Presbyterian Insight......... where are they?

[frobert]

That’s not what I said. I think the scholastic theological terminology is tripping you up. Your restatement indicates you are not familiar with it, or you are conflating and confusing the issues, as I said.

I’m not sure what ‘your value judgement derived from your faith beliefs’ means, or what you mean by this observation.

You are right I am not familiar with the STA. But I am not assuming a homosexual bird is happy or not which is what I referred to as a value judgement.

 

[frobert]

There is no Protestant Natural Law, as opposed to Catholic Natural Law. Protestants (and many Jews, Muslims, and many non believers) historically affirmed the Natural Law as something that was inherently true. Legislation against homosexual acts, abortion, artificial birth control, and certain other actions were put into effect by Protestant American legislatures, signed by Protestant governors. One can argue how much the founders of our country were Protestant, as compared with Deists, but no doubt there was very little Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut into Natural Law influenced documents and traditions.

This isn’t one of those doctrinal issues where there may be Protestant theories as compared to Catholic theory. The Natural Law is something that predated Christianity, Christians in general embraced the same Natural Law. A Protestant or Catholic may cease believing in it, that does not affect its validity.

Read C. S. Lewis “The Abolition of Man” or its fictional equivalent, “That Hideous Strength”, both in the mid 1940s; both deeply prophetic in terms of the Natural Law.

I think we are talking past each other. You can say that Catholics have sort of trade-marked the term natural law. If you are a Catholic you are allowed to reason according to Thomistic natural law but in the end you must accept and believe church doctrine. I think you will admit that there are non-Thomistic believers of natural law and that one can use natural law to lead a good life. How does one reason the tenets of leading a good life? He/she can accept the churches view. Another way could be to reason using Aristotelian and Stoic virtue ethics or other ethical philosophies along with what your religious teachings. Because of your beliefs you would likely say that such approaches are misguided, but that is a different discussion. My point is that if you want to discuss natural law with non-Thomistic adherents you can discuss the differences but discussing only what one believes will end in a stalemate.

 

[Tomyris]

I think we are talking past each other. You can say that Catholics have sort of trade-marked the term natural law. If you are a Catholic you are allowed to reason according to Thomistic natural law but in the end you must accept and believe church doctrine. I think you will admit that there are non-Thomistic believers of natural law and that one can use natural law to lead a good life. How does one reason the tenets of leading a good life? He/she can accept the churches view. Another way could be to reason using Aristotelian and Stoic virtue ethics or other ethical philosophies along with what your religious teachings. Because of your beliefs you would likely say that such approaches are misguided, but that is a different discussion. My point is that if you want to discuss natural law with non-Thomistic adherents you can discuss the differences but discussing only what one believes will end in a stalemate.

Well…Not all Catholics are Thomists. And not all believers in natural law are Catholic.

Do you believe in general revelation? That God revealed Himself clearly, as it says in Romans 1, and that man turned away?

 

[frobert]

Well…Not all Catholics are Thomists. And not all believers in natural law are Catholic.

Perhaps I am misinformed, but don’t all faithful Catholics believe Thomas?

Do you believe in general revelation? That God revealed Himself clearly, as it says in Romans 1, and that man turned away?

As a Protestant, like you I believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God. Protestants don’t believe the Catholic Church is infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

they are of such a mindset that they begin and end with the concept that in matters of faith only Catholic beliefs and reasoning can possibly be right.

This is not a correct articulation of Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

Yet, almost ironically, we as confessional Lutherans are depending on the Catholic Church to remain steadfast in its orthodox Christian stance. We have no stronger an ally in this.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

Perhaps I am misinformed, but don’t all faithful Catholics believe Thomas?

It’s kind of cheeky for a Presbyterian to be telling another Protestant what Catholics believe. Usually I leave it to them. Sometimes when I try I start a land war in Asia or something.

