Petty squabbling

[JimO]

Mystophilus:

Does this remind anyone else of the “My church is better than your church” routine?

What will it take to lead enough Christians to tolerance?

Others have stated the problem well. I’d just like to point out that there are times and places when we place our differences aside and work together. This happens in the Pro-Life movement all the time. It also happened when Christians were fairly united in supporting Terri Schaivo. But, when the crises are over, for the various reasons stated, we get back to addressing our differences. That will simply never end.

BTW, why do you refer to yourself as a “heretic” in your profile. Isn’t that feeding into the very problem you bring up?

 

[Mystophilus]

JimO:

BTW, why do you refer to yourself as a “heretic” in your profile. Isn’t that feeding into the very problem you bring up?

I am a heretic because my beliefs differ from the doctrines of the various churches: my beliefs are heterodox, which makes me a heretic.

However, I do not believe that this makes my beliefs ‘better’ in the sense of ‘more accurate representations of reality’. I believe what I believe because it is the natural conclusion of the data to which I have been exposed. Others have been exposed to different data, and thus have different beliefs.

 

[Mystophilus]

MariaG:

I do not think any individual, except a rare one, expresses a “my church is better than you church” attitude when it specifically comes to doctrine. I think the attitude is my church teaches truth, or a more complete truth. A very different thing than my church is better than your church.

If the teaching of truth is a positive value, then a “more complete” teaching of truth is more positive. Thus, the claim that X church teaches the Truth more completely than Y church is tantamount to a claim that X church is better than Y church.

* Unity
* Community
* Inspiration
* Alternative viewpoints
* Socialisation
* Education

If these reasons are more important than truth, I truly feel sorry for those people. While I always picked churches based on the above, I would leave if the truth was not taught in all things. Not neccessarily the truth from the pulpit, (important, but individuals can be wrong) but I actually would look into the truth the “official church” denomination espoused.

Herein you and I differ. I have yet to find a church in which ‘truth was taught in all things’, nor to I anticipate ever finding one. Thus, I accept them all in their imperfection.

The Catholic Church, unlike some others, actually acknowledges that honesty of our attempts can make it possible for a man who has never even heard the gospel to be saved.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 819:many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation
The interesting implication of this is that salvation is not dependent upon doctrine.

But to focus solely on the message of honesty of attempts and human flaws, one then has to ignore the messages that are filled in the NT and OT telling us to be Holy. Be ye Holy. Be perfect as your Lord is perfect.

Matthew 5:48, yes, certainly. However, that too is an attempt. We are not perfect, and perfection is not a characteristic of mortals. While it can be granted to us, we cannot achieve it through our own efforts. Thus, the exhortation to be perfect must be an exhortation towards the passionate attempt rather than towards the actual attainment. It is an injunction against complacency about righteousness, as can be seen in the preceding verses, which enjoin love not merely for friends, but also for enemies.

While it is true that God is the only one to have ALL truth, it is wrong to think that there is not a “more complete” truth available in some churches as opposed to others.

Statistically speaking, this is highly probable. Identifying the truth, however, is a much more difficult task.

God helps us to understand that which has been revealed as we grow in Christ. And it is our responsibility to keep seeking and learning.

Amen.

 

[Mystophilus]

Trelow:

You can get that at the barber shop.

You really must point out your barber to me; I have yet to find one who is even remotely inspiring.

Still, truth is not something which I seek in church.

 

[Mystophilus]

Topher:

I think that the problem in this thread is that the kind of tolerance that is being advocated is a sort of false tolerance. True tolerance is tolerance of persons, not necessarily of their false beliefs or sinful practices. Jesus would not aprove of Catholics tolerating the false beliefs of protestants because Christ said, “I am the Way, THE TRUTH, and the life.” He demands that we follow truth because to follow truth is to follow Christ. So these debates between different Christian denominations is not petty. They raise substantial questions about substantial issues. And these questions should be raised so that we can have the TRUE answer so that we can follow he who is the TRUTH.

“I am the Truth”, not ‘my words are the truth’, not ‘my teaching is the truth’, not ‘my church is the truth’. Christ demanded that his believers follow him.

Further, the issue in this thread is whether or not Christians can surpass their own factional divisions long enough to recognise the truth.

