I
irenaeus1
Guest
You are guessing wrong on more than one of these points, but regardless, my statement stands.
- Status
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yeah right
W
Wandile
Guest
I detected clericalism in that remark also and elitism too. I don’t think it was intentional from our eminent priest Don Ruggero but it last worth noting. Yet as Bishop Athanaisus Schneider eloquently reminded us, it was the faithful and lower clergy (deacons and priests with only a few bishops) who saved the church from the Arian crisis when more than 80% of the episcopate had chosen heretical faith (Arianism).
It is the duty of the faithful to remind pastors of their duties and their submission to the doctrine of faith which governs the disciplines of the church.
W
Withburga
Guest
Addressing someone in this way simply because he happens to be vastly more knowledgeable about the issues than you are isn’t exactly what would be expected in the Traditional Catholicism forum; and it makes very little sense, when you appear to be trying to appeal to the legitimate teachings of the Church, to try and dismiss someone who has a canonical licence to promote those teachings.
The attitude of several of the-sky-is-falling posters on this thread reminds me of people I met in my previous incarnation in the field of medicine, who would express endless opinions upon the nature of their illness and upon what treatments they should receive. The problem was that they conflated their personal views on medicine and their undoubted right to accept or reject a treatment alternative with having expert knowledge of the matter. In fact the extent of their knowledge was usually limited to a few minutes’ research on the internet - often it was possible even to determine which ill-informed site they had visited simply by the wording of their objections - and I would find myself having to state, ‘No, honestly, black is not white, it’s definitely black. With that said, you don’t have to opt for the black treatment plan if you don’t want to, but nevertheless, it really is black, and not white.’
The value of an opinion is directly related to the level of informed judgement that shapes it. But the very people who often decry the ‘modernist’ tendencies of the contemporary Church never seem to understand how thoroughly post-modern is their own desire to have an opinion on everything, irrespective of their actual understanding of the issues involved - which is usually limited to prooftexting an often irrelevant statement that seems to, but typically does not, contradict the Church’s current action.
Once again: it is thoroughly against the tradition of the Church to think that your opinion is to be valued as equal to that of the legitimate hierarchy: this is about as good a definition of Protestantism as one can find. If, on the other hand, you are able to provide expert and informed commentary and have been invited to participate in a process of debate and implementation, you are expected to do so, whether clerical or lay, male or female, Catholic or not. However, no such invitation has been generally given to CAF regarding the ongoing consideration of Amoris Laetitia as far as I am aware. The laity in general’s possible role in that process came some time ago, when the bishops of the world were invited to consult with their flocks in advance of the then-imminent synod.
The continual citation of articles, opinion pieces and interviews with bishops and theologians who are effectively saying ‘I don’t think anything regarding the pastoral approach to irregular marriage needs to change’ is missing the point. These voices are a legitimate, and necessary, part of the ongoing implementation of Amoris Laetitia, and in and of themselves may be a significant aid in the process by which the bishops will implement this document in their own jurisdictions. But they are posted here instead as putative evidence that - as I said above - the sky is falling, and that the moral theology of the Church is being rewritten and abandoned, and that the gates of hell are about to prevail. The mere fact that these opinions are posted as ‘evidence’ of anything other than the fact that the Church’s moral and pastoral theology are simply not reducible to a list of do’s and don’ts, and that there is not a single and monolithic view on these issues, is a clear indicator that the poster involved has an inadequate understanding of the theological disciplines under review.
As I’ve said elsewhere, there is a reason that I don’t post on the Quantum Physics answers forum: it’s because all I could usefully do there is ask questions about the most basic aspects of the discipline, because I know nothing about it; and my opinion that the concept of dark matter seems an unlikely answer to the problems of the matter/energy sum of the known universe would probably be of little interest to the PhD. candidates on those boards.
Anyone who interprets that as saying that I think that I am stupid, ignorant or not entitled to engage with the subject of Quantum Physics is again missing the point - which is that, if I’m going to do so, I need to do so with humility, with respect to the people whose understanding is greater than mine, and by taking the time and energy, and devoting the necessary practical resources, to an ongoing study of the subject that will make my contributions to the overall discussion anything more than baseless opinion. You do not become a medical doctor, a physicist or a theologian by reading a few internet articles, or even by reading a lot of books. You do it through years of study, which unfortunately means that it will be possible only for a few people. That is an inconvenient truth, but a truth nevertheless.