But Catholics - and they WILL correct me if I am wrong - can be Thomists, who follow St. Thomas Aquinas, mainly, or Molinists. Molinists are actually the mole people, the ones with the black helicopters who go around muttering in Latin about moles and secret codes and have neat decoder rings and secret handshakes and know where the Holy Grail is now and who shot Kennedy, and J.R. Ewing. They eat a lot of pork dumplings and sauerkraut and like jello-mold desserts, you know, like the orange ones with little Mandarin oranges in them, usually cast in a jello mold with a little ground carrot on top on a bed of lettuce with some parsley, on a white china plate with a blue floral pattern. Hmmm. Maybe that is wrong, and no doubt you could Google a better answer. It may be connected to someone named Molina who constructed a theology that emphasized the will over predestination, in contrast to St. Thomas Aquinas’ belief in predestination being over free will. But I have told you more than I know.

 

[frobert]

It’s kind of cheeky for a Presbyterian to be telling another Protestant what Catholics believe. Usually I leave it to them. Sometimes when I try I start a land war in Asia or something.

I wrote:
“Protestants don’t believe the Catholic Church is infallible”

Of course there are exceptions, though wouldn’t a Protestant who believes the CC infallible be going against his/her own beliefs if he/she remained a Protestant?

Doesn’t Thomas natural law claim that homosexuality is an intrinsic evil? If so, does a Catholic have the option to believe that homosexuality is not an intrinsic evil?

 

[commenter]

I wrote:
“Protestants don’t believe the Catholic Church is infallible”

Of course there are exceptions, though wouldn’t a Protestant who believes the CC infallible be going against his/her own beliefs if he/she remained a Protestant?

Well, it’s more than a few exceptions. In prior centuries, the Magisterium assessed a great deal of Christian traditions, and “canonized” 1% of it as Sacred Tradition. Millions of Protestants accept the Magisterium’s assessment as infallible, though only up to a certain year (which varies from denomination to denomination). For instance, Methodists today accept the Magisterium’s definition of the Trinity, though they don’t accept the Assumption. You won’t find Presbyterians pleading to bring back ideas of Arius, today. The Magisterium infallibly ruled him out. Presbyterians accept that rule-out.

A much smaller number of Protestants in effect regard the current Magisterium as infallible, but they are not yet ready to join the Catholic Church because of responsibilities in their own church, family reasons, or other reasons. G. K. Chesterton waited a number of years, lingering as an Anglican, for personal reasons.

 

[frobert]

Well, it’s more than a few exceptions. In prior centuries, the Magisterium assessed a great deal of Christian traditions, and “canonized” 1% of it as Sacred Tradition. Millions of Protestants accept the Magisterium’s assessment as infallible, though only up to a certain year (which varies from denomination to denomination). For instance, Methodists today accept the Magisterium’s definition of the Trinity, though they don’t accept the Assumption. You won’t find Presbyterians pleading to bring back ideas of Arius, today. The Magisterium infallibly ruled him out. Presbyterians accept that rule-out.

A much smaller number of Protestants in effect regard the current Magisterium as infallible, but they are not yet ready to join the Catholic Church because of responsibilities in their own church, family reasons, or other reasons. G. K. Chesterton waited a number of years, lingering as an Anglican, for personal reasons.

Thanks for clearing that up. Does that smaller number of Protestants believe they are living immorally by remaining Protestant even it its temporary?

Can you shed any light on the other questions I asked?

“Doesn’t Thomas natural law claim that homosexuality is an intrinsic evil? If so, does a Catholic have the option to believe that homosexuality is not an intrinsic evil?”

 

[GKC]

Well, it’s more than a few exceptions. In prior centuries, the Magisterium assessed a great deal of Christian traditions, and “canonized” 1% of it as Sacred Tradition. Millions of Protestants accept the Magisterium’s assessment as infallible, though only up to a certain year (which varies from denomination to denomination). For instance, Methodists today accept the Magisterium’s definition of the Trinity, though they don’t accept the Assumption. You won’t find Presbyterians pleading to bring back ideas of Arius, today. The Magisterium infallibly ruled him out. Presbyterians accept that rule-out.

A much smaller number of Protestants in effect regard the current Magisterium as infallible, but they are not yet ready to join the Catholic Church because of responsibilities in their own church, family reasons, or other reasons. G. K. Chesterton waited a number of years, lingering as an Anglican, for personal reasons.

Roughly for 13 years, as you likely know (but I often jump in when someone mentions my man). I look at him as anima Romana Catholica naturalis.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

It’s kind of cheeky for a Presbyterian to be telling another Protestant what Catholics believe. Usually I leave it to them. Sometimes when I try I start a land war in Asia or something.

