Pagans need not convert: Can someone help me understand?

[SantaGemmaPrega]

As far as Jews and Muslims, it has never been the teaching of the Church that they worship a piece of God. God cannot be divided into pieces. They worship God in his totality. What they don’t know is that God is a Trinitarian being. The fact that they don’t know this, does not mean that they worship only a piece of God. **Abraham didn’t know that God was a Trinitarian being. He worshiped God. This is exactly how Muslims and Jews still worship God, as Abraham did. **We would never say that Abraham’s worship was incomplete or that Abraham’s God was not our God. Abraham simply did not know the nature of God. Neither to Muslims and Jews. From their perspective, our idea of the Trinity is partitioning a God who is One.

Rabbinic leaders don’t know about the Most Holy Trinity?
First world Jews who curse Christian Gentile “Goyim Swine” don’t know about the Most Holy Trinity and still find favor with God and worship Him truly and are pleasing to Him in spite of slandering His true people who have been grafted in?

Okay, gotta go Protestant on you here and bust out the Bible again:


John 8
33 They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: you shall be free?
37 I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
39 They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.
40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.
41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me:
43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do.

Islam objects to the use of the term Father as does Judaism, not because they deny the supremacy of God. It has to do with their mystical theology. They see God as the transcendent Other. Actually, this is true even in Christian Spirituality. Because we have the fullness of Revelation, we also know about the Incarnation. This allows us to see God as the imminent God. They don’t understand the Incarnation. To them, this is blasphemy. Man is not holy enough for God to become Incarnate.

This doesn’t change the fact that they are wrong and Catholics are right. They blaspheme God by rejecting the Trinity. They have heard of Jesus. They have even heard the gospel. These are the ones I speak of, not those in so-called “invincible ignorance.” I speak of the ones being invited to the Vatican to have exclusively Jewish ceremonies in St. Peter’s Square. The scholarly, educated ones. The ones who run Cedars-Sinai in California or who own most of the major television networks and the Associated Press. They know all about Jesus. They reject His message just as the Pharisees did. They don’t understand because they are not truly seeking.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

Actually, this concurs with what the Church Fathers said, especially St. Augustine. Man is not holy enough or worthy. We understand the Incarnation as an act of love and humility on God’s part. They have a piece of the truth, the unworthiness of man. The’re missing the other piece, the humility of God. That will come with time. No matter how much we write about it and how many times we say it, does not mean that they have to buy into it. God and the Church do not expect that of them. God and the Church expect them to reflect on these things and expect us to give time and grace an opportunity to do what needs to be done one person at a time.

Yes, that will indeed come in time. For one day all will believe and understand the power and majesty of God. Unfortunately, not all and in fact many will perish.

The problem is that today we are not saying it or writing it. We are telling them just the opposite: that they don’t need to believe it and they will still be just fine.

USCCB Guidelines for Catholic-Jewish Relations

The general aim of all Catholic-Jewish meetings is to increase our understanding both of Judaism and the Catholic faith, eliminate sources of tension and misunderstanding, initiate dialogues or conversations on different levels, multiply intergroup meetings between Catholics and Jews, and promote cooperative social action.
(nowhere does it say for them to convert)

6. Proselytism, which does not respect human freedom, is carefully to be avoided. While the Christian, through the faith life of word and deed, will always witness to Jesus as the risen Christ, the dialogue is concerned with the permanent vocation of the Jews as God’s people, the enduring values that Judaism shares with Christianity and that, together, the Church and the Jewish people are called upon to witness to the whole world.

