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint. And similarly could not misrepresent it or contradict it
As for the inability of people to control themselves, I trust the moderators are able to resolve that – I am unconcerned. That’s not my responsibility. As a priest, I would simply say to the Catholic offender that forgiveness and grace are but a confession away
Finally this is not just a forum. It would be but for an important addition. It’s a forum which has the name “Catholic” attached to it. That alters the responsibility of those who operate it. It also alters the responsibility of the competent ecclesiastical authority who has jurisdiction where it’s located and concedes to it the use of the title. It also affects interactions on the forum since those who have the cura animarum do not stop having it for the time they post…and it would be the reason why certain rules are written as they are; I’m sure that was done in collaboration with the competent ecclesiastical authority who conceded the use of the title in the first place
Can 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Thank you for the wonderful reply and for the effort. You have covered all that need to be said and in some cases, which I do not even understand. … And that was my point.
This is just a forum, the name ‘Catholic’ notwithstanding. It is a section in Catholic Answers website. Posters are from all walks of Catholic life. If one wants to find the ‘answers’, it would be in the (name removed by moderator)ut/articles/library/and even apologetic section, I think. Not that we should speak nonsense as posters but yet, it is still a discussion by people of different level of area of understanding.
It is good if everybody can talk like you but is that actually the objective of the discussion?
I think we appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. You’d not get any argument about that. But say, look at your post #93. Questions were asked to another poster which you answered on his behalf. I think onlookers who may read the Forum probably would like to hear the reply of the other poster.
And nothing was said about the Catholic Church “asserting jurisdiction over non-Catholic communities or faithful.” Don’t you think that information should be said to the non-Catholic poster rather than to a Catholic?
But please forgive me. I know it is not for me to tell you what you should post and to whom. It was done in the spur of a moment.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Well, you have chosen to do so…I don’t leave the question unanswered although I do not frankly understand how this either can remotely be alleged as conformed to the rules of this particular sub-forum
I’ll begin at the end. My response that Rome does not assert jurisdiction over non-Catholic communities or faithful is a reply to two posts. In post 16:
it is bound in Heaven, for Catholics not to receive other non-Catholic Eucharists. Jesus gave carte blanche on the binding and loosing.
(The reference to “non-Catholic Eucharists” has issues because the formulation, unqualified, fails canonically on account of Can. 844 and is ecclesiologically problematic because of construction. The second part of the statement is completely erroneous theologically since it attributes an unlimited power to alter divine positive law, which is profoundly incorrect)
And post 38
Actually, Christ is speaking through His Church. And His Church, which He gave the power to bind and loose, has bound the Anglican Eucharist
So, since you asked, the part underlined is what I answered
In both cases, the post’s author said the words he wrote did not convey what he intended to say. I taught Liturgy & Sacraments for many academic cycles; I’m glad to write a post on how a sacramental theologian would dissect the formulation as written
As I told my students, “I don’t respond to what you thought you wrote, what you intended to write or what you believed you were writing.” I respond to the words in black and white on the then paper/now computer screen
The sentence underlined in the second post, as written, has a specific meaning that a sacramental theologian will understand only one way. In the first statement, a canonist is going to understand the statement one way
Over and above that, was the fact Wannano wrote, in expression to what Wannano was experiencing from those interacting with Wannano, that:
What is wrong Michael in my opinion is the complete lack of respect. While you or the Church may determine that it is not a valid Eucharist are you willing to also speak for Christ that He does not honor or appreciate the sincere desire of the hearts of the people who are partaking of His body as symbolically presented in the bread and wine in remembrance of Him?
You can go back and re-read the posts which then lead up to post 93. In fact one of the people being most unkind is no longer making posts
To the matter at hand, one is doing a grave disservice in saying that the Catholic hermeneutic for analysing the use of metaphor and symbol in the Bread of Life Discourse is the only one that can be employed by anyone. That is wrong. it’s also dishonest academically. In fact, in biblical scholarship, there is recognition of various conclusions reached over centuries by various writers on the Bread of Life Discourse
It is one thing to say that there is an authoritative interpretation promulgated by the Cathollic Church, which is true relative to the Bread of Life Discourse
Non Catholic scholars and non-Catholic Christians, however, do not agree that the authoritative interpretation is correct…or, in fact, should in any way qualify as authoritative. That is their prerogative and it must be acknowledged for integrity’s sake, whether we concur or not
Rejection of the authoritative interpretation would be problematic in this particular instance – if the one rejecting were Catholic. But here the person is not
The honest response in that circumstance, from an ethical pedagogical perspective, is to explain, in a way intelligible, the authoritative interpretation and then proceed to explain, above all if the person is of another Christian confession, how the text is typically interpreted in their tradition. The person, then, can eventually work out the path they wish to walk
The statement above, from post 28, demonstrates a person often does not appreciate being argued with in what they see as a disrespectful manner. It’s counter-productive, unless one wishes to drive the person away. Above all when they’re asking to understand, in terms commensurate with their background and preparation, the Catholic thought of, for instance, metaphor and symbol as literary devices in the Johannine Corpus
I’ve a great disregard for the device of a person peppering with questions someone who is seeking to understand something to thereby entrap that person in a place that is beyond where they are able to extricate themselves. Sadly, there are teachers at the undergraduate and even graduate level who do that. It’s really not that hard, if you have been lecturing and publishing in a field for 20-30 years, to construct a scenario that a first year grad student would be completely flummoxed by. It’s practice to be condemned. It’s grossly irresponsible
Beyond that, I will leave it to Wannano to answer further if Wannano chooses.
