T
trogiah
Guest
The Augustinian:
- Status
F
fix
Guest
Actually there are many things written by those in the Church to explain this teaching. What I find so confounding is that so many who are very intelligent reject that teaching, or keep trying to grasp it. It makes great sense. Unlike the concept of the trinity, or the hypostatic union, which are very difficult to grasp, those teachings are accepted, yet issues around gender are rejected or struggled with. To me, that says we tend to be more influenced by pop culture and feelings than the truth. Now, I know that will sound too harsh to many, but it seems to be the most honest answer.
P
patg
Guest
I agree.
However, in every human related endeavor, from national government to the family, dissent is usually something that strengthens and improves things. People say that the church is not a democracy or a popularity contest - well, that does not automatically imply that the authoritarian and unpopular decisions are therefore always the “truth”.
One of the reasons there is so much dissent may be that there is so much to be dissenting about. In the beginning, there was the simple message of Jesus - his simple vision of the “kingdom of God” and what was needed to please God. There was not a thousand pages of catechism, endless volumes of canon law and armies of canon lawyers, and an international organization of wealth and power.
Now that we have had 2000 years of rule making by those who think their job it is to make rules, how can anyone think that this is what Jesus intended? Do we really think that our relationship with God depends on what grain is used to make the host bread, what gender the ministers are, or whether the infancy narratives or the assumption of Mary are history lessons?
I believe that respectful dissent is what allows any organization to grow in the proper overall direction and avoid tyranny and misdirection. Criticizing some aspect of our nation’s environmental policy does not make me any less an American and upsetting the concepts of the universe did not make Copernicus any less of a Catholic.
Pat
F
fix
Guest
patg said:
Look, life like faith, is simple on one level and highly complex on another. The idea that the Church is burdensome is really a joke. Let’s take one example like IVF or contraception. These issues are two of the most rejected by secularists and the Catholic lite set.
Jesus did not mention these by name in the NT. How would a follower, today, know what Christ would have us do in regard to them? Some claim they are morally licit, the Church says ther are intrinsically evil and may never be done. Are you telling me that one can claim to be a follower of Christ and determine if they are licit or not on their own? Each person would have a separate conflicting answer. Can truth contradict truth?
L
LHM
Guest
I believe a lot of the discussion that involves the Church can be misunderstood.
I believe someone put it this way:
There is “The Church” – The Body of Christ – infallible, unending, Holy.
Then “The Church” – The Members – The Pope, Priests, Lay People – sinners, error prone, etc.
Then “The Church” – The Building – Brick, Mortar, etc.
The Church – The Body of Christ – is Christ, it is impossible for it to teach error – Christ protects his Church.
The Church – The members - can put forth any number of ideas, theories, error, etc. I think there were some bad Popes in the 1500’s, but Christ protects his Church, not allowing anything to be infallibly defined(explained) by its members that is error.
But once it is infallibly defined, it is then Christ himself who has defined or explained a particular doctrine, since he would not allow his body to be defiled.
I am not a theologian, but I believe this is correct.
I believe someone put it this way:
There is “The Church” – The Body of Christ – infallible, unending, Holy.
Then “The Church” – The Members – The Pope, Priests, Lay People – sinners, error prone, etc.
Then “The Church” – The Building – Brick, Mortar, etc.
The Church – The Body of Christ – is Christ, it is impossible for it to teach error – Christ protects his Church.
The Church – The members - can put forth any number of ideas, theories, error, etc. I think there were some bad Popes in the 1500’s, but Christ protects his Church, not allowing anything to be infallibly defined(explained) by its members that is error.
But once it is infallibly defined, it is then Christ himself who has defined or explained a particular doctrine, since he would not allow his body to be defiled.
I am not a theologian, but I believe this is correct.
P
patg
Guest
This line of reasoning is unacceptable because the church only uses it in one direction - to make more rules and define more truths. But I dissent on many things because the church only rarely, if ever, redefines or "cleans’ them up based on growing knowledge and experience. You say things are complicated and we know more now than we used to - I would like to see that knowledge used to keep the teaching up to date. Unfortunately though, the church paints itself into a corner by infallibiliy and required belief statements so it can’t ever go back and modify the blatant mistatements.
For example, we know that heaven is not a physical place above the sky, that women should no longer treated as they were in ancient societies, and that some people are made seriously ill by communion bread. However, the church fails to update “the truth” with this knowledge and stands by unsupportable teachings which it has to declare as required beliefs because otherwise, few would believe or follow them.