Compare to:

Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863, #9
“God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth…”

Benedict XIV, A Quo Primum, 1751
“Doesn’t the Church every day triumph more fully over the Jews in convicting or converting them than if once and for all she destroyed them with the edge of the sword: Surely it is not in vain that the Church has established the universal prayer which is offered up for the faithless Jews…that the Lord God may remove the veil from their hearts, that they may be rescued from their darkness into the light of truth.” (Quoting St. Bernard of Clairvaux)

The USCCB document goes on:
*7. Prayer in common with Jews should, when mutually acceptable, be encouraged, especially in matters of common concern, such as peace and the welfare of the community. Such prayer should meet the spiritual sensibilities of both parties, finding its inspiration in our common faith in the One God *

Compare to:
Pope Pius XII, On the Ecumenical Movement, 1949, #IV- #1 / V
That communicatio in sacris (aka praying with other faiths/partaking in other worship ceremonies) be entirely avoided…Although in all these meetings and conferences any communication whatsoever in worship must be avoided.
(St Alphonsus Liguori in his Theologia Moralis. This doctor of the church writes, ‘It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them”)

 

[QuestingKnight]

I find it easier to understand the doctrine if you look at it in a negative formulation:

“Can we say that all men outside the Church are damned?”

No. God saves who He wills. He is an omniscient and the supreme Just Judge. He is laos merciful. So he’s not going to damn ignorant people who aren’t Catholics but who did their best to be good.

The Catholic Church is a simple, safe way to union with God. It contains many aids, small and big, to help a sinner get to Heaven. It is the Church. Anyone who’s reverted or converted has a good sense of this, I think. They’ve experienced the alternative.

 

[clem456]

Why is it so hard for us accept that persons not explicitly Catholic can be saved?

I am reminded of Mt 20:15

15‘Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

 

[tradcathconvert]

Why is it so hard for us accept that persons not explicitly Catholic can be saved?

I am reminded of Mt 20:15

Interesting that you would mention that verse. Today is Septuagesima Sunday in the EF, and our Gospel was Mt. 20:1-16. Thank you for giving me something to think about.

 

[SperainDeo7]

The book that you’re recommending has to be read with great caution. I read. It’s a good book. However, it is not an authoritative representation of the Church. The only authoritative presentation of the Church is the one that comes from the Church herself and from those who conform to what the Church has to say for and about herself.

As to conversions, remember what I said. One has to look at the totality of Christian Tradition. It is not enough to look at scripture. That’s a very Protestant approach, one which Catholics should always avoid. Scripture in isolation from the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition can be and often is very confusing.

One cannot just recommend that people read scripture. One has to recommend the whole… Read Sacred Scripture, read about the missionary tradition of the Church and read what the current Magisterium has to say on the subject. Always keep in mind that the last word always belongs to the Magisterium.

Only the Magisterium has the authority to interpret and apply scripture for the general population. We don do this for us, but not for other Catholics. For other Catholics, we must give them what the Magisterium says, be it about scripture or something else.

For this particular subject, read the scriptures, the missionary tradition of the Church and what the current Magisterium has to say about missionary activity and about the target population that you want to convert. Then use the means and methods that the Magisterium lays down for us.

The methods and means may not be the solution. They may not work. However, we are not judged by what works or does not work. God will judge us by our fidelity to His Church and our obedience to Peter.

Also, bear in mind that it’s not just a matter of telling non-Christians that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Any non-Christian who has gone to school beyond 4th grade knows World History. Therefore, he knows Christianity’s claims regarding Christ. If that’s all that has to be said and done, the we can save our breadth. People have read about it in school.

We must remember that these are people of faith or skeptics. Either way, they need time to wrap their head around what Christians profess. The person of faith does not want to do what may be the wrong thing to do. This is good. We don’t want people to act contrary to their conscience. Such an action would offend God, because it means that the person could care less whether something is right or wrong.

The skeptic does not want to be sucked into what may be a crutch. There is such a thing as toxic faith, when religious beliefs are a crutch, not a way of life. He needs to see the faith lived day after day by those who are good role models. All of us are called to be good role models.

This has never been said to us. What has been said to us is that there is a right way and a wrong way of doing it. We are being told how the Church wants us to go about it and we’re resisting. Which makes it look like we need to be converted to Catholicism first.

