Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[bobzills]

For instance, and this is one that comes to mind, the Doctrine of “No Salvation outside the Catholic Church”. Now in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II gave a different slant on the meaning of “Church” stating that ALL religions have SOME element of the truth, some element of what is taught by the Catholic Church. He expanded the term “Church” in that way as no religion (can’t think of an exception right now) has truly ever left the Mother Church, the Catholic Church. .

How would that apply to Hinduism, Buddhism, or Judaism. Would it make sense to say that these religions never left the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[elts1956]

Your first point is well taken. I stand corrected. “Many” members. I’m not sure what you mean by theologically constant. Is not faith ever evolving? The Vatican has a good many theologians and biblical experts always at work. They are adding to the faith presumably. Are you really saying that there is never a correction in any doctrine because the RCC claims it cannot error ever? I’m not sure, so won’t go further.

What I mean by socially more liberal, is that I find the RCC, and please correct me if I am wrong, taking a strong position on protecting the immigrant especially in the US. It has at least through it’s Popes made faith strong statements against the death penalty and war in general, not inclined to find just war. I think that whatever you think about Liberation Theology, the RCC has acknowledged that the Latin American peoples have suffered unjustly for decades under dictatorship, and it has endorced a “preferential option for the poor.” It seems to be moving rather to the left on issues of the environment. I see those as “liberal” notions.

Theological liberalism to me is a willingness to offer up the best analysis to date. I think the RCC, and this is surely my opinion, drags its feet on even what is produced by Catholic theologians and biblical experts which differs with historical claims by ECF and councils of centuries past. I assume this comes from “no error” can be possible by us.

I also think, and again, it is an opinion, that some statements in the past are now clearly wrong and and thus the RCC is somewhat hesitant to make any statement now to the contrary until “all the evidence is in.” Being burned as it were on the Galileo issue (I realized that some RC’s now dispute this, but the Pope did in fact apologize), the Jewish issue (again another apology), and evolution seemingly proven even to Vatican satisfaction, causes it to be reluctant to speak until they are 99% sure of being correct. No doubt some RC’s would disagree. But you asked my opinion.

SO in the end, I find the RCC theologically conservative in that sense, and socially liberal.

How would that apply to Hinduism, Buddhism, or Judaism. Would it make sense to say that these religions never left the Roman Catholic Church?

Hi, I meant to correct that. I am talking 99% about those denominations which separated from the Catholic Church. As far as the Jewish religion, Pope John Paul II said the Covenant between them and God has never been broken. As such, their judgement will come from God as we, even the Pope and Magisterium, cannot say they are condemned.

 

[Eleve]

There is no such thing as the American Catholic Church. The media plays this out very well. There is no American Catholic Culture, just Catholic Culture.

So you’re saying that the cultures of American Catholics, Mexican Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, and Chinese Catholics are identical? I don’t think that’s even tenable.

However the Church has stated there are no new Doctrines or Dogmas that will be added now, or in the future.

Where, exactly? There was no trouble with defining a Dogma in 1950.

 

[elts1956]

So you’re saying that the cultures of American Catholics, Mexican Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, and Chinese Catholics are identical? I don’t think that’s even tenable. As far as Catholic belief, which I think could be defined as a culture, they are identical. Mexican Catholics, Chaldean? and Chinese Catholics are bound by the same doctrines and dogmas as those in North America, Europe etc. Although they may display a difference in worship in their societal cultures, their beliefs are the same.

Where, exactly? There was no trouble with defining a Dogma in 1950.

Which dogma are you speaking of, The Assumption? I will have to check on that one.

 

[elts1956]

So you’re saying that the cultures of American Catholics, Mexican Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, and Chinese Catholics are identical? I don’t think that’s even tenable.

Where, exactly? There was no trouble with defining a Dogma in 1950.

Which dogma are you speaking of, The Assumption? I will have to check on that one.

As far as Catholic belief, which I think could be defined as a culture, they are identical. Mexican Catholics, Chaldean? and Chinese Catholics are bound by the same doctrines and dogmas as those in North America, Europe etc. Although they may display a difference in worship in their societal cultures, their beliefs are the same.

 

[Eleve]

Well, there’s a big difference between beliefs and culture. Consider the difference between celebration of All Souls’ Day in Mexico and in the average American parish.

