You suggested that the church needed modernization, recognition and acceptance of the reformation more graciously, and adapt itself to the social gospel more appropriately. For that reason, it does seem that you wanted the Church to “evolve”. I suggested that the Keating letter pointed to proposals made by liberal clergy and laypeople of RCC in USA (I assume). This is not my idea: it is the idea of RCC people. I have also said - as have many others in many books - that all great religions must grow or die, and that applies to Christianity, Hinduism, Islam etc. If the Church stands still, it will surely decline, and the Vatican is surely aware of that: Pope Benedict’s first episcopal letter was about ‘love’.
You also vigorously opposed the Church’s notion that it is the sole and authoritative deposit of faith. You frequently championed the the insightes of the reformers, and commended their work to the Catholic Church. I have no reason to assume that RCC is the owner of all truth about faith globally. It is not the sole and authoritative deposit of, for examples, faiths other than Christianity. Within our faith, the RCC has indeed, since Christ’s era, been the keeper of the records, the library, the mind, the repository of all we know about the faith. No other Church can do that, or claim that it can. That is one reason I rely on RCC.
However, in terms of values, morals, practice, I continue to have questions. And yes, of course, I ask what would have happened to RCC if not for the reformers? It often happens that a challenge from outside creates a focus inside - and that is what happened, for the good of the Church. If Luther had not been …? I do not think that I explicitly recommended the reformers’ insights to the Church (although it is clear they helped somewhat). What you and I both agreed was that those of us coming out of a reformed church background have very deeply rooted beliefs in individual inspiration, direct access to God and scripture, and that it is very hard to give this up in favour of the tabula rasa model - my mind is a blank, come fill it up with your screed.
Can you understand these are questions I raise? They are not attacks, they are not challenges, but they are a wake up call to think outside your box for a while - and help me come to a difficult decision to give myself up, not to the love of Christ, but to the authority of the Church of Rome. I am aware there is a difference.
Your opinions come across sounding like you believe the Roman Church needs to change, to evolve, to reform. As noted above, and as indicated from the Keating letter ‘projects’.
This word “should” that appears in your posts is a red flag for judgemental thinking. It indicates that you are putting your expectations upon others of what you think is right and proper. I have had to be authoritative in a world of professional males; I have had to make inroads on an international crisis which we do not yet understand after 30 years. I have shouted shoulds for years, and yet 70 million+ people are dead, and perhaps I feel responsible for many of them. I should have shouted should louder. By the way, I made the point elsewhere: writing authoritatively and with care is sometimes taken as being confrontation, and I regret that, but I will not change. It is not only a habit of my long career; it also signifies the importance I attach to my soul, my God and good debate about it.
You come across sounding as if others ought to conform to your standards. When you tell another poster “you should be ashamed of yourself” you are applying your standards of proper behavior, as well as finding them deficient in them. That is absolutely correct. Others have had no compunction about telling people where to go; why should I apply a different standard to myself. I know, one wrong does not deserve another, so should I apologise? Or should I say in a different way that it *is *essential that we have standards of discourse appropriate to our common Christianity?
Continued 2…