If we who are Catholic are resisting what the Holy See is telling us, how can we convince anyone to come into communion with Peter and to accept a faith that is built on the faith of Peter?

For this reason, St. Francis and St. Dominic told their friars that they were not to preach in places where the bishop or the pope told them not to preach, regardless of the need. Because without obedience to authority, their preaching would be hypocritical. They would be asking others to submit to a Church that they disobeyed.

Everyone remember this: avoid the Protestant approach to any question of faith, morals and Christian duty. We have already seen that it has not worked for our Protestant brothers and sisters. It is not sola scriptura. There is a tradition and there is a pope. The only one who can authoritatively interpret scripture and who can authoritatively tell us what is and is not Tradition is the pope.

Don’t just whip out a bible and start telling people how to fulfill their Christian obligations without consulting with the Magisterium’s statements.

Brother, I’m going to take a chance here and I’m prepared to accept the consequences, though I say this with the utmost respect and charity.

I’ve read so many of your posts wherein you admonish people for a lack of charity. Yet on this very thread you have talked down to people and at the very least have strongly implied that posters are more Protestant than Catholic, or that posters are using a supposedly Protestant mindset. This is your opinion, and it is not conducive to growing in holiness or helping anyone else in growing in holiness.

With regard to Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, I find your approach puzzling. How can one say that the Council of Florence must be interpreted in light of tradition and develop the arguement by jumping from the Council of Florence to Vatican II as if nothing was said between then and the Council. I don’t think anyone here ignores what recent Popes have said or written, but one cannot at he same time abrogate the other 2,000 years of Church tradition and teachings. You often comment about how one traditional Magesterial statement wasn’t and/or isn’t infallible so it can or should be discarded, yet many of the things you often quote are not infallible either. While I respect your position as a religious superior, you nor anyone else on this board can authoritatively interpret what the Magisterium has said. The statements say what they say and mean what they say, no extra interpretation needed in most cases. One cannot pick and choose based on no specified logic. One cannot have an honest debate with someone who employs such tactics so I shall not try…

 

[SperainDeo7]

This being the case, I can only agree to disagree with you that Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Catholics, nor can I agree with the notion that conversion isn’t really something the Church is or ever has been interested in. In talking with my Priest, neither of us finds the statement or argument to be valid, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinion as an individual, as am I and everyone else on the board. The salvation of souls happens through conversion and the Church exists for the salvation of souls, and no I am not advocating EENS. If you wish I can even pull a quote from our current Holy Father about the need for conversion in true religious dialogue, though I fear doing so would be fruitless.

I think you owe a few of us on this thread an apology.

If a moderator happens to read this please close my account. I have no desire to further participate here.

 

[Marian_Devotee]

Brother, I’m going to take a chance here and I’m prepared to accept the consequences, though I say this with the utmost respect and charity.

I’ve read so many of your posts wherein you admonish people for a lack of charity. Yet on this very thread you have talked down to people and at the very least have strongly implied that posters are more Protestant than Catholic, or that posters are using a supposedly Protestant mindset. This is your opinion, and it is not conducive to growing in holiness or helping anyone else in growing in holiness.

With regard to Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, I find your approach puzzling. How can one say that the Council of Florence must be interpreted in light of tradition and develop the arguement by jumping from the Council of Florence to Vatican II as if nothing was said between then and the Council. I don’t think anyone here ignores what recent Popes have said or written, but one cannot at he same time abrogate the other 2,000 years of Church tradition and teachings. You often comment about how one traditional Magesterial statement wasn’t and/or isn’t infallible so it can or should be discarded, yet many of the things you often quote are not infallible either. While I respect your position as a religious superior, you nor anyone else on this board can authoritatively interpret what the Magisterium has said. The statements say what they say and mean what they say, no extra interpretation needed in most cases. One cannot pick and choose based on no specified logic. One cannot have an honest debate with someone who employs such tactics so I shall not try…

Well said, Spera. We can take a look at the third session, Chapter 4 of the Decrees of the first Vatican Council. Of special note is item 14.

