- Status
P
Pattylt
Guest
I believe I can begin to answer your question. Celibacy in the Priesthood is a discipline, not a doctrine so it is able to be changed. There are currently some married Priests…converts from Protestant denominations that were clergy and married and allowed to continue as married Priests. So, in looking at changes such as this question is to first determine if it is dogma, doctrine or discipline. The Church could change this rule tomorrow as it is merely a discipline.
Hope that helps!
P
philophoser
Guest
Yes I’ve been realizing this in discussions with my brother, but it’s not just the teachings, it’s the way Catholics think. There are entire categories of thought that Catholics take for granted that sound so alien to me. Just like in this case, I couldn’t conceive of levels of invincible ignorance until you explained this, so I mistakenly assumed that a person must either know nothing of the church, know about Catholicism and reject it, or be a Catholic. I didn’t understand there was middle ground until you said so.
I think some of the frustrations that are arising in this discussion stem from this. I don’t mean to be rude or irreverent, I just don’t think in the same way as a long-time Catholic does.
I have a feeling if I sat down with @Dovekin for coffee for five hours I could probably get all my questions answered and my doubts dispelled
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
Thank you for the compliment, but I am not sure I could convince even the Catholics who agree with me, let alone someone who does not.I have a feeling if I sat down with @Dovekin for coffee for five hours I could probably get all my questions answered and my doubts dispelled
There are some basic problems I see playing out in these discussions. There is a tendency to see the truth as something given and set, rather than as something we strive for. I have read about those types of differences, but I am not sure I could explain them well enough for you to accept my ideas.
During Vatican 2, Pope Paul VI issued his first encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, Our Church. In it he talks about how we talk to each other, both inside the Church and outside. His description of Dialogue has meant a great deal to me with its call for clarity, humility, prudence and charity. I think it might answer many of your concerns to know that at least some of us strive to fulfill his vision. The few minutes it takes to read would be better spent doing that than 5 hours talking with me.
P
philophoser
Guest
I think the primary issue is the different categories of thought Protestants and Catholics operate under. I seek answers under the category “Is Catholic teaching true.” But this question has been answered for Catholics; “Roma locuta; causa finita est (Rome has spoken; the matter is concluded).” The category a Catholic is required to operate under then becomes, not “Is the Catholic teaching true”, but “Why is the Catholic teaching true”, a different question entirely, and not the question I’m asking. We then become as two trains passing in the night, never able to find common ground, condemned to argue in endless circles.
Your points on how we speak to each other is very well taken. I’ve been accused of behaving badly in all sorts of different ways on this thread, and if there is any truth to these claims, I apologize. I didn’t intend to offend or to cause anger.
Also of importance is why we should argue in the first place. Since minds are made up, facts can never decide this dispute, and I’m not sure there needs to be a continued discussion.
Thanks everybody!
E
EndTimes
Guest
It should be both…
D
Dovekin
Guest
I would say the question is “how is the teaching true?” This is central to Catholic thinking, where we hold that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude" (Lateran Council IV) Every teaching that is true Is in some ways untrue because it is striving toward a truth that is beyond our ability to comprehend. We can speak and teach about God, about what is true, but we always know that God and truth are greater than we can say. An important part of teaching is opening ourselves up to what we do not understand.
That is part of why the discussions here have not always gone smoothly. “Is this Catholic teaching true?” begs for a yes or no answer. The answer is more likely yes in some ways, no in other ways. Zosimus taught what he knew to be true, and then taught the opposite when he understood better. To me that says the first statements are put into a wider context, that the truth they expressed is comfronted by a greater truth. You instead see the contradiction between them, and do not understand how we can hold both things as true.
I do not really understand the question is truth relative or not? Truth is not relative, but anything I say or teach is, by that fact, not a full statement of the reality. If I talk about it, it is to relate the statement to my reality. There is always more truth to find.
P
philophoser
Guest
Let me just give a quote that drives exactly to the heart of the issue I’ve been struggling with, both personally and on this forum, which led me to ask that question.
It’s from an Anglican apologist who, while I don’t agree with many of his ideas, exactly expressed what I’ve learned about the development of Catholicism (background: I have a degree in history with emphasis on medieval and Renaissance Europe from 17 years ago and I’ve studied it on my own ever since.)
“we have ceased almost to hope to find in a modern Roman writer a candid review of the whole facts of a case where the Roman claims or dogmas are in question. Candour, an attempt to fairly produce the whole case, a love of the whole truth – this seems to have vanished from their literature, and its place is taken by an abundant skill in making the best of all that looks Romewards in Church history, and ignoring the rest.”
Charles Gore, Roman Catholic Claims, pg 13
Lest you think I hold this view for no reason, let me just point you to an article that I was specifically directed to on multiple occasions in this thread, namely, the church position on papal infallibility.
In that document, bearing the imprimatur and nihil obstat of the church, the author uses two church fathers to defend the case of papal infallibility. Both of the “quotes” used are gross mistranslations of the original (which I’ve addressed above), which serve only to “look Romewards” in church history at the expense of ignoring the truth.
Additionally, if you look into the biographies of each of the men who are “quoted” in the document, you will see that the both denied the supremacy and the infallibility of the bishop in Rome by their actions (again, addressed above).
Proper historical scholarship gives greater weight to the actions of a person than to one specific quote. Having a quote from a man saying he doesn’t believe anybody should commit adultery carries little or no weight if he had mistresses or solicited prostitutes all his life. Actions speak louder than words.