 

[Mystophilus]

Gerry Hunter:

The word “tolerance” is often used today to describe something that has nothing to do whatsoever with true tolerance at all.

The word is still used in its proper sense in science and engineering. There, it defines limits between which any one position is as acceptable as any other. If I am making a cabinet, and must cut a piece of material to six feet plus or minus one quarter of an inch, a piece cut to anywhere between 5’11 3/4" and 6’1/4" is just fine. But if it’s shorter or longer than the boundaries, it can’t be accepted.

The Oxford English Dictionary, on “tolerance”: 1. a. The action or practice of enduring or sustaining pain or hardship; the power or capacity of enduring; endurance. (1412-20)

b. Phys. The power, constitutional or acquired, of enduring large doses of active drugs, or of resisting the action of poison, etc.; hence diminution in the response to a drug after continued use. (1875)

c. Forestry. The capacity of a tree to endure shade. More widely in Biol., the ability of any organism to withstand some particular environmental condition. (1898)

d. Biol. The ability of an organism to survive or to flourish despite infection with a parasite or an otherwise pathogenic organism. (1904)

e. Immunol. The ability to accept without an immunological reaction an antigen that normally produces one. (1951)

2. The action of allowing; licence, permission granted by an authority. (1539)

3. The action or practice of tolerating; toleration; the disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others; freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others; forbearance; catholicity of spirit. (1765)

4. Technical uses.    a. Coining. The small margin within which coins, when minted, are allowed to deviate from the standard fineness and weight: also called allowance. (1868)

b. In Mech., an allowable amount of variation in the dimensions of a machine or part. More widely, the allowable amount of variation in any specified quantity. (1909 )

5. attrib. and Comb.: tolerance dose Med., a dose, esp. of radiation, believed to be received or taken without harm; tolerance level, the level that can be tolerated or is acceptable; spec. in Med. = tolerance dose above; tolerance limit, a limit laid down for the permitted variation of a parameter of a product. (1925)

The number in brackets following each entry is the first recorded usage of that meaning. As you can see, the usage for material objects postdates the usage for attitudes towards other people by several hundred years. While I agree that it is often used to excuse complacency, it has always referred to the allowance of behaviour, while ‘the acceptance of variation in mechanical dimensions’ is a very recent variation.

 

[Mystophilus]

MariaG:

Doesn’t look like Christ or the apostles were trying to teach tolerance of wrong beliefs.

This begs the question of how to define which belief is wrong, which is the persistent problem. If someone is teaching that we should all sacrifice our children to Jesus on the altar, I would find that unacceptable. However, I cannot see that there is any significance in the number of times per month one takes the bread and wine, or what is the gender of the hand which holds out the chalice.

Isn’t this exactly what is happening to non-Catholic ecclesial communities? They are imploding due to these never ending splits. The splinters are getting smaller and smaller, and eventually if this keeps up, each member theoretically will be his own ecclesial community and his own pope.

I do not know how accurate this is regarding the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic churches etc, but it is not accurate for Protestant churches. What is happening there is a decided shift away from the more traditional forms and churches, towards newer, more radical variants (e.g., pentecostal churches), which are growing quite well indeed. This may not bode well for ecumenicalism, because pentecostal churches tend to be far more dogmatic about the sola scriptura doctrine than do the mainstream Protestant churches (which is probably why they are growing faster: most people prefer simple answers).

 

[ComradeAndrei]

If the teaching of truth is a positive value, then a “more complete” teaching of truth is more positive. Thus, the claim that X church teaches the Truth more completely than Y church is tantamount to a claim that X church is better than Y church.

Well, if X Church teaches the fullness of Truth and Y church doesn’t then obviously X Church is better, supperior, true, etc.

The Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth, therefore it is supperior to all other Churches (the Orthodox), communities (protestants) and other non-Christian religions.

However, childishly asserting “my church is better than your church” because of irrelevant issues such as the pastor gives interesting homilies, the church building is pretty, all my friends go their etc. isn’t a valid arguement. I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that is what MariaG was getting at.

The interesting implication of this is that salvation is not dependent upon doctrine.