 

[Melchior_1]

All that Brother JR has done in this thread is restate what the Church has been saying, what Holy Father Francis said, and what three of the last four Popes have said. He’s saying what Church documents have said. He’s done this with several folks flat out telling him he’s wrong, despite that he’s been taught by our current Pope, has education related to this topic, and is a Superior General.

Regarding saying that other posters have Protestant mindsets, lets look at the following statement:

This being the case, I can only agree to disagree with you that Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Catholics, nor can I agree with the notion that conversion isn’t really something the Church is or ever has been interested in.

Considering that the Church and the Pope say that Muslims and Jews do worship the same God as us, to actively advocate a contrary position places one against the Holy Church and the Holy Father. One could say that that they’re “protesting” against what the Church is teaching, no?

Regarding the second notion, the Church has always been interested in converting others. The question is in the execution. Y’all can go ahead and thump them Church documents and the Bible like them fundies in the Bible belt. The rest of us will follow the path and methodologies of the Mirror of Perfection, the Perfect Christian.

 

[choliks]

Brother, I’m going to take a chance here and I’m prepared to accept the consequences, though I say this with the utmost respect and charity.

**I’ve read so many of your posts wherein you admonish people for a lack of charity. Yet on this very thread you have talked down to people and at the very least have strongly implied that posters are more Protestant than Catholic, or that posters are using a supposedly Protestant mindset. This is your opinion, and it is not conducive to growing in holiness or helping anyone else in growing in holiness.
**
With regard to Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, I find your approach puzzling. How can one say that the Council of Florence must be interpreted in light of tradition and develop the arguement by jumping from the Council of Florence to Vatican II as if nothing was said between then and the Council. I don’t think anyone here ignores what recent Popes have said or written, but one cannot at he same time abrogate the other 2,000 years of Church tradition and teachings. You often comment about how one traditional Magesterial statement wasn’t and/or isn’t infallible so it can or should be discarded, yet many of the things you often quote are not infallible either. While I respect your position as a religious superior, you nor anyone else on this board can authoritatively interpret what the Magisterium has said. The statements say what they say and mean what they say, no extra interpretation needed in most cases. One cannot pick and choose based on no specified logic. One cannot have an honest debate with someone who employs such tactics so I shall not try…

I’ll just add to what Melchior has posted about the Protestant mindset:

Bro. JR’s was responding to a poster who kept on quoting from scripture but didn’t consider what the current Magisterium taught about the issue. It was as if the poster was a sola scriptura proponent. Isn’t that a protestant mindset?

And when you go against the Church and her teachings, wouldn’t that make you sound like you’re protestant, even if you profess to be the most traditional (small ‘t’) Catholic?

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I’m going to take a chance here and I’m prepared to accept the consequences, though I say this with the utmost respect and charity.

I’ve read so many of your posts wherein you admonish people for a lack of charity. Yet on this very thread you have talked down to people and at the very least have strongly implied that posters are more Protestant than Catholic, or that posters are using a supposedly Protestant mindset.

With regard to Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, I find your approach puzzling. How can one say that the Council of Florence must be interpreted in light of tradition and develop the arguement by jumping from the Council of Florence to Vatican II as if nothing was said between then and the Council. I don’t think anyone here ignores what recent Popes have said or written, but one cannot at he same time abrogate the other 2,000 years of Church tradition and teachings.

While I respect your position as a religious superior, you nor anyone else on this board can authoritatively interpret what the Magisterium has said. One cannot have an honest debate with someone who employs such tactics so I shall not try…

This being the case, I can only agree to disagree with you that Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Catholics,

Well said, Spera. We can take a look at the third session, Chapter 4 of the Decrees of the first Vatican Council. Of special note is item 14.

First of all, you’re not disagreeing with me. You’re disagreement is with the Church. I only teach people what the Church says.