Yes, I dissent against IVF teachings also. How can the church call it immoral to “play God” when God apparantly “plays” right along and creates a soul for the person (or is this not really a person)? Sounds like God is blessing the process and helping it along.
Refusal to adapt to the knowledge of our current world view can’t do anything but increase dissent - and this is certainly evident in the church today.
Pat
F
fix
Guest
So, logic is unacceptable?
See, that is the issue. God does not change. There is nothing to adjust. Doctrines develop, but never contradict.
I think you have it backwards. Those who reject Christ paint themselves into a corner. They want to be their own God. When confronted with the disparate beliefs of so many who claim to follow Christ, they have no logical answer.
Yep, it is easy to believe a man died and rose from the dead. That people can believe, yet when confronted with His living authority they claim it is too impossibe to believe.
God is creator. We are pro-creators. He gave us free will. He will not prevent us from choosing evil. And many of us do. He does not bless an evil act. Many are blinded to the truth because to accept the truth means they must change the way the lead their lives.
That I agree with 1000% People have always rejected the truth and always will. As He said if they hate you, remember they hated Me first.
R
RBushlow
Guest
Try looking at like this:
Truth is not relative to the believer, nor can it be changed by popular consensus. The whole world could agree to have the sum of 2+2 changed to 3 but it would still be 4. Truth simply is regardless of what individuals feel about it.
We need to simply trust that God knows what He’s doing and that he knows better than we do. We have to trust that he is faithfully guiding his church in upholding, protecting and defending the truth (1 Tim 3:15) even if that truth cramps our style.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Dear RBushlow,
Please don’t mind me if I comment on your analogy a little bit. I would never support a change to say 2+2=3, because I believe I know enough about the rules of mathematics that I can actually figure this out so I would of course go with the convention that 2+2=4, whichever side the Church comes down on. Assuming, of course, we are talking about conventional real-number addition, yada, yada.
In the case of spiritual matters, such as, “the assumption of Mary,” to use an example I saw in another post, we really can’t figure this out. There isn’t enough evidence to conclusively demonstrate, using conventional and well-accepted standards of logic, that this is the case. In matters like this it is trusting some other human being to be able to infallibly receive this teaching from the Holy Spirit. Many people have said “God told them this” and “God told them that.”
But to your point that “truth simply is regardless of what individuals feel about it” I fully agree. The problem is, I’m still not sure I buy into this whole “infallibility” thing. The Church is run by human beings. I am not questioning whether God is faithful in guiding His Church, but is the Church listening? She hasn’t always listened. The “Church” I’m talking about is the collective sum of all the priests and bishops, including the bishop of Rome. Obviously she has done some terrible things in the past; I’m sure those faithful to the Church back in the day were just as convinced as she that she was right as many of us would like to believe she is now. For example, wasn’t the Inquisition ostensibly about mercy for the eternal soul of the heretics? Would the Church’s faithful then have refuted the Church’s reasoning and authority to carry out its plans? Either the Inquisition was wrong, or if morals didn’t change it would still be OK today. If the Church were really mistaken about this, and now believes she was wrong (as I’m guessing she does and probably is part of the apology that JPII offered) who was it that told her about it? Those who maintained she is infallible? No, if everybody in the church fully supported what she did, then she must have succombed to outside societal pressure – I’d prefer to think it was dissenters within the Church that helped her see the error of her ways. Perhaps we should name this thread “the treasure of dissent.”
You might say, “well the Inquisition was not infallibly declared,” to which I ask, can a good tree bear bad fruit? How can we say the Church teaches perfect truth while accepting the fact that her “practices” are sometimes suboptimal, if not downright wrong at times? How do we know as parishioners that any given thing we are told by priests and bishops is true if we know some of them have covered up terrible lives of sin in the past and may still be doing so in the present?
The more I think about it, the more I question whether anybody who believes he or she must not cast a dissenting opinion upon the Church is not doing her any favors. They give the Church muscle, but not integrity. That’s understandable if one truly believes the Church may not err in her ways, because then integrity is guaranteed. History shows otherwise, and I submit that 200 years from now they will look back at the year 2004 and shake their heads at some of the things we do today and think they are right.
Alan
P
patg
Guest
Logic is fine - its the reasoning that is flawed. If you say more rules are needed because things exist now that didn’t in the early church, then you have to allow for changes in what the early church taught based on that knowledge. It has to work both ways or there is no logic.