I don’t think that is what the Magisterium would say. What the Catechism is saying is that the separated Christians have some elements of the Truth. The Orthodox Churches still have a valid Priesthood and practice valid Sacraments, however they aren’t in communion with the Pope and are thus in schism. They have much of the Truth of our Holy Catholic Faith but not everything. The Protestants lack a valid Priesthood, and lack valid Sacraments however they do read the Bible and I would suppose many of them are sincere about it but they don’t follow Christ’s True Church.

Anyone saved outside of the visible confines of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church are saved despite their errors, not because of them. No one will be saved because they follow a heretical sect (protestants) or a schismatic Church (Orthodox, “Old Catholics” etc) but will be saved through the Catholic Church-the necessary sacrament of Salvation.

Also, it is good that you look to the Catechism but I suggest you read further-

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

It is an injunction against complacency about righteousness, as can be seen in the preceding verses, which enjoin love not merely for friends, but also for enemies.

In order to avoid complacency about righteousness and to love our enemies, wouldn’t we want to strive to spread the Truth and to help lead them away from their heresies? It would seem that it is extremely complacent to just sit back and let everyone just espouse any heresy they want, satisfied with our own righteousness. Also, it would seem to be very unloving if we complacently allowed heresy to go unchallenged and unchecked out of a false sense of charity.

Statistically speaking, this is highly probable. Identifying the truth, however, is a much more difficult task.

One word-Magisterium. Yes, I know it is hard, but we have to humble ourselves and follow the Magisterium in obedience. Isn’t it rather vain to think we know better than the Church?

“I am the Truth”, not ‘my words are the truth’, not ‘my teaching is the truth’, not ‘my church is the truth’. Christ demanded that his believers follow him.

His Holiness, Pope Pius XII of Happy Memory, said it well in his encyclical entitled Mystici Corporis -

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Cont.

Further, the issue in this thread is whether or not Christians can surpass their own factional divisions long enough to recognise the truth.

Someone posted on these forums a bumpersticker message that said, “Catholicism-the Original Non-Denominational Church”. How very true.

This begs the question of how to define which belief is wrong, which is the persistent problem. If someone is teaching that we should all sacrifice our children to Jesus on the altar, I would find that unacceptable.

That would be true. Outlandish examples are sometimes useful in making a point (we use them all the time in philosophy) but honestly, what teachings has the Catholic Church ever taught that would fit into such an example?

However, I cannot see that there is any significance in the number of times per month one takes the bread and wine, or what is the gender of the hand which holds out the chalice.

This harkens back to my statements about the Magisterium. Why do you think these things are insignificant? What authority do you have to say such things?

What is happening there is a decided shift away from the more traditional forms and churches, towards newer, more radical variants (e.g., pentecostal churches), which are growing quite well indeed.

They may be growing, but look at the history of protestantism. They basically started off with Luther and the German nobles, clergy and peasantry that broke off from the Roman Pontiff. Then you have folks like Calvin and Zwingli, who were in opposition to Luther and Luther certainly didn’t like that. Henry VIII gained the title “Fidei Defensor” for the British Crown (from the Pope mind you!) for writing against Luther and his heresies but then entered into heresy himself when he decided that he had more authority than the Church and could do whatever he wanted as the sovereign king of Britain. Then you have the Puritans who thought that the Anglican church was too “Romanist”. Then fast forward to today, how many protestant sects are there? I know people throw out 30,000 but I think there are even more than that. Even in the begining there were three or four main sects.

But are they growing well? The non-denominationalist sects may seem big (some in the thousands) but that is ONE church-they have no world presence. The Non-Denominational Church of Jesus down the street might have 3,000 members but that is their whole religion right there while the Catholic St. Peter’s (I’m just using a generic example) has 1,000 parishoners-but add St. Paul, St. Andrew, St. Mary, Sacred Heart, Immaculate Conception, St. Dominic just in that city etc. and we have them beat. Add to that the whole of the Catholic Church throughout the state, then the country, then the continent and then the world. The Catholic Church has them all easily beat hands down with our one billion some members. The Orthodox have some 300 million but they are not all in communion with each other, but they are still far more unified than the protestants. Even the biggest of individual protestant sects pale in comparison (even to the Orthodox) and it is really unfair to lump them under the label “protestant” as if they are a unified church.

