V
vern_humphrey
Guest
More cogently, who would choose such a beast as a role model?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gifMan, who on earth would ever want such a beast to represent them.
- Status
A
Adam_S
Guest
and the vast majority of scholars. Just in the middle of a Religion and Theology degree, having done essays and essays on early church history, i can safely say there is no wa we would have our Bible without the insititutional Church.
After Marcion appeared in 140AD and made his own gospel, consisting of Luke and 10 epistle of paul, all heavily edited, the church had to start defining what was scriputral and what wasnt.
Ot started off with what ws generally popular in Church (judged by the orthodoxy of the Church, it only got read if it was orthodox), however this wasnt the case - the liturgical manual the Didache was read commonly yet did make it into the Bible, neither did the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Epistle of Barnabas. Yet Jude, 2John and others werent commonly read yet made it in. There were loads of suggestions flying about, we have many codices dating well into the fourth century that differed from ours.
Eventually Athanasius working as part of the institiutional church suggested a list in 367, this was stat for the Eastern Church, and the latin church confirmed this definition at Hippo in 393 and Carthage 397.
So no, its pretty much historical fact that you wouldnt have our Bible without the insititutional Church protecting it, and it is my personal opinion (and that of many scholars) that without the strength of the clear doctrines of the Church, Gnosticism (i.e old testament god = evil, all things on earth evil.) would have killed the Church by the end of the 3rd century no problem, and without that church theres no way christianity would even be recognisable now.
So before you start with your “i dont need the Church, just my interpretation of the Bible” you wouldnt have a Bible if it wasnt for theChurch, and the Bible you use is the Bible of the instituional church - fact,
G
Gabriel_Gale
Guest
I have never met anyone who could defend a postion of no absolutes with-out refuting themselves. However, among the sophisticated, the argument or at least slogan is found. If you saw the latest Star Wars, George Lukas has Obi accuse Anakin/Darth of being an absolutist.Name one.
Personally, I’ve never encountered anyone who doesn’t hold to at least some moral absolutes… and I haven’t exactly led a sheltered existence.
Well, admittedly, I’ve never encountered any members of the Flat Earth Society. We may have one or two here though.
Some famous intellectuals who rage against absolutism would include Peter Singer, Joseph Fletcher, Dewey, etc. You don’t have to have a coffee with them but you can read their books which are fairly popular. Occasionally, I hear people calling radio shows claiming that their or no moral absolutes. In Veritas Splendor,JPII rejects philosophies (teleogical and proportionalist) whichholds that there are no intrisically evil acts (ie moral absolutes). JPII didn’t name names but I don’t think that he was attacking a straw man.
On the other hand, I have yet to read a book or hear of any books by Flat Eathers or have read about any historical figure accused of being a flat earther. And I have never heard someone call a radio show promoting the belief in a flat earth.
S
shs-aod
Guest
Gabriel Gale:
You’ve obviously led a sheltered existence…
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You know a lot of Flat-Earthers, do you?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
V
Vonier
Guest
Is condescension a mortal sin or a venial one?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
vern humphrey:
And who would ever want to ride such a beast into town?
T
trustmc
Guest
Scripture says he rode a donkey not a mule – big difference.And who would ever want to ride such a beast into town?
By the way, nice quote. I’m not sure who or what Acaranga is, but the quote might have just as easily cried out from any mothers’ womb.
Mike
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The allusion is not to Christ, but to those who call themselves Catholics and withhold the assent of faith.
K
Kristopher
Guest
Dear Reader:
I do not know that women ordained as priestesses would be heretical, but it would be a definite change in the requirement that to be Pope one must be both male and Catholic: to be like Jesus has no such requirement. I just see no need for women priestesses, and I like the attitude of some sisters: to be a priestess, ordained, would be a step down.
People use the black-and-white analogy without carrying it out–maybe such people biologically lack in their visual cortex the ability to synthesize black-and-white: in terms of pigment, white and black mix to form gray–to what extent the mix of two pigments such as Titanium white, and maybe some form of India black actually destroy the physical intrinsic black-or-white characteristic of the pigments used is not something I know, but probably a chemist could explain it to me someday. In terms of black being viewed as a consequence of white, or yellow incandescent light from the sun–all colors must be present for black to be viewed, I mean: all colors are three as transparent objects in say, stage lighting, magenta, some type of blue, and perhaps green–these in combination with a light source, even a flourescent one, give us black. Most people sit in front of a yellow and green and blue screen for their blacks, and their whites: television.
Physiologically, blacks-and-whites are able to possess contraries to each color as a consequence of their substance: man, or woman.
After death, biologically, all meat is gray, correct: without all the dyes, etc.?