If you want people to listen to you - let’s hope for all the right reasons - then knowing your subject and, dare I say it, simple politeness will probably go a long way towards making yourself heard. On the other hand, if you want your opinion to be equal to that of everyone else, irrespective of your actual expertise, and without prejudice to the level of discourtesy you display - well, come and join CAF as it typically is when discussing Amoris Laetitia, and feel free to tell us how the Pope is ignorant of what you yourself understand so much better than he does. Oh, and by the way, I’ve managed to find a statement from a bishop who also thinks that the current provisions are adequate, so that proves that Amoris Laetitia is heresy.
In Christ,
Withburga
R
rcwitness
Guest
Jesus was never impressed with the intellectually learned.
Luke 10
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.
I have huge respect for our leadership, who have the task of ministering to the troubled and lost. To those is complicated situations, with heavy burdens. And I don’t wish to pry into their lives, unless I am willing to compassionately encourage and offer myself as an advocate for them. And this, I believe, is what Francis is seeking to do.
What some of us here are concerned about, however, in that many are attempting to interpret and apply AL to allow divorced and remarried (outside of a lawful annulment) to remain in their unlawful marriage and receive Communion in good conscience. Past this, we are all for pastoral efforts to counsel them back into a right relationship with Jesus.
This concern, of ours, is due to the strong and clear Teachings of popes, JPII and Benedict XVII which claimed a Scriptural basis, of which the Church has always upheld.
This is what I believe Francis should clarify, but beyond that, the pastoral approach to an effort to minister to the D&RM in order to reform their lives, is very much their private ajenda.
Our hierarchy must always remember their principle duty is to serve, and not to Lord over their position. And as laity, we are to obey and submit to them, for the sake of our Lord, so they can do their duty with joy.
Luke 10
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.
I have huge respect for our leadership, who have the task of ministering to the troubled and lost. To those is complicated situations, with heavy burdens. And I don’t wish to pry into their lives, unless I am willing to compassionately encourage and offer myself as an advocate for them. And this, I believe, is what Francis is seeking to do.
What some of us here are concerned about, however, in that many are attempting to interpret and apply AL to allow divorced and remarried (outside of a lawful annulment) to remain in their unlawful marriage and receive Communion in good conscience. Past this, we are all for pastoral efforts to counsel them back into a right relationship with Jesus.
This concern, of ours, is due to the strong and clear Teachings of popes, JPII and Benedict XVII which claimed a Scriptural basis, of which the Church has always upheld.
This is what I believe Francis should clarify, but beyond that, the pastoral approach to an effort to minister to the D&RM in order to reform their lives, is very much their private ajenda.
Our hierarchy must always remember their principle duty is to serve, and not to Lord over their position. And as laity, we are to obey and submit to them, for the sake of our Lord, so they can do their duty with joy.
W
Withburga
Guest
If you want to proof text the Good News into an anti-intellectual message, you are going to create far more problems in the maintenance of clarity and orthodoxy than you will solve.
To wit:
Teachings which are apparently worthless because they are based upon exegesis shaped by a strong and rigorous intellectual tradition, and Jesus was never impressed with the intellectually learned; or so you would have us believe.
As I’m sure you know, teachings of the Church are protected by the Holy Spirit against error in essential matters, and you have proceeded from a false premise: that the thought processes therein involved can be separated from their conclusions. If scripture contains all the answers without exegesis, we do not need a magisterium, and can join the many protestant groups who favour sola scriptura.
And as some people here in the Traditional Catholicism forum are keen to remind us so very frequently, no-one is served by the hierarchy bowing to majority opinion or being intimidated by loud cries of ‘heresy!’
They are instead bound by the duty to exercise the teaching authority of the Church as it applies within the hierarchy of truths without fear, and without concerns for criticisms from without or within. That is not how the the sensus fidelium functions, as anyone with an understanding of how Catholic truth is established will understand.