This may not bode well for ecumenicalism, because pentecostal churches tend to be far more dogmatic about the sola scriptura doctrine than do the mainstream Protestant churches (which is probably why they are growing faster: most people prefer simple answers).

No it doesn’t bode well for ecumenism because we can maybe bring the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and other traditional and more “Catholic-like” protestant sects into communion with the Catholic Church. Even though they don’t have the same obligation to follow their church’s decisions as the laity of the Catholic Church does, I think many of them would out of their own personal convictions at least. The Orthodox and traditional protestants have a more unified world presence. If we convince the First National Pentacostal Church to come back into the Fold, that isn’t actually binding on all the members of that one community and its certainly not binding on the other hundred some “pentacostal” and other fundamentalist sects.

I would agree that many people want “simple answers”-isn’t that sad? Just because it is simple doesn’t mean that its true. Lots of preachers like to say that his inventions are the “clear and simple teachings of Scripture”.

Jesus says some of his teachings are hard, but He also says that His yoke is easy and His burden light. The Catholic Church has a place for all believers (as it is the Mystical Body of Christ)-for the scholarly intellectual and the simple working man.

 

[JimO]

Mystophilus:

I am a heretic because my beliefs differ from the doctrines of the various churches: my beliefs are heterodox, which makes me a heretic.

However, I do not believe that this makes my beliefs ‘better’ in the sense of ‘more accurate representations of reality’. I believe what I believe because it is the natural conclusion of the data to which I have been exposed. Others have been exposed to different data, and thus have different beliefs.

I guess I misunderstood your opening post. I interpreted more along the lines of “why can’t we Christians get along” rather than “why can’t those Christians get along”.

Look at it this way. Many well-meaning Christians hold strong convictions as to what it takes to wind up in heaven. For simplicity, we’ll call it being “saved”. Of course, there are those of us who just need to be right, but I know a lot of folks who really do care whether I am saved or not. Being Catholic myself with many Evangelical Protestant friends who are not convinced that Catholics are saved, I am frequently approached with admonitions ranging from “you need to accept Jesus as your personal Savior” to “the Catholic Church is the seat of the anti-christ.” I try not to react negatively to these admonitions because I know that my friends really do care. This approach is taken by Evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Catholics, Muslims and any one else who believes they know “how to get to heaven.”

So, although some individuals can get nasty or defensive, I choose to look at the “bickering” as an expression of concern. The alternative would be apathy and I prefer the bickering over apathy any day.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Mystophilus

This begs the question of how to define which belief is wrong, which is the persistent problem. If someone is teaching that we should all sacrifice our children to Jesus on the altar, I would find that unacceptable. However, I cannot see that there is any significance in the number of times per month one takes the bread and wine, or what is the gender of the hand which holds out the chalice.

I am a fairly simple soul with a simple faith. But interestingly enough, I came from the Charasmatic, pentecostal, evangelical branches. So for me, the one truth I can hold onto is that I know the Bible is God’s inspired word.

Also a frequent saying in my fundamental churches is God is not the God of confusion. He doesn’t want us to be confused on what to do, and who is right.

The only way all of the Bible can be true is if there is a visible church. “take it to the church” has to mean something. It is only within the Catholic Church that all of Scripture makes sense and does not contradict.

The only Church that has been around is the Catholic. For those who may be more knowledgable before a faith takes hold, the question could be Orthodox or Catholic? For me, a simple person, I did not even know about the division until later.

And once that point is reached, we can see that the Church, (the visable one) is a pillar of truth, so even though we don’t see why something matters, we can accept that the Church is right when it comes to dogma because the Bible does tell us so.

My faith in the Church. I know Evangelicals would jump all over that statement and say, “My faith is in Christ”. But for me and most Catholics, those two are one and the same. Scripture tells us Christ is the Church. There is a visable Church. And for 1000 years, there was One Church.

Sorry I could not explain this better, but sometimes faith is hard to put into words.

I will pray for you. I think it is sometimes much easier on those of us who received a simple, trusting faith.

Conversely, people like you end up being able to eventually define and put into words that same faith that is so hard won.

But I guess through all this, you should just thank God that you were not Abraham, who was asked to sacrifice his only child to God

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Mystophilus]

I will pray for you.