But for myself, if you find that I do not understand to your satisfaction the rules of this forum, I suggest you complain to the moderator. I find your method of proceeding objectionable. And I herewith register my objection
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I think that would be the best course to tread on, to let the participants in the discussion to continue on, if the ground is not too muddy after this distraction.
Don Rugerro:
I said what i said. I would not report you to the moderator, it is sufficient that I registered my disagreement. Besides it was at the spur of the moment, something I personally saw was not right. So it was a matter of feeling and personal opinion. If I had not read the post, it would not come to this, but I did, and I spoke.
I hope I understood you and it is your prerogative in your course of your response. Perhaps you have not heard a laity/your student speak back to you or tell you off. Well you have one here. And you disagreed. I don’t have to be right. But I spoke nevertheless.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Father, your points in my not stating the position of the Catholic Church, fully and clearly in my answers are noted. I will try in the future to give more accurate answers.
I do take issue with some points you have raised:
1.) I never said anywhere that Wannano, or anyone who is not Catholic, was bound by the Catholic Church. When I said that what the Anglicans call the Eucharist in post #4, which I shortened to the term Anglican Eucharist in post #16, is bound, I meant, and I’m sure most people knew, was meant bound for Catholics, which I clearly stated in post #4. But again, I should have been clearer.
2.) I have not asked a question of anyone on this forum to try to trap them. I have asked questions that are meant to make them think, as I am sure they have asked questions to make me think.
3.) As for the Bread of Life discourse, Wannano had stated it was a symbol, using verse 63 to bolster his/her contention. Wannano asked in which verse does Jesus tell us it is not a symbol, also showing through other verses of the Bible, where Jesus spoke metaphorically. That is when I gave the phago and trogo answer, and Wannano’s reply seemed to be questioning the translation of John. Wannano could have replied with a different hermeneutic, as I have yet to see where I said that the answer I gave was the only answer that could be used. I then said if John’s translation is in question, could we not question any books of the Bible, since we have no originals I fail to see where any of my questions were an attempt to, as you call it, to trap Wannano.
W
Wannano
Guest
Hi Duane, I am still here formulating an answer to your questions to me. I promised an answer and want to give you one that is thought through since the whole concept of b and l has always been a hard one for me to comprehend in its intended meanig. Somehow I think it was meant for and was completely understood by the Jewish minds hearing it from Jesus.
I am glad you came back to this thread this morning. I have looked at post #4 and it has given me a different reference point concerning the b and l of the Anglican Eucharist. I am afraid I was a victim of understanding somehow the Catholic Church has the power to bind non-catholic belief and or practice. For the CC to bind faithful Catholics to not receive non-catholic Eucharist is logical in my understanding of what the CC considers herself to be.
I do not completely understand though why in post #4 you state that she “obviously believes that Jesus has given herself the power to bind and loose.” To me that conclusion is not obvious as ComplineSanFran was alluding to in post #11 where she sees the possibility of the girl seeing her authority as being Christ Himself. (ComplineSanFran gives us more if you see this!). Continued
W
Wannano
Guest
Continued…
When I read post #16 I see you clearly believe your understanding that Christ gave the power to b and l to the church, which of course you only accept and define as being only the Catholic Church. Is it imposible to see that someone would see it differently as in that it was given to Peter and the Apostles to help enable the formulation of the church within Jewish society? Our differing understanding of Apostolic Succession and the Papacy does not mean we take the authority of Christ upon ourselves as you portray in post #16 or that it was lost but rather that the Holy Spirit now given to all Christians has the “power” to b and l in the life of a spirit filled Christian.
If this does not make any sense to you, say so. I may need help from others more intelligent than i.
I will state that I did end up with the same conclusion as others have expressed in feeling like as a non-Catholic I was bound by the Catholic Church. While you may have not directly stated that (I have not the time to look for it) I think you give these vibes in the way you state viewpoints and ask questions. Yes, I felt more like a mouse than a cat, however, in all fairness I must admit I have been told by people who love me that I sometimes come on more as a cat than a mouse as wel!
D
Duane1966
Guest
Greetings Wannano.
Because, she has said she knows the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue. Knows that the Catholic Church has bound her to not receive in that setting. I take it as a Catholic, she feels that Christ did give the Church the authority to bind and loose in perpetuity. For her to receive and feel she is not committing a grave sin it that situation, she must feel that Christ has given her the authority to loose what the Catholic Church has bound all Catholics.
And that becomes the question we must all ask ourselves. If Jesus did give that power to His Church, who holds that power? Is it I, if I am not willing to submit what the Catholic Church binds, if I happen to disagree with Her? This is what millions of Catholics do, when they disagree and openly go against with what the Catholic Church teaches on a myriad of issues. Why did Christ give that power, if I feel it is only in force when it happens to be with something I agree with?
I think we all agree that Christ did give that power. I see nowhere in Scripture where He says I will necessary agree with a binding on a particular issue with those that shepherd me. I do know that He did not give me that power.
D
Duane1966
Guest
There are Spirit-filled Christians who hold that abortion is evil. There are other Spirit-filled Christians who hold differently. Why is this? Or on a thousand other issues.
If the early Church needed the Apostles to bind and loose, why not the Church of today? Are we that much more Spirit-filled than the early Christians?
And that brings up this problem, if we have the power to bind and loose ourselves, a power which the early Christians did not have, then Christianity has fundamentally changed.
In the Council of Jerusalem, did the early Christians who disagreed with what the council formulated, would it have been okay for them to reject it, and say Christ has spoken to them differently? Because if it can be done now, why not then?
W
Wannano
Guest
- Status