Tunnel vision never seems to be an analogy carried far by some as well: does anyone ever see the light at the end of the tunnel; the deaths, which occurred to blast through the mountainside; the fact a mountain, or some architectural marvel exists outside the tunnel has to be faced eventually–some people stay in those tunnels for too long a period of time.
I like the following quote: “I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another that right, makes a slave of himself to his present position, because he precludes himself from changing it.”–Thomas Paine, 1794
I would like to know what charge of heresy is brought against liberals; it seems to me the unity of the Catholic Church is threatened more by the allegedly schismatic and conservative Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). If the arguement follows that liberals already are guilty of heresy, then they have left the church and the question therefore is not even moot–why discuss it; but have conservatives taken care of their own: SSPX and Sedevecantists–other than stigmatizing them, and condemning them to Hell?
Most sincerely,
Kristopher
I do not know that women ordained as priestesses would be heretical, but it would be a definite change in the requirement that to be Pope one must be both male and Catholic: to be like Jesus has no such requirement. I just see no need for women priestesses, and I like the attitude of some sisters: to be a priestess, ordained, would be a step down.
People use the black-and-white analogy without carrying it out–maybe such people biologically lack in their visual cortex the ability to synthesize black-and-white: in terms of pigment, white and black mix to form gray–to what extent the mix of two pigments such as Titanium white, and maybe some form of India black actually destroy the physical intrinsic black-or-white characteristic of the pigments used is not something I know, but probably a chemist could explain it to me someday. In terms of black being viewed as a consequence of white, or yellow incandescent light from the sun–all colors must be present for black to be viewed, I mean: all colors are three as transparent objects in say, stage lighting, magenta, some type of blue, and perhaps green–these in combination with a light source, even a flourescent one, give us black. Most people sit in front of a yellow and green and blue screen for their blacks, and their whites: television.
Physiologically, blacks-and-whites are able to possess contraries to each color as a consequence of their substance: man, or woman.
After death, biologically, all meat is gray, correct: without all the dyes, etc.?
Tunnel vision never seems to be an analogy carried far by some as well: does anyone ever see the light at the end of the tunnel; the deaths, which occurred to blast through the mountainside; the fact a mountain, or some architectural marvel exists outside the tunnel has to be faced eventually–some people stay in those tunnels for too long a period of time.
I like the following quote: “I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another that right, makes a slave of himself to his present position, because he precludes himself from changing it.”–Thomas Paine, 1794
I would like to know what charge of heresy is brought against liberals; it seems to me the unity of the Catholic Church is threatened more by the allegedly schismatic and conservative Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). If the arguement follows that liberals already are guilty of heresy, then they have left the church and the question therefore is not even moot–why discuss it; but have conservatives taken care of their own: SSPX and Sedevecantists–other than stigmatizing them, and condemning them to Hell?
Most sincerely,
Kristopher
M
mike182d
Guest
Ordination of women priests would be heretical and to assume that there is no problem with it is to express a grave misunderstanding of the priesthood and the very nature of God Himself. Priests aren’t “men-only” because of some antiquated dominance of men over women. In fact, by only allowing men to be priests, Christians and Jews were the minority. Pagan religions of antiquity are filled with priestesses. Why the difference? Our understanding of God. I highly recommend this article:
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9304/articles/novak.html
Women cannot be priests. Period.
The black-and-white thing was just an analogy, and as such was not meant to be a literal interpretation of the realm of objective truth. I think you’re looking way too far into this.
It’s a shame Thomas Paine, and the rest of secular society infested with relativism, was wrong and his position is illogical. I wonder if he supports the rights of pedophiles whose opinion it is to molest children? I wonder if he supports the right of Hitler to hate the Jews and exterminate them?
No one ever has preached tolerance of every opinion.
How about both? Why is it so black and white with you?
I kid…
But seriously, schismatics are less of a threat to the Church because they’ve already been seperated from the Church and are easily indentified as *not *being legitimately Catholic. Its the difference between a wolf and a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Liberals are far more dangerous because they still graze amidst the rest of the flock.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The Church has no authority to ordain women.
M
mike182d
Guest
vern humphrey:
Bingo.
T
trustmc
Guest
What makes you think that people messed thing up? Jesus said that he would provide his Church with the Holy Spirit who would teach everything and remind us of the things he said, which was not all recorded in the gospels. He further gave his church the gift of infallible teaching – to “bind” and “loose” that which is already bound and loosed in heaven. If you keep this in mind when you read or hear something with which you have a problem, you will be more likely to be open to the Spirit as he conforms your heart to Jesus.
Did you miss that whole sermon by Jesus in the Temple to the money changers? Now THAT was some good preaching! :clapping:
Mike
E
Ender
Guest
It has taken me quite a while to catch up with the end of this thread and, after 509 posts, it’s not clear that I can offer much that is either new or clarifying … but I can’t resist jumping in anyway.