Thank you.

But I guess through all this, you should just thank God that you were not Abraham, who was asked to sacrifice his only child to God

Oh, that was good!

However, Abraham was asked by God (Ge 22:1), not taught by some human that God so required, which is wherein my trouble lies; thus, I was thinking more about the Baal-cult.

I trust God, but I do not trust humans’ claims about God. If their claims are true, then what they proclaim will come true (Dt 18:22), and then I will know to believe them.

Having said that, I am not sure what I would say if I had children and God came to me and told me to sacrifice one of them, nor do I think that I would like to find out.

 

[Mystophilus]

ComradeAndrei:

Anyone saved outside of the visible confines of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church are saved despite their errors, not because of them. No one will be saved because they follow a heretical sect (protestants) or a schismatic Church (Orthodox, “Old Catholics” etc) but will be saved through the Catholic Church-the necessary sacrament of Salvation.

I am not sure that a Catholic can reasonably call the Orthodox schismatic, when it was the Catholic church which deviated. Howsoever reasonable the filioque clause might be, it was an addition, and the Eastern reaction to the excommunication of Cerularius quite thoroughly answered the question about whether or not the Patriarch of Rome was an authority over the others.

In order to avoid complacency about righteousness and to love our enemies, wouldn’t we want to strive to spread the Truth and to help lead them away from their heresies? It would seem that it is extremely complacent to just sit back and let everyone just espouse any heresy they want, satisfied with our own righteousness. Also, it would seem to be very unloving if we complacently allowed heresy to go unchallenged and unchecked out of a false sense of charity.

This is only true insofar as it applies to heresies, not to differences of belief. The problem lies in the determination of what is a heresy and what is not. For an obedient Catholic, this is determined by the Magisterium. For the rest of us, however, it has yet to be demonstrated that their perception is perfect.

One word-Magisterium. Yes, I know it is hard, but we have to humble ourselves and follow the Magisterium in obedience. Isn’t it rather vain to think we know better than the Church?

It is not vain to think that it is possible for one human being to know better than the Church. Galileo certainly knew better than the Church. Vanity is when someone asserts absolute knowledge of the truth, regardless of any dissenting views.

 

[Mystophilus]

ComradeAndrei:

That would be true. Outlandish examples are sometimes useful in making a point (we use them all the time in philosophy) but honestly, what teachings has the Catholic Church ever taught that would fit into such an example?

I would count the Catholic opposition to the use of condoms as a means of reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS in the Third World as an unacceptable teaching. UNAIDS and the CDC, cooperatives which represent a large number of the world’s greatest experts in these matters, both advocate the use of condoms. While abstinence is a more effective method of protection, the difficulty inherent in the practice reduces its actual efficacy with respect to control of the plague. Condoms save lives.

This harkens back to my statements about the Magisterium. Why do you think these things are insignificant? What authority do you have to say such things?

Abraham challenged God (over Sodom). Jacob was known as the one who had fought God and won. Moses challenged God over God’s pronouncement of destruction upon the idolatrous Israelites. When Job disagreed with God, God rebuked him for his ignorance, not for his dissent. The angel whom Zechariah saw challenged God over God’s judgement of Israel. Jesus told God that he did not want to go to the cross. The writers of the Bible were Jews, not Greeks, and Jews have never been afraid to argue with Almighty God, let alone a group of humans.

But are they growing well? The non-denominationalist sects may seem big (some in the thousands) but that is ONE church-they have no world presence.

So, the value of a church lies in its political strength?

No it doesn’t bode well for ecumenism because we can maybe bring the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and other traditional and more “Catholic-like” protestant sects into communion with the Catholic Church. Even though they don’t have the same obligation to follow their church’s decisions as the laity of the Catholic Church does, I think many of them would out of their own personal convictions at least.

While I would dearly love to see all of the churches become one truly catholic church, I will not hold my breath. The Orthodox have quite a few doctrinal issues which will need sorting about, because of their ultra-traditionalist attitude. For Anglicans, as for other Protestants, the ordination of women is going to be a major obstacle to integration with the Roman church.