See, that is the issue. God does not change. There is nothing to adjust. Doctrines develop, but never contradict. I think you have it backwards. Those who reject Christ paint themselves into a corner. They want to be their own God. When confronted with the disparate beliefs of so many who claim to follow Christ, they have no logical answer.
How do you know God does not change? - I’ll not put that requirement on God. And I believe it is quite evident God has changed - first there was the good buddy God walking and talking in the garden with the first couple, then the war mongering, slaughter everybody God, then the lawgiver and covenant making God. Finally God gave up the high and mighty approach and tried sending Jesus to get a little closer to us. That hasn’t produced much of a better world either so it will be interesting to see what God tries next. Change? constantly!
That’s very wrong - it is very difficult to believe the resurrection involved the resucitation of a corpse!! What is impossible to believe are ancient myths describing supernatural events as if they were literal history. Those stories made perfect sense thousands of years ago but are totally unsupportable based on our current knowledge.
As I said, God doesn’t have to play the game if it is evil. But God does play, so maybe it isn’t so evil.
I don’t hate anyone here - I just see the need to question things. If God doesn’t like that, I should have been born a sheep instead of being told to act like one
Pat
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Dear pat,I don’t hate anyone here - I just see the need to question things. If God doesn’t like that, I should have been born a sheep instead of being told to act like one
Pat
So you’re the “patg” with whom I was categorized as uttering “nonsense.”
Greetings. :tiphat:I think some of your arguments are very good, but I disagree with some others. Perhaps it would have been more strategic if I hadn’t introduced myself to you publicly?
On the abstract issue of “dissent,” however, I also have grown a propensity to question things. (Duhhh, I guess) I do it to understand what others are saying, to try to reconcile their opinions with each other or with what makes sense to me, and sometimes to find out if they really have any backing for what they say. In the latter sense, I am “testing” them. Gold is tested in fire; if there are any impurities they will be removed, and when we are done we can be confident the product is pure.
Alan
T
trogiah
Guest
I would like to suggest that perhaps issues related to gender, marriage, sexuality, etc, are struggled with because they are inherently difficult issues. Consider the following form chapter 19 of Matthew.
Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
5 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
7
6 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?”
8
He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
10
[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11
He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
12
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
Jesus seems to strongly imply that Moses fell short on clearly settling this issue. He (Jesus) also seems to imply that there are different paths, some of which certain individuals may simply be unable to accept.
The fact that this issue was chosen to “test” Jesus indicates that it was a question, even then, that proved difficult to settle definitively.
I agree with your observation that issues regarding gender do generate more dissent than most other issues. That, in fact, feelings do matter more than truth. (I have found that people can very easily dismiss “truth” but find it much harder to dismiss strong emotion.)
I don’t think we gain much by dismissing this dissent as Pop culture. Rather we should recognize this as a universal human condition and deal with it as best we can, truthfully and with regard for the strong emotions that are present.
T
twf
Guest
Petra: I strongly encourage you to read the Apostolic Constitution on Divine Revelation, from the Vatican II. The Word of God is both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and both are venerated EQUALLY. Sacred Tradition is not put above Scripture, and Scripture not above Tradition. Paul instructed us to hold fast onto both, for it is only together that we get the complete picture. One compliments the other. And then, just taking the two, you can get many many interpretations, so you need a third component of the Word of God, the Magisterium, to interpret the other two for us. I like to think that Sacred Scripture is the keyhole, Sacred Tradition the key that fits into the hole, and the Magisterium the hand that turns the key, opening the door to Truth.
We are allowed to rebuke the Pope, when he is led astray or leads others astray, as long as we do such with gentleness and respect. The Pope can lead people astray…infallibility only guarentees that he will not officially proclaim a false doctrine, by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not necessarily inspire him in everything he says, but the Holy Spirit will prevent him from declaring heresy. I believe there have been a couple saints that did just that (not just the Apostle Paul). The Church is infallible, but only in matters of faiths and morals. The Church can impose disciples that we thing are wrong. The Church can abuse her power, or make mistakes, in manners of practice and disciple. Until only a few decades a go, it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. Was this too harsh? Perhaps. So the Church may have been wrong to have bound the discipline in such a grave manner, but it was still a mortal sin to break this precept for Christ promised that whatever the Church bound on earth would be bound in HEAVEN. Thus, while the Church may be wrong to impose a certain discipline, we are still obliged to follow it. (Like the Jews were obliged to follow the Pharisees, who sat on the Chair of Moses).