If anyone on these boards believes that their criticisms of Amoris Laetitia are strengthened by an appeal to anti-intellectualism, and the logical conclusion of same, that it is the unlearned who should be permitted to dictate the teachings of the Church, then heaven help us all. And to use the analogy of my previous post, I prefer a surgeon to remove my appendix rather than someone whose expertise is limited to having read an article on asceptic technique. Turning that into accusations of elitism and clericalism is absurd.
In Christ,
Withburga
R
rcwitness
Guest
The only issue some of us here have had is very simple to clarify. There is no need for eloquent speech or lofty jargon.
Anti-intellectualism?
My post was very clear, yet you have found a way to twist and spin.
What is the “appendix” in your surgical analogy? I’m not following how that relates to Communion to the D&RM.
G
graciew
Guest
That if we need brain surgery we won t go to O’ Reilly . or something like that
Do not worry. There is no need.
And, a leaked private document,between people who know,understand,have the same codes, speak the same language,have shared experiences to get to be analyzed because it reached the media out of having been stolen,sorry to say,is a low attitude and it only fosters leaking ,stealing documentation,private letters,and privacy,which,again …sorry to say,is plainly disgraceful.For me. As I was brought up. And yes,I am a nobody.
G
graciew
Guest
That if we need brain surgery we won t go to O’ Reilly . or something like that
Do not worry. There is no need.
And, a leaked private document,between people who know,understand,have the same codes, speak the same language,have shared experiences to get to be analyzed because it reached the media out of having been stolen,sorry to say,is a low attitude and it only fosters leaking ,stealing documentation,private letters,and privacy,which,again …sorry to say,is plainly disgraceful.For me. As I was brought up. And yes,I am a nobody.
P
pnewton
Guest
a,b,c or d. I would not get too hung up on the list. With thought, there might even be others that could be added. The point is that when offering a technical opinion of any kind, some technical knowledge is needed.
Imagine a forum where one would seek medical advice, and it was open to all. My opinion on what causes your knee to pop would be of zero value, even if I had the same problem. A current consideration would be an online discussion of police procedures. Everyone might have an opinion of what is right or wrong, but when looking a very specific situations, lack of technical knowledge greatly diminishes the value of the opinion.
I would say that the value one should have of their own opinion should be proportional to the product of their experience, education and training.
R
rcwitness
Guest
We are talking about JPII and Benedict, and St. Paul, not Joe Shmoe. I’m just going to assume Francis is not contradicting JPII and Benedict, and St Paul as I have from the beginning.
G
graciew
Guest
No. You are talking about Pope Francis. Period.
And a private leaked letter. Period.
And the rest is spilled ink on the media.
And I am out.I have nothing else to say worth saying,Rcwitness. Sincerely.
W
Withburga
Guest
Yes, anti-intellectualism.Anti-intellectualism?
???
Feel free to explain how your previous post could be reasonably construed to mean anything else. Surely your placing a statement dismissing the learned at the beginning of your post, and claiming the support of Our Lord for its substance, was intended to promote an anti-intellectual standpoint? If you didn’t mean that, it was a strange way to proceed.
The fact that Jesus did not equate learning with moral uprightness is not the same thing as denigrating the learned, which was your faulty exegesis of the text you quoted. (Jesus was not criticising learning, but expressing his common frustration with the learned amongst the scribes and the Pharisees whose knowledge did not lead them to proper praxis). In any event, equating intellectual expertise with holiness is not the subject of this thread, nor has anyone on the thread been so foolish as to make that claim, so you’re wrestling with a straw man here.
To me it seemed abundantly clear. But I assure, you, no spinning or twisting was necessary when I replied to it. People may well disagree with what I say here for any number of reasons, but I do not need either spin or twist to make my points: it is not my way, and is rarely necessary when addressing this kind of fallacy.
So as to be clear myself, the fallacy was that the intellectually learned should be safely ignored, and that this would be reasonable exegesis of the Christian message. If you are stating that this was no part of your intent in writing the post in question, then there was a significant gap between what you wrote and what you meant. Understanding your words:
as being a criticism of learning and a statement that Jesus held that same critical viewpoint is hardly a twisting or spinning of what you said, so kindly have the good manners not to accuse me of that kind of dishonesty, and have the good grace to either hold to what you said or acknowledge that you phrased things mistakenly.