Jesus says some of his teachings are hard, but He also says that His yoke is easy and His burden light. The Catholic Church has a place for all believers (as it is the Mystical Body of Christ)-for the scholarly intellectual and the simple working man.

It has no place for me. For the sake of unity alone, I would like to join the Catholic church, but I cannot. In order to become Catholic, one must profess acceptance of “all that the Church teaches”. I cannot do this, nor shall I ever be able to. While I am always willing to accept the possibility that they might be right, I am utterly unable to honestly assert that they are right.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I am not sure that a Catholic can reasonably call the Orthodox schismatic, when it was the Catholic church which deviated.

Really? How so?

Howsoever reasonable the filioque clause might be, it was an addition, and the Eastern reaction to the excommunication of Cerularius quite thoroughly answered the question about whether or not the Patriarch of Rome was an authority over the others.

The filioque issue was decided when the Eastern Church was on one of their little birdwalks with schism and how did the eastern reaction to the excommunication of Michael Cerularius “throughly answer” the question of whether the Pope had authority of the other bishops? He led the Eastern Church into schism.

It is not vain to think that it is possible for one human being to know better than the Church. Galileo certainly knew better than the Church. Vanity is when someone asserts absolute knowledge of the truth, regardless of any dissenting views.

No it is not possible for one mere human to know better than the Church, in matters of Faith and Morals that is.

Galileo did not know better than the Church, he wasn’t even the first person (it was Copernicus) who theorized that the sun was in the center of the solar system and his reasons for why he thought so were faulty. His problem was that he was stubborn and thorny-and he got in a fit with the Pope. Read up on it-
catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

I would count the Catholic opposition to the use of condoms as a means of reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS in the Third World as an unacceptable teaching. UNAIDS and the CDC, cooperatives which represent a large number of the world’s greatest experts in these matters, both advocate the use of condoms. While abstinence is a more effective method of protection, the difficulty inherent in the practice reduces its actual efficacy with respect to control of the plague. Condoms save lives.

The problem is that the act that people commit that leads to contracting the AIDS virus is morally wrong. Everyone must take responsibility for their actions. They are human beings, made in the image of God-not dogs that can do nothing but run on instinct.

AIDS would cease to be a problem if only people would follow the teaching of the Church in that pre-marital and extra-marital sex is immoral.Until then, people must reap what they sow.

So, the value of a church lies in its political strength?

No, I’m saying that protestant sects are not really growing that much-just a megachurch here and there. The Catholic Church is fulfilling its commission as the Universal Church-to preach the Gospel to the world. That is why there are so many people in the Catholic Church.

While I would dearly love to see all of the churches become one truly catholic church, I will not hold my breath. The Orthodox have quite a few doctrinal issues which will need sorting about, because of their ultra-traditionalist attitude.

We pray that they come back to the fold. Other Eastern Churches have done so in the past, it is certainly not out of the question.

For Anglicans, as for other Protestants, the ordination of women is going to be a major obstacle to integration with the Roman church.

That is why I hold the possibility for union with the Orthodox more possible than with any protestant. Even though the Orthodox are in schism, they still held on to most of the Catholic Faith. The protestants threw most of it out the window. When the authority is gone, it is not to long before anything goes.

It has no place for me. For the sake of unity alone, I would like to join the Catholic church, but I cannot. In order to become Catholic, one must profess acceptance of “all that the Church teaches”. I cannot do this, nor shall I ever be able to. While I am always willing to accept the possibility that they might be right, I am utterly unable to honestly assert that they are right.

Well, that sounds like something that you have to deal with. The best thing that ever happened to me was when I finally got over myself and took up Christ’s yoke in obedience and love. Never have I felt more free and more at peace.

The Catholic Church does have a place for everyone, the Church is at the same time a bastion of intellect and a safe refuge for the simple. It is profoundly mysterious and yet still relevant for day to day life. It is wonderful.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Mystophilus

Oh, that was good!

Thank you! And I’m glad you took it in the spirit I meant:bounce:

I trust God, but I do not trust humans’ claims about God. If their claims are true, then what they proclaim will come true (Dt 18:22), and then I will know to believe them.

Well, I will continue to pray that God will grant you the faith in His Church that I have. It simplifies things and certainly grants me peace.