Second, I will again warn people not to put their understanding of Catholic teaching up against the current pope. Popes are not ignorant of the faith, theology or history. If a pope says something that appears to contradict what was said before, one has to trust that between point A and point X there is a lot of history that cannot be explained in a simple article or even a simple book. The popes don’t have the time to outlined the journey from A to X. This is where trust, respect and love for them enters into the picture.

Third, one has to also keep in mind that the use of scriptures in isolation, without the context of Catholic tradition has always been condemned by the Church. The Church has always taught that Revelation come through Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Of the three, the Magisterium is actually the most powerful. Because it is the Magisterium who tells us whether our understanding of scripture is consistent with Tradition. The order in which things happened were Magisterium, Tradition and Scripture. They are all equally inerrant and all the means through which we received Revelation. Therefore, one cannot pit them against each other. To use the scriptures to prove a point on which we disagree with the papacy is a very Protestant method. It has never worked for them and will never work for anyone.

Fourth, as far as authority to teach is concerned, you partly right. I don’t have any authority to teach you here on CAF. However, I do teach and train your future priests I don’t teach them anything that the Church has not said. When I teach the brothers, I also teach them with authority. The superior is the successor of St. Francis. All authority in the order rests on the faith of Francis, whose faith rests on the faith of the Church and so forth. You are right to say that you do not have to take anything that I say as authoritative. You are not my student nor one of my brothers. However, one cannot pit the past and the present against each other. One has to look at the hermaneutic of continuity. That’s not easy to do in posts that only allow one 6000 characters. One has to make leaps in time. Think of what we write on these boards a bullets.

Finally, I’m quite traditional. Because I am very traditional, I accept without question what the Church says. I trust that between Point A and X there is a process. I’m familiar with some of these processes through my studies in advanced theology. I’m not familiar with every single one, because theology like law and medicine has many areas of specialization. Some of these statements that the Church makes fall outside of my area of specialization. In that case, I can only repeat what the Church says, but I can’t spit out the entire process between A and X. It’s not my area of expertise. By the same token, because it’s not my area of expertise, I can’t reject it outright either, which what I see happening a lot. I see many people rejecting something that they can’t debate, because they don’t have enough formation to debate with men like Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI or their entire staff of experts.

Anyway, here is how traditional I am. In 1226, two months before he died, our Holy Father Francis wrote the following mandate for the brothers.
**
A man leaves all he possesses and loses his body and his soul who abandons himself wholly to obedience in the hands of his superior, and whatever he does and says—provided he himself knows that what he does is good and not contrary to his superior’s will—is true obedience. And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God . This is true and charitable obedience which is pleasing to God and to one’s neighbor.**

I still live by this today as have several million of my brothers during the last 800 years.

 

[ananye]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
jewelry storage________www.eozy.com/storage-packaging

 

[gentle_atheist]

The term “Separated Brethren” was an expression used during the latter half of the 20th century referring to Protestants, because by Canon Law, we cannot call someone born into Protestantism a heretic.

I can find nothing in Canon Law that prohibits Catholics from calling Protestants “heretics.” Perhaps you can provide the citation?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Can you please help me to reconcile what this text wants me to teach with the following:

I think you need to read the Vatican 2 documents and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you will find the Church teaching quite consistent.

1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: “Lord, let me never be parted from you.” If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him “all things are possible” (Mt 19:26).

 

[clem456]

I can find nothing in Canon Law that prohibits Catholics from calling Protestants “heretics.” Perhaps you can provide the citation?

Maybe the difficulty is in accepting the definition of heresy. If there is no heresy, why would Canon Law address it?

 

[clem456]

I can find nothing in Canon Law that prohibits Catholics from calling Protestants “heretics.” Perhaps you can provide the citation?

I have no competence in this area, but I think your difficulty may be that the definition of heresy does not include non - Catholics?

 

[Julia_Mae]

First of all, you’re not disagreeing with me. You’re disagreement is with the Church. I only teach people what the Church says.