We are allowed to rebuke the Pope, when he is led astray or leads others astray, as long as we do such with gentleness and respect. The Pope can lead people astray…infallibility only guarentees that he will not officially proclaim a false doctrine, by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not necessarily inspire him in everything he says, but the Holy Spirit will prevent him from declaring heresy. I believe there have been a couple saints that did just that (not just the Apostle Paul). The Church is infallible, but only in matters of faiths and morals. The Church can impose disciples that we thing are wrong. The Church can abuse her power, or make mistakes, in manners of practice and disciple. Until only a few decades a go, it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. Was this too harsh? Perhaps. So the Church may have been wrong to have bound the discipline in such a grave manner, but it was still a mortal sin to break this precept for Christ promised that whatever the Church bound on earth would be bound in HEAVEN. Thus, while the Church may be wrong to impose a certain discipline, we are still obliged to follow it. (Like the Jews were obliged to follow the Pharisees, who sat on the Chair of Moses).
F
fix
Guest
Huh? That does not make sense. No teachings have changed. Not a one. Disciplines have changed. Our understanding has developed, but never has the Church changed her teachings on any issue of faith and morals.
If God could change that would mean He has potential to change and He would not be God. God said I Am who Am. He was not born, He always existed and He cannot change.
You do not have to, that is the way it is.
That is a basic flaw in understanding the bible. It comes from self interpretation, which is itself illogical.
Who said that?
Faith and reason are necessary to accept the truth. Reason alone will never get you where you need to be. Although, many have given great proofs that Christ was God through the use of history and reason.
As I said God gave us free will. He does not interfer with our choices. If He did it would not be free will.
The Scripture quote was given to show you that Jesus said many would reject His teachings.
F
fix
Guest
I think your points are valid and I wont argue except to say that there is in our age a distinct trend toward sexual libertinism that is unique in our country and time. In my short life of over 40 years I have seen changes that are astounding.
Anyone would be hard pressed to argue we are not more immersed in sexual sin then even 30 years ago. If you had told me that there would come a time when sodomy would be celebrated and embraced as healthy by so many and openly discussed with children you would have been denounced as a nut. Today we see almost every form of vice accepted as the norm. With so many “Catholics” practicing birth control, fornicating, IVFing, etc on par with the pagan culture I cannot say that culture has not influenced dissent.
You know thw old saying… All heresy begins below the belt. Our age proves that and more.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Dear fix,
I don’t mean to single you out for this comment, because I’ve heard this all my life and it never occurred to me to question it before. Others can just as well jump in here. Maybe this would be a good subject for a new thread?
What is it about God that cannot change? Obviously His covenant with us can change over what we call “time” or we would not have rainbows. What is “time” to Him anyway, when “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.” (2 Peter 3) Einstein theorized, and experiments have supported, the fact that time, space, energy and matter are all relative and are not absolutes the way most humans perceive them.
His rules on sacrificing idols, eating meat, etc. have varied from the “past” as we know it. The forms He takes while communicating with us (e.g. voice from the sky, burning bush, flesh and blood, dreams, Holy Spirit within us) are many and we probably have not seen or noticed them all.
Maybe I can partly answer my own question. God’s existence is eternal, “I Am Who Am” and He is not bound by our definition of “time.” Time, space, energy and matter are not even constant – “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” Aha. His Word will not pass away, but again, what about His Word? Its fleshly form passed away, in terms of our ability to see and perceive Him as we did when He walked the earth. Did not the Word made flesh release us from certain OT rules and clarify – strengthening – others? Were not animal sacrifices a matter of faith and morals before Christ? Hmmmm. His Love is everlasting (several scriptures). So I’d say we know His existence and Love is everlasting, and even though I understand it’s not authentically Catholic, “the kingdom, the power, and the glory” are His, now and forever. But what about His requirements for us in terms of faith and morals?
I have to admit, Patg has stumped me here. I admit I don’t know how we know that God’s teachings on faith and morals cannot change. This can’t happen – I didn’t think anybody was more inquisitive than I was.
Alan
F
fix
Guest
I am no expert and I know others here are more educated in these matters and will respond better than I.
Time is for humans. He is outside time and space.
Humans change, not God. As we developed He did not change we did.
God’s moral laws never change. He said so. Someone in this thread , or another thread posted about Jesus’ comments about marriage. When questioned about divorce He told them from the beginnning it was not so, but due to your hard heart Moses allowed it. So, God does not change, but we do.