Having said that, I am not sure what I would say if I had children and God came to me and told me to sacrifice one of them, nor do I think that I would like to find out.

Me either. And of course today, Abraham would be locked up in the looney bin for mental illness!

Thanks for the conversation.

Maria

 

[Mystophilus]

ComradeAndrei:

The filioque issue was decided when the Eastern Church was on one of their little birdwalks with schism

The filioque issue was what created the schism. The Latins changed the doctrine; the Greeks did not.

how did the eastern reaction to the excommunication of Michael Cerularius “throughly answer” the question of whether the Pope had authority of the other bishops? He led the Eastern Church into schism.

The other bishops followed Cerularius after he was presented with the bull of excommunication.

No it is not possible for one mere human to know better than the Church, in matters of Faith and Morals that is.

Can this assertion be proven?

The problem is that the act that people commit that leads to contracting the AIDS virus is morally wrong. Everyone must take responsibility for their actions. They are human beings, made in the image of God-not dogs that can do nothing but run on instinct.

AIDS would cease to be a problem if only people would follow the teaching of the Church in that pre-marital and extra-marital sex is immoral.Until then, people must reap what they sow.

I see, so “they must die because they will not do what we tell them to”. Benevolence, mercy and humility are out of fashion, I suppose.

No, I’m saying that protestant sects are not really growing that much-just a megachurch here and there. The Catholic Church is fulfilling its commission as the Universal Church-to preach the Gospel to the world. That is why there are so many people in the Catholic Church.

And you do not suppose that the preaching against contraception, and the fact that the Catholic Church is mostly located in poorer countries (which grow faster) probably have any impact?

The Catholic Church does have a place for everyone

…provided they come on the Church’s terms.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

The filioque issue was what created the schism. The Latins changed the doctrine; the Greeks did not.

The other bishops followed Cerularius after he was presented with the bull of excommunication.

It was certainly a contention point, but was not the “issue that created the schism”. Photius used it as an excuse for his schism but then the Eastern and Western Churches got back together for a while. Cerularius was part and then the leader of an extreme anti-Latin party that wanted separation from the West-and they got what they wanted. Then, to top that all off, the Eastern Church wanted to get back together with the West at the Council of Florence in 1439 but other problems arose (namely the fall of Constantinople to the Turks) and the stubborness of the people and nobility of Constantinople and Russia.
newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

Also, they didn’t uniformly and immediately follow Cerularius into schism, originally just he was excommunicated. Neither did the majority of the Eastern Church. The Byzantine Emperor at the time, Constantine IX and most of the bishops were still considered properly orthodox.

newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

Can this assertion be proven?

Can any matter of faith be “proven”? What type of proof do you want?

I see, so “they must die because they will not do what we tell them to”. Benevolence, mercy and humility are out of fashion, I suppose.

Oh, please. Encouraging people in their sinful activity is not “benevolence, mercy and humility”-it is false charity. Furthermore, the wage of sin is death-that is what happened when Adam and Eve committed the primal sin. Now, we as human beings must suffer the temporal (and eternal) consequences of our sins. If people have sex outside of marriage, that is what they can get.

If I go get wasted and drive around town, I might run over a pedestrian. Then I would get arrested and thrown in jail. That would be my fault-I chose to do the wrong thing. By choosing to do the wrong thing I opened myself up to such unfortunate consequences. I probably wouldn’t “intend” to hit someone but that is what can happen if I’m overly impared.

Same thing with AIDS, I’m sure most people don’t intend to get AIDS but it wouldn’t happen if they first didn’t commit the sin of fornication.

And you do not suppose that the preaching against contraception, and the fact that the Catholic Church is mostly located in poorer countries (which grow faster) probably have any impact?

If the polls are anything near right (and I hope they are not), then a good number of “Catholics” don’t even listen to the Church’s teaching on contraception.

I don’t suppose that you took into consideration that the Church has sent missionaries throughout the world in order to evangelize the masses, spreading the Gospel to all parts of the world and to all peoples regardless of their poverty or situation?

…provided they come on the Church’s terms.

How else would you like it? Just come in as you are, espouse any and all heresies and blasphemies you want and don’t follow what the Church teaches? That sounds like a pretty pathetic church.