 

[elts1956]

Well, there’s a big difference between beliefs and culture. Consider the difference between celebration of All Souls’ Day in Mexico and in the average American parish.

As I said, the ways in which these beliefs are demonstrated can and do differ. BUT there is only ONE Catholic culture to which all of the ethnic groups belong. Faith first.

The “Catholic Culture” at one time, here in the U.S., which was predominantly of European stock, was very alive. And still, each ethnic group celebrated their Catholic Faith in various ways. The Irish celebration was MUCH different than that of folks of a Germanic background.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Until Baby Murder is outlawed than all who profess themselves Catholic and Christian should be one issue voters. Life of the Baby trumps any other issue

So if David Duke (for example) had favoured an end to abortion, he would have been preferable to an anti-Nazi candidate who did not ?​

Sorry, but while some people may not mind voting for neo-Nazis & white supremacists, nothing would induce me to do so, whether they were opposed to abortion or not. Abortion is not desirable, but there can be too high a price to pay for ending it. And that hypothetical possibility represents one price that is too high. Would Catholics vote fior a pro-life Communist ? I doubt it very much indeed.

It may not be the fashion to say this, but there are other evils than abortion - & to allow them to flourish as the incidental (?) price of voting for certain sorts of candidate, in the belief that such candidates would end abortion or help do so, looks highly inadvisable, if not irresponsible. To enable one evil as the price of ending another that is perceived to be greater is immoral; so it’s not even sound as Catholic moral doctrine.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Quite frankly, I’ve found the radio plays to be pretty lame. Same for Ken Greenwald’s book The Lost Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Based on the Original Radio Plays by Denis Green & Anthony Boucher.

There are some excellent TV renderings of the stories, in the UK anyway.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How would that apply to Hinduism, Buddhism, or Judaism. Would it make sense to say that these religions never left the Roman Catholic Church?

It could be done - if one were to go back to the old idea of an ecclesia ab Adam, a “Church from Adam”. For if the Church began in some sense with Adam, any other religion could be seen as a deviation from it.This would put the Church in the interesting position of implying that, to be truly human, one has to be in union with Rome. ​

So a case could be made for saying that those religions had left the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

However the Church has stated there are no new Doctrines or Dogmas that will be added now, or in the future.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn’t make the statement that “the Church has stated there are no new Doctrines or Dogmas that will be added” unless I could reference a source.

 

[Peter_J]

So if David Duke (for example) had favoured an end to abortion, he would have been preferable to an anti-Nazi candidate who did not ?​

I would guess that historyb meant to say that the abortion issue trumps any other issue that’s likely to come up in a modern US election, not that it trumps any other conceivable issue.

 

[Peter_J]

There are some excellent TV renderings of the stories, in the UK anyway.​

Yes, there were some good productions based on the original stories. It’s just the new stories that tended to be awful. (Anyone remember the one with the three suspects named Pound, Sovereign, and Tanner?)

 

[GKC]

There are some excellent TV renderings of the stories, in the UK anyway.​

The Grananda Television/Jeremy Brett series, esp. in the early years, were superb. After his illness, and the death of his wife, he was not able to carry the series;unfortunately, they went on anyway.

GKC

 

[ClementRome]

The precise point was that some in the Vatican are claiming that the far right in the American church is out of step with the Vatican itself and more conservative than it is, thus giving a false impression. It has nothing to do with being aligned with Rome, plenty of more “middle of the road” Catholics are quite possibly well within the teachings of the Church. I think most Catholics would agree that they were.

And again, I ask you. Where does the Vatican claim this? And what do you mean “middle of the road” Catholics? It is simple. There are Catholics who follow what the Church says, and then there are dissenters who don’t.

That certainly seems the opinion of some Catholics.

sigh. Do you even know what the definition of a heretic or dissenter is? It is one who doesn’t follow or agree with certain precepts of the Church.

That’s not the problem really. The majority we think are fully happy and content. It is the far right that is unhappy with many Catholics who don’t agree with them on the following of certain doctrines like birth control for instance. Since the majority is not leaving and certainly isn’t intending to form a new church, will the minority do anything? It seems impossible for them to leave obviously, since this would unalign them, and so far they aren’t interested in having the rolls “purged” if you will. That is the discussion we have been having.