Why would they change? God would be a liar. Jesus said heaven and earth shall pass away before one letter of the law does.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Dear fix,
I agree that the marriage thing doesn’t illustrate God “changing” his rules. It may appear He was adding new rules, but as you say the previous more lenient ones were only given as a concession. What I’m more interested in, are whether there are situations where rules were done away with or made less restrictive, allowing things that used to not be allowed.
The part about what Jesus says about one letter of the law confuses me, actually. He also said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law. But then He showed us that the lawful practice of how the sabbath was kept was relative, apparently easing previous restrictions, how the rules about handwashing were relative (or was He just sticking up for His friends who ate without washing against the judgment of the Pharisees). He also showed us, apparently, how the laws concerning resting on the sabbath were relative and even self-contradictory, and justified His disciples’ picking and eating grain on the sabbath by telling about David eating the consecrated bread which only the priests were allowed to eat? (See Matt 12:1-8 plus footnotes 4,5,6 at usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew12.htm)
It would seem, then, that Jesus used His authority to ease restrictions in the law. Do these matter not signify a shift in God’s teachings of faith and morals? Wouldn’t the lifting of restrictions on “keeping the sabbath day holy” constitute a major policy shift? (As an aside, on the topic of consecrated bread, I remember reading a pamphlet that had been left in our adoration chapel complaining about how blasphemous it was that non-priests now get to touch the Body of Christ, and how the Church was all wrong and had erred by allowing Eucharistic ministers and Communion in the hand.)
What about Paul teaching that we are no longer under the law? Does this mean that when Jesus came to “fulfill” the law that what he meant was that the lifespan of the existing law was now complete?
I don’t know when God said his moral laws never change. About His teachings on faith, did Jesus not subordinate faith and hope to love? God said His love is eternal, but if faith is less than love that doesn’t help us.
Back to the issue of the Church, is not the issue of keeping the sabbath day an issue of faith or morals? Has she not slackened her requirements for how that is to be accomplished, if not completely usurping the principle of observing the sabbath, but allowing anticipated Mass on Saturday in place of Sunday Mass? Hasn’t missing Mass on an actual Sunday, which used to be a mortal sin, now been accomodated, or did we change our “understanding” of the word “sabbath?” Hasn’t she become less restrictive on pre-Communion fasting and Friday fasting? Were these issues not about faith and morals in the first place? Mind you, I’m not complaining about the changes. I just think it’s really weird to say that neither the Church nor God can or even should change its teachings involving faith and morals. OK, so the Church hasn’t accepted adultery and probably never will, so we can anticipate their never changing on some issues.
I’d better stop with all that reasoning. The more I step into this the deeper I get.
One more thing, though, is I don’t see how God changing His teachings makes Him a liar, unless He specifically said He will not change His teachings. Either He did change His teachings on a lot of issues, or I must not understand what “change” means.
Alan
F
fix
Guest
Was He not talking of the moral law? You need to ask someone who studied theology or an apologist. I think he was abolishing the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law. His new covenant did away with the ceremonial law.
I do not think so, beacause He was instituting a new covenant with His people. He did not change His mind.
Again, I think this is referring to ceremonial law, not moral law. We need to hear from someone who knows theology.
The Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Saturday nite vigil is Sunday by Church time. Sundown begins the next day.
still a mortal sin.
Disciplines which may be changed.
I know you know the difference between doctrines and disciplines , so I will not explain them.
S
Strider
Guest
Petra,
Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply. Got busy.
I’m not saying that if the Church is wrong on one thing, it’s wrong on everything. I’m saying that if the Church can be proved wrong on one thing, then everything the Church has ever said can be called into question. The Catholic-haters would have a field day and the Church would have no defense.
As to your second point, sometimes not understnading leads to unbelief. This is the role of faith, which comes from grace. If we don’t understand something that it is possible for the human mind to comprehend, then it is up to us to inform ourselves. But if a doctrine is not provable or understandable by human reason, like the Blessed Trinity, then we either accept it on faith or we reject it. Since the Blessed Trinity is a Church Doctrine regarding faith, if one rejects it, one cannot call one’s self a Catholic.
I wouldn’t presume to try to judge your heart. I can only judge your actions. If you reject the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in the teaching of faith and morals, for whatever reason, then, by your actions - that unbelief - you are not a Catholic.
Heck, I don’t even know if you consider yourself a Catholic; I’m just presenting my case.
1 Cor 11:2 I commend you becuse you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
I hope this clears things up.
God bless
- Status