**Second, I will again warn people not to put their understanding of Catholic teaching up against the current pope. Popes are not ignorant of the faith, theology or history. If a pope says something that appears to contradict what was said before, one has to trust that between point A and point X there is a lot of history that cannot be explained in a simple article or even a simple book. ** The popes don’t have the time to outlined the journey from A to X. This is where trust, respect and love for them enters into the picture.

I finally read back. I see you are doing your usual exemplary job and getting pilloried. My observation is this: the same people who are so upset that there is only one God and all who worship God worship the same God even though they, themselves, may have varying amounts of knowledge about God, are the ones who will attack someone who disagrees with teachings on birth control with the a cafeteria label and be able to explain that teaching in minute detail.

I wonder if it’s because birth control, while there were always some ancient practices, became so easily obtainable and prevalent in our culture that we have all these modern writings on it. A little theological microcosm as it were.

Yet, the greatest and most fundamental issues: salvation and the nature of God and worship, things Saints and Popes and Doctors of the Church have struggled to both understand and explain for thousands of years, seems to be a simple issue that everyone can make up their own mind about and not be in union with their Church.

I do not understand requiring obedience and acceptance of all Catholics on one issue and personally refusing to obey and accept this most basic teaching of the Faith.

 

[JReducation]

I can find nothing in Canon Law that prohibits Catholics from calling Protestants “heretics.” Perhaps you can provide the citation?

Nor are you gong to find it. You must read Canon Law the way that a can lawyer reads it.

The first Canon says that this code is ONLY applicable to Latin Catholics. It does not even bind all Catholics. It’s not a universal law. Though some of the canons are repeated in the codes of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches.

The definitions that are given in the code are only to be applied to Latin Catholics. They are not meant to be applied to non Latin Catholics.

When the law uses terms such as heretic, apostate, schismatic, it’s only speaking to and about its target audience, which has been identified in Canon 1 – the target audience is Latin Catholics.

This is further clarified in Bl. John Paul’s letter “That All May be One” in which he reminds us of the importance of letting go of the labeling and name calling of the past, because it serves no purpose.

Nostra Aetate also calls on Catholics to let go our past conflicts and thinking regarding the Muslims and Jews and to start afresh.

The Code of Canon Law of 1983 was crafted to reflect the mind of Vatican II. For this reason, it limits the use of everything in it to the Latin Church.

In 1990, another code was issued for the Eastern Church, which is very different from our own. Again, keeping the mind of Vatican II, we acknowledge that while they are Catholic, they have much more in common with the Orthodox than with the Latin Catholics, especially in liturgical and theological expressions. Great care is taken not to clarify for them that heretic and heresy would be that which is contrary to the faith of the Church, AS EXPRESSED AND HELD by their respective churches, not the Latin Church.

If an Easterner omits the filioque from the Creed, he is not a heretic, because the filioque has always been a stumbling block for many Eastern Christians. At the end of the day, the issue is the wording, not the Trinity. The Church makes room for this. Or if a certain Eastern Church does not use the words of institution in the consecration, it does not make them heretics. The fact is that they never used those words. The consecration was always done in a narrative form through the anaphora.

If we applied the Code of Canon Law of 1983 to the entire Catholic Church, there would be many Eastern Catholics who would be labeled heretics, when in fact they are not. They are part of an Apostolic tradition that expresses the same faith in a different manner by stressing some things more than other.

If you understand this background to Canon Law, then you begin to see that it was not the intention of the Church to apply it beyond the target audience.

When we take terms from our code of law and apply it to those who are not part of the target audience, it is we who are wrong. Non Catholics are not part of the target audience. Those terms in the law are not meant for them. Non Catholics are not mentioned in Canon Law other than to address the issue of sacraments. Even then, the law is addressing the Catholic and telling the Catholic what to do when such a situation arises.

When we read Canon Law, the question in our head should be, “What does the Church want me to do?”