Don’t agree with “them”? Uh, I’m sorry, but it is the Church that says birth control is sinful, not the laymen. The laymen don’t make up the doctrines. Also what does it matter what faithful Catholics do? All the “majority”, as you call them, are doing, is hurting themselves
and their own salvation by their own actions. Only they
themselves can truly change. People who are on birth control should not take communion because they are taking communion in a state of mortal sin. That is not my opinion, but straight from the magestarium.

Some do seem to care, since they speak about the poor catechizing of the faithful a good deal, poor priests coming from bad seminary training, etc. But you state the position of some well, judging that those who don’t appear to follow your beliefs are heretical. I don’t pretend to know.

What exactly do you mean “my beliefs”? I’m restating to you what the Church says, not my own opinion. Do you honestly think the Pope is gonna tell you that birth control is simply a belief of only the “far right wing”? lol

Your belief is that the heart is “deceitfully wicked”? I thought Jesus resided there myself. I thought the Spirit attempts to guide each of us to truth and love. I guess the CCC and the popes in their pronouncements on primacy of conscience were incorrect. So God gave you a mind for no other purpose than to ask the Church what to do? Interesting analysis

It seems you are poorly catechized and have no understanding of original sin and concupiscence. The Spirit doesn’t guide us past our free-will. People still can fall and make bad decisions. You will see than when the Church talks about using your conscience they are talking about using your conscience within Church teaching. Considering that someone properly catechized will be able to discern well right and wrong. This does not apply for people who are still outside the understanding of Church doctrine.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? - Jeremiah 17:9

From the sole of the foot even to the head There is nothing sound in it, Only bruises, welts and raw wounds, Not pressed out or bandaged, Nor softened with oil - Isaiah 1:6

 

[Marsha_Adams]

And so I see you are not in favor of the RCC actively trying to remove those you might consider dissenters on one or more things. You more hope they will leave? I guess the problem some have expressed with that notion, is that they are basically happy, and it seems aren’t particularly motivated to leave. Do you see something different?

When every homily at every Mass begins with “artificial contraception is a mortal sin and the equivalent of adultery”, or “abortion is a mortal sin”, or “living in an unblessed union is adultery”, or “you cannot call yourself Catholic if you willfully choose disobedience to Rome,” or . . . the clear statement and identification of some prized sin, they will either leave of their own accord or get to confession and begin to be Catholic again.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

You’re being exceedingly narrow in your definition. Being willing to do a legal medical procedure deemed appropriate under current medical practices, to women who desire them is not being “pro-abortion.” It’s merely being a doctor.

That is like saying that just because your profession is that of “Hit man” doesn’t mean you are in favor of murder. If a doctor is not in favor of abortion, he would refuse to perform them. Doh!

 

[Matariel]

Just like Christ warned us about dissenters and public sinners in the Church, in His parable of the wheat and the tares, the Church in North America has more than its share of tares. There’re faithful devout Catholics who follow Church teaching, then their are Catholics who don’t live a Catholic life out of ignorance-- and then there are so-called Catholics who are really heretics that have cut themselves away from the full Communion of the Church though heresy or public mortal sin, such as the latitae senatatae (sp) excommunicated politicians. This last group is a cause of major grief to faithful Catholics. Even after public reproof by the Pope, Nancy Pelosi and the others are still pro-abortion and sacrilegiously present themselves for Communion…

But I got off track… anyway.

 

[Matariel]

That is like saying that just because your profession is that of “Hit man” doesn’t mean you are in favor of murder. If a doctor is not in favor of abortion, he would refuse to perform them. Doh!

Good point!

 

[Marsha_Adams]

That’s because the terms have a very near universal (at least, here in the U.S.) association on the abortion issue. People know what you’re talking about when you say “pro-choice,” “pro-life,” etc.

I could just as easily say, “It wouldn’t be so bad if they at least said, ‘I’m against a woman’s choice in what to do with her body.’”

Pro-choice is a euphemism to make the unacceptable, acceptable. This is why I will never call it anything but pro-abortion. The alternate phrase you proposed, “I’m against a woman’s choice in what to do with her body.” isn’t correct. I am all in favor of a woman choosing not to have sex (i.e. what to do with her body). I am not in favor of her murdering her unborn baby (i.e. what to do with his/her body).