I don’t think “liberal” is the best word to describe people who hold a certain view of the Church but I’m less interested in discussing the word than the view. The “view” I refer to is the one exemplified by Penny and Patg which seems to be: take what is best about Catholicism and winnow out what is misguided, mistaken, or just out of date.
The problem with this for “conservatives” (ignore the inadequacies of this term too) is that for them the Church is basically all or nothing. There are some issues about which Catholics may legitimatly disagree, but the major issues about which the Church has spoken must either be accepted (whether or not defined as infallible) or the entire edifice of the Church fails.
The Church has made specific claims about herself. The rejection of a specific teaching (e.g. abortion) involves a rejection not just of that particular issue but of the claim itself, and if the claim is untrue then so is the Church.
This is an asymmetrical argument: it seems that to a “liberal” the issues are singular - abortion, women priests, contraception - but to a “conservative” the issue is about the validity of the Church’s claim that “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.”
Ender
I don’t think “liberal” is the best word to describe people who hold a certain view of the Church but I’m less interested in discussing the word than the view. The “view” I refer to is the one exemplified by Penny and Patg which seems to be: take what is best about Catholicism and winnow out what is misguided, mistaken, or just out of date.
The problem with this for “conservatives” (ignore the inadequacies of this term too) is that for them the Church is basically all or nothing. There are some issues about which Catholics may legitimatly disagree, but the major issues about which the Church has spoken must either be accepted (whether or not defined as infallible) or the entire edifice of the Church fails.
The Church has made specific claims about herself. The rejection of a specific teaching (e.g. abortion) involves a rejection not just of that particular issue but of the claim itself, and if the claim is untrue then so is the Church.
This is an asymmetrical argument: it seems that to a “liberal” the issues are singular - abortion, women priests, contraception - but to a “conservative” the issue is about the validity of the Church’s claim that “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.”
Ender
F
fix
Guest
Exactly. It is all or nothing at all. Either Christ founded one Church that He speaks through infallibly, or we each are the final authority and we each hold differing views of objective truth that conflict.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I think you have nailed it pretty well on the head. If I can be so bold as to summarize, some hold that certain issues (even though the Church has declared otherwise) are issues of prudence while others hold that the range of issues of prudence is much more narrow.
While I consider myself pretty in the camp of “the Church holds the full Deposit of the Truth and when one struggles w/ the Teaching, it is my obligation to take it to prayer so I can better understand my misunderstanding”, I am hesitant to be hyper-critical or “holier than thou” towards those holding a contrary position. My hesitation is not that I think they might be “right” but to be admonishing would fail to recognize that all of us are on a journey to God.
This journey has as many paths as there are faithful. I try to keep in mind my own journey and the pitfalls that took me off track. But in the end, the eternal pull was that I tried to allow God to love me, I tried to love others and from those two I came to have a greater understanding of the Church and Truth. It wasn’t the other way around.
Yes, I’m troubled by some of the opinions expressed by dissenters. But sometimes I find they express a love for those around them so much more Christ-like than I ever do. It kind of reminds me of the story in Mathew when the father asked both of his sons to go into the field and work. One said “yes father” but didn’t go into the field while the other said “no father” but did go into the field. The lesson of the story was that it was the one that said “no father” who actually pleased the father.
My point is that we don’t really know what is in the heart of the dissenter, only Christ does. We don’t know if their dissent is a manifestation of baggage we are unaware of what causes them to be 'difficult". And when we see some “fruits” like expressions of Christian charity, we need to recognize that it is Christ in them. And anyone who has Christ in them has the Holy Spirit in them. No matter how persuasive my “arguments” for orthodoxy might be, they pale in comparison to what the Holy Spirit can do.
I just don’t agree that the answer is expulsion except in the more extreme and public (scandalous) situations. In the vast majority, we should be praying and supporting the work of hte Holy Spirit already at work in their hearts.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It seems like we have closure.
Yes, the Church is an all or nothing proposition. Christ established it for our guidance and salvation. We, as individuals have no authority to reject any part of it.
Those who cannot accept the Magisterium, who cannot give the assent of faith, should pray for the grace and enlightenment to accept the teachings of the Church. And the rest of us should pray for them.
Yes, the Church is an all or nothing proposition. Christ established it for our guidance and salvation. We, as individuals have no authority to reject any part of it.
Those who cannot accept the Magisterium, who cannot give the assent of faith, should pray for the grace and enlightenment to accept the teachings of the Church. And the rest of us should pray for them.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
vern humphrey:
Agreed. If liberalism = denial or obstinate doubt of “some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith,” then they’ve already left the Catholic Church since they’re heretics (CCC 2089). They certainly need our prayers.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It is indeed heresy, as you define it. But we’re better off praying for them than calling them names.
- Status