If whatever is not in there, I must not do.

 

[JReducation]

I finally read back. I see you are doing your usual exemplary job and getting pilloried. :

I’m a prime target for some people.

That may explain why so many priests, deacons, brothers and sisters have actually told CAF that they will not participate in the forums. Which is interesting in itself. Because the same people who beat up clergy and religious are among those who complain that the clergy and religious have failed to do good catechesis. However, when we try, we get hit over the head. Go figure.

My observation is this: the same people who are so upset that there is only one God and all who worship God worship the same God even though they, themselves, may have varying amounts of knowledge about God, are the ones who will attack someone who disagrees with teachings on birth control with the a cafeteria label and be able to explain that teaching in minute detail.

Without betting caught up in the whole question of ABC, the problem is that we must understand that between one statement made by the Church and another made hundreds of years later, there are many events, many other statements, much writing and thought on the matter. With each successive generation, there comes a greater understanding of the original statement.

Many of the popes and councils of old did not anticipate that this would happen. When they condemned those who who would make changes because of some new development, they were not thinking 500 years ahead. They knew that they could not bind the Church for the next 500 years. They were writing and speaking to the people of their time. They certainly had the authority to bind the people of their time and they had good reason to do so. Therefore, they were right.

However, they had no knowledge of the future, 500 years ahead. It was never their intention to bind those people. It’s like people who use Pope Pius V’s statement on the mass to claim that it binds the Church for all time. NO . . . that’s not true. That was the furthest thing from St. Pius’ mind. The man was a scholar. He knew ecclesiology and he knew the difference between discipline and dogma. The rule of liturgy is not dogma. It’s discipline. It can only bind until another pope changes the rule.

The term that he uses “binding for all time” is for the sake of emphasis. He needs to make it very clear to the people of his time how serious this is. There was a good reason to be that stern about it. The liturgy was chaotic. They had more forms than they knew what to do with. He was trying to reduce it to a few forms. He was not even trying to reduce it to just the Tridentine form. The Tridentine form was only for those who did not have an approved form of their own. It was a way of saying, “If you don’t have an approved form of your own, you must use this form. There will be no more picking and choosing.”

The truth is that this law remains in place today. Those who have a form of their own can use it. Those who do not, but use the Roman Missal. They cannot pick and choose or invent some form.

But without the history of what comes between A and X and the context, we can end up getting ourselves very confused. This is why Christ gives us the pope. The pope is knowledgeable of the process between A and X. When he proclaims X, he does not do so in a vacuum. He knows the whole process.

If we want to know it too, we are free to spend 8 or 9 years studying these things.

Personally, I have enough on my plate. Secondly, my preference is asceticism and mysticism. I will focus on what’s on my plate and spend my free time reading on my area of expertise and trust the pope on those matters on which I am less knowledgeable.

 

[mafh]

I’m a prime target for some people.

That may explain why so many priests, deacons, brothers and sisters have actually told CAF that they will not participate in the forums. Which is interesting in itself. Because the same people who beat up clergy and religious are among those who complain that the clergy and religious have failed to do good catechesis. However, when we try, we get hit over the head. Go figure…

I’m just an athiest, so I consider myself a guest on this board and maybe my opinion doesn’t really count here. But, I have to say that people like JReducation are a big reason why I read CAF. His posts are always well-reasoned, intelligent, and very kind. I would love to see more clergy and religous like him posting, and I think it is really unfortunate that they are scared away.

As an outsider, one thing I have noticed on this boards are how everyone seems to find anti-Catholicism everywhere in our society (which a lot of times I really don’t see myself), and yet the people I hear making the most anti-Catholic statements are the Catholics themselves on CAF. I know you Catholics probably don’t realize this because you don’t criticize Catholicism in general terms; instead, you do it by attacking individual people and groups in leadership positions. But think about this: How is the rest of society supposed to respect Catholicism if you guys don’t respect your own people?

Just some food for thought…