I assumed it was obvious, but if I was less than clear: the appendix is a metaphor, and has no substantial existence nor any meaning in and of itself except in relation to that which it is intended to illuminate - namely, that in matters of urgency or importance, I would consult someone with the required expertise rather than someone who merely believes that they have that expertise. The contrast is a comparison with the informed commentary coming from legitimate sources, and the distortions present here on CAF, which typically present these sources as out-of-context quotes that ignore the role that this kind of debate plays in the reception and implementation of a document like Amoris Laetitia.
To that extent I will be guided by the Holy Father, by the bishops (both those in favour of changes in pastoral practice and those not in favour), by the theologians they consult (both clerical and lay) and by the people who are tasked with enacting the provisions of Amoris Laetitia, rather than starting from the premise that there is something terribly wrong at work here. Between them, I have no doubt they will steer the Church safely through the complexities of the shades of grey that - contrary to popular belief - are inherent in the practical exercise of moral theology in the pastoral realm.
As far as expecting a statement on what you say would be ‘very simple to clarify’, that - whatever it may be - will either come or not as the Magisterium determines. I don’t hold my breath for such things because I don’t look good when I’m purple.
The teaching authority of the Church, at all its many levels, does not work according to an obvious schedule. This may be frustrating but it is nevertheless obviously true; and what we perceive as needing clarification may not be seen as such by the magisterium.Do y’know, I’m not sure whether I should feel patronised and insulted or not? .
In Christ,
Withburga
I
irenaeus1
Guest
I am not denying that opinions of various individuals or groups is valued based on the knowledge and expertise on a certain subject. However, to make such a generalization as to state that unless one meets a certain criteria, their opinion is less than valueless and by and large meaningless is over-the-top condescending and elitist.
While personally challenging certain aspects of AL, I have not accused the pope of heresy nor cried that the sky is falling. In fact, for the most part, I am playing devil’s advocate to help determine some of the more robust counters that can be offered to help in discussions to defend the pope, the magisterium, and the Church as a whole. But arguments which state that if you are not a bishop, theologian, or a canon lawyer, then your opinion is worthless is not helpful in this regard.
In actuality, we know of certain individuals who meet all the criteria laid out by Don, who have made proposals or advocated positions that are clearly in contradiction to Church teaching (e.g., certain bishops who have advocated that the Church should no longer teach that same-sex acts are immoral, depraved, or intrinsically evil), and if a “lowly” religious education teacher at a Catholic school who does not meet those criteria of credentials were to point out the contradiction, this does not make their opinion less than valueless. If a proposal or position is faulty, then it should be sufficient to point out the flaws and deficiencies in the argument itself, not the lack of credentials of the one putting forth the counter argument.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I saw an attitude in posts that implied only clergy and theological experts can question the ajenda of AL. As though we should just shut up and accept decisions as infallible.Yes, anti-intellectualism.
???
Feel free to explain how your previous post could be reasonably construed to mean anything else. Surely your placing a statement dismissing the learned at the beginning of your post, and claiming the support of Our Lord for its substance, was intended to promote an anti-intellectual standpoint? If you didn’t mean that, it was a strange way to proceed.
Denigrating the learned??? Come on. Having concerns if there is a covert movement which would end up undermining, or contradicting what JPII and Benedict XVI taught should not be met with this kind of defensiveness.
No. Rest assured my comments were not nearly as personal as you are wondering.Do y’know, I’m not sure whether I should feel patronised and insulted or not? .
K
KSU
Guest
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
The Cardinal Vicar’s recent actions seem to support and confirm that this (i.e general prohibition on Communion for all divorced/remarried) was a changeable practice.
When the Pope says “there are no other interpretations”, this is an act of the Magisterium, correct? He is teaching and confirming others in their teaching, so would this mean the general ban on all (incl. the subjectively innocent) divorced/remarried couples from receiving Communion is removed (and replaced with a prohibition for most) for all dioceses?
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Replaced is the wrong word…more like the general rule is still intact, but there are now some people for whom the rule doesn’t apply. The question remains though
- Status