But Catholics - and they WILL correct me if I am wrong - can be Thomists, who follow St. Thomas Aquinas, mainly, or Molinists. Molinists are actually the mole people, the ones with the black helicopters who go around muttering in Latin about moles and secret codes and have neat decoder rings and secret handshakes and know where the Holy Grail is now and who shot Kennedy, and J.R. Ewing. They eat a lot of pork dumplings and sauerkraut and like jello-mold desserts, you know, like the orange ones with little Mandarin oranges in them, usually cast in a jello mold with a little ground carrot on top on a bed of lettuce with some parsley, on a white china plate with a blue floral pattern. Hmmm.

My understanding is that Lutherans are partial to the 3 bean salad.

That explains a lot, doesn’t it?

 

[LutheranScholar]

My understanding is that Lutherans are partial to the 3 bean salad.

That explains a lot, doesn’t it?

Interesting… I just thought they made* primo *coffee…

 

[PRmerger]

I wrote:
“Protestants don’t believe the Catholic Church is infallible”

Of course there are exceptions, though wouldn’t a Protestant who believes the CC infallible be going against his/her own beliefs if he/she remained a Protestant?

Doesn’t Thomas natural law claim that homosexuality is an intrinsic evil? If so, does a Catholic have the option to believe that homosexuality is not an intrinsic evil?

You also wrote this, did you not:

Perhaps I am misinformed, but don’t all faithful Catholics believe Thomas?

It was to this that Tomi was responding.

 

[frobert]

You also wrote this, did you not:

It was to this that Tomi was responding.

I know many Catholics do not believe in Thomistic natural law. I am asking do “faithful” Catholics have a choice to not believe Thomistic natural law? Simple yes or no answer.

 

[PRmerger]

Doesn’t Thomas natural law claim that homosexuality is an intrinsic evil? If so, does a Catholic have the option to believe that homosexuality is not an intrinsic evil?

This is incorrect.

Catholicism professes that homosexuality is a disordered desire. Not that it is intrinsically evil.

Here’s a great source:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

From the above cited source: At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of

 

[CompSciGuy]

To be clear, it was the Presbyterian Church (USA) (abbreviated PC(USA)) that voted to accept gay marriages. The PC(USA) is the largest American Presbyterian church, but there are others. Other Presbyterian denominations such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church for example continue to uphold traditional Christian teaching.

What ltwin said. I am an ex-presbyterian from the PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) and my father is a PCA minister. The PCA would definitely never approve of gay marriage. PCUSA is the liberal branch, much like the ELCA is for Lutherans. I’ve seen PCUSA churches that have female pastors, and yes they tend to be accepting of homosexual relationships and other lifestyles that are contrary to the word of God.

 

[PRmerger]

I know many Catholics do not believe in Thomistic natural law. I am asking do “faithful” Catholics have a choice to not believe Thomistic natural law? Simple yes or no answer.

It’s not Thomas’ natural law, any more than gravity is Newton’s law of gravity.

Catholics are bound to have their views consonant with truth. And where Thomas’ propositions are consonant with truth, Catholics are obligated to believe them.

However, St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, his enormous intellect notwithstanding, is not representative of the views of Catholicism. Where he departs from Catholicism, we are not obligated to conform our views to his.

 

[frobert]

It’s not Thomas’ natural law, any more than gravity is Newton’s law of gravity.

Catholics are bound to have their views consonant with truth. And where Thomas’ propositions are consonant with truth, Catholics are obligated to believe them.

However, St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, his enormous intellect notwithstanding, is not representative of the views of Catholicism. Where he departs from Catholicism, we are not obligated to conform our views to his.

Thank you for clearing that up. Let’s check if I have the correct understanding: Natural law is what the CC determines is natural law and Catholics do not have the option of not believing what the CC says it is. Non-Catholics of course may or may not go along with the Catholic view. My error was my not understanding that Thomas’ natural law sometimes departs for Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s check if I the correct understanding: Natural law is what the CC determines is natural law and Catholics do not have the option of not believing what the CC says it is. Non-Catholics of course may or may not go along with CC view. My error was my not understanding that Thomas’ natural law sometimes departs for Catholicism.

Almost everything you said above is incorrect.

sigh