The Catholic Church has a place for everyone but that doesn’t mean we let anything go. What religion that bothers to say it is the True Faith would ever do such a thing and still be credible?

 

[Mystophilus]

newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

While I would never deny your freedom to believe whatsoever you would like to believe, I would suggest that you might like to consider what Orthodox believers say about the history of their church, and the continuing importance of the filioque, if only because they are likely to understand their beliefs and choices better than outsiders are.

Can any matter of faith be “proven”? What type of proof do you want?

All I was really seeking was the clarification of the fact that this is a position of faith.

If I go get wasted and drive around town, I might run over a pedestrian. Then I would get arrested and thrown in jail. That would be my fault-I chose to do the wrong thing. By choosing to do the wrong thing I opened myself up to such unfortunate consequences. I probably wouldn’t “intend” to hit someone but that is what can happen if I’m overly impared.

Same thing with AIDS, I’m sure most people don’t intend to get AIDS but it wouldn’t happen if they first didn’t commit the sin of fornication.

This presents an interesting difference in values. If my child took up binge drinking, I would still insist that s/he leave the car at home, and I would be more than willing to pay for a taxi. Similarly, if s/he started sleeping around, I would be less than happy, but I would add “You must use condoms” to “This is not a good idea.”

In part, this is motivated by simple mercy, and, in part, by the acknowledgement of the fact that the consequences are often much wider than the erring individual. That pedestrian whom you hypothetically ran over was injured or killed. If I allowed you to drive when you were drunk, I would be morally (and, in some countries, legally) culpable for that. When I have the power to reduce the negative consequences of another’s folly, I have the responsibility to do so.

“During 2004, an estimated 640,000 children around the world were infected with HIV… Most of these children - as many as 90% - acquired the infection from their mother during pregnancy, birth or breastfeeding.”

In some African countries, AIDS orphans account for 9% of the total population.

Leaving aside the innocent victims of their parental “crimes”, there is still the issue of transmission to emergency services personnel, especially the police and medical personnel. “The workers with the greatest risk of becoming infected at work are those with jobs that involve routine exposure to blood and other body fluids.”

The AIDS epidemic is not only about those who contract the virus through unprotected sexual intercourse or drug use. It is also about those who are infected or affected in other ways because of their connection with a person who is already a host for the virus.

Condoms reduce the total number of hosts. Because the virus spreads from a single host to multiple others, any increase or decrease in the number of hosts, and the total effect, is exponential rather than simply arithmetic.

As I said before, I understand the Catholic position against the use of condoms, but I cannot agree with it.

I don’t suppose that you took into consideration that the Church has sent missionaries throughout the world in order to evangelize the masses, spreading the Gospel to all parts of the world and to all peoples regardless of their poverty or situation?

Missionary activities were undertaken no less zealously by Protestants. However, Catholic populations do grow faster. This fact is most clearly evident in Northern Ireland, where the size of the Catholic population is gradually gaining upon the Protestant one. This is an issue of considerable political significance, because the Treaty which the English signed in 1922 guarantees the North’s independence from the Republic and union with Britain only so long as the majority of the population retain the desire for it.

How else would you like it? Just come in as you are, espouse any and all heresies and blasphemies you want and don’t follow what the Church teaches? That sounds like a pretty pathetic church.

Perhaps, or a thoroughly secure one.

 

[MariaG]

posted by **Mystophilus **

the continuing importance of the filioque, if only because they are likely to understand their beliefs and choices better than outsiders are.

It is not an issue of the Orthodox understanding their beliefs, but the Orthodox insisting on meaning to the filioque that was never meant by Catholics. The filioque is a Catholic teaching that the Orthodox reject and put meaning into that is not there, nor ever was.

In my humble opinion, as well as others, the misuderstanding is a cultural one and a language use one.

Kind of like in my Church when talking to the Mexican members of the Church.

Question from the Mexican member: Do we **have **to come to Religious Education classes next Wednesday?

Answer from the Native English speaker: No, you don’t.

Real question: Can we come next Wednesday?

Answer: Of Course!

But also in my humble opinion, (as well as others) there are too many egos involved to admit this. Instead Orthodox insist that even if we mean one meaning today, it is not what was meant all along.

Maria