Thus, an organization seeking candour (old definition; seeking the whole truth, whatever that may be) would never use Cyprian and Augustine to advance a belief in the primacy or infallibility of Rome, because their actions (and many other quotes of theirs) showed that they did not hold this belief. To paraphrase Charles Gore we see, not an effort to seek out Truth wherever it may lead, but rather, an abundant skill in finding a single quote that looks Romewards, with no respect to the actual Truth.
In the same way, the False Decretals and the forged Donation of Constantine were famously used to push the church Romewards by way of lies, not Truth.
If the Catholic church is the True church, incapable of falling into error, why would they need to constantly resort to deception (a Rome version of “truth”, a relative thing) to advance the claims of an absolute Truth?
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
This does not make sense. I might have an incomplete knowledge, but that in no way means my knowledge is untrue. I might not understand calculas, but I know that 2+2=4. 2+2=4 is in no way untrue because of my lack of understanding higher math.
I can know that God is simple. I do not know all that it implies, but it does not make that knowledge of God untrue in the least. There are 3 persons in one God. That is absolutely and unequivocally true, despite my lack of full comprehension of the Blessed Trinity.
D
Dovekin
Guest
2 apples + 2 oranges =/= 4 apples or 4 oranges.
2+2=4 is true, but it can also be untrue if it is not used in a proper way…
The Trinity is another example, where three divine persons in one God is correct, though three Gods is not right even though a god is a divine person. The statement is true in some sense, untrue in other senses.
Typically the argument is over “how is it true?” rather than “is it true?” at least for Catholics. There is often a variety of things a teaching might mean, and the aim is to identify in what sense it is true. Rarely is a statement true in a way that makes it an absolute; usually teaching refers to the truth that is absolute and exceeds the truth in the teaching.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Same here…
It’s part of a foundation of relativism
A notion which is incapable of being supported via T/F? logic…
including from those who e.g., see God as an Absolute which must be deb
T
tafan2
Guest
The statement which I made , " there are three persons in one God" , is not untrue in any sense.
T
tafan2
Guest
I would say “why is it true”, that is petty, but it does to afirm the truth better than “how” and better indicate seeking to understand rather then questioning the truth. At least to my ear.
Last edited:
J
JM3
Guest
C
Crocus
Guest
Charles Gore was a contemporary of now Saint John Henry Newman. Per wikipedia’s summary:
His book is available online for anyone interested, as a contrast to the above linked essay of Newman.
Roman Catholic Claims
books.google.com
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
Person, as it is used of humans, is a wholly inadequate word to describe the personhood of the Father. It makes even less sense when applied to the Holy Spirit. Only the dual natures of the Son make it appropriate for the Son. It is better than anything else, but that does not mean it accurately portrays what is true.
I am simply applying the traditional principle I quoted earlier:
The Father is similar to a human person, but is almost completely different from a human person. Similar, but more dissimilar. If you understand this better, I am willing to hear it.
Why is it true has too many possible meanings, more than how is it true. At least to my mind.
P
philophoser
Guest
I think this position is more likely to lead a good Catholic into error than to ask “how is it true”. To see why this might be, let’s take a more difficult dogmatic teaching of the Catholic church as an example.
How would one approach the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary with the question of why it is true? A “why is it true” approach would seek to find evidence to defend the Catholic position. Yet if we seek to vindicate this dogma on the basis of evidence, we would see that the belief is firmly contradicted by the plain writings of the contemporaries of Jesus, especially Matthew, Luke and Paul, and thus, one may be led into error by concluding that he/she should deny a Catholic dogma.
Thus, a good Catholic would be better served to accept the truth of the position by accepting it de fide as a papal pronouncement (submitting the intellect to the Catholic teaching). The appropriate Catholic approach would then be to ask in light of the truth of the Catholic teaching “how could this be true”, and allow his intellectual pursuits to continue along these lines.
In my experience, this is in fact how most Catholics approach any specific dogma, which makes it difficult to debate since we end up asking different questions and seeking different answers.
D
Dovekin
Guest
I struggle to respond to this, mostly because I agree with so much of it. Statements are often taken out of context and made to say more than they mean. At the same time, statements can have extended meanings, “unintended consequences”, that the original authors would be surprised by. I trust the Church, on faith, to seek what is true and to change when they are wrong. I see that as a consequence of the Truth being bigger, more inscrutable and incomprehensible than our minds can grasp.
Things like the Decretals and the Donations may have been meant to deceive originally, but for most of their history the Church has been deceived by them, rather than trying to deceive with them. They should have known better, but instead they were diverted from a truer vision of the Church. I have no problem with saying the Church has made mistakes and we need to correct them. This is different from what some say here, I grant, and they could be right. I just do not see how they could be.
Ss Cyprian and Augustine are different from that. St Augustine lived in Rome, converted there I think, but does not show that much deference to Rome. Still his remarks did see the appeal to Rome as the final level of appeal. That got taken to an extreme, but the idea is in some way implicit.
Newman’s essay on the Development of Doctrine examines how developments like that happen, how to assess them as true or false. It is very influential on most Catholic theologians, though there is still a small number who reject the idea entirely. I think that is what @JM3 linked to I think. Your questions seem grouped around the idea that “everything the Church teaches is true.” The extreme forms of that comes out of the people who marginalized St John Newman.
Things like the Decretals and the Donations may have been meant to deceive originally, but for most of their history the Church has been deceived by them, rather than trying to deceive with them. They should have known better, but instead they were diverted from a truer vision of the Church. I have no problem with saying the Church has made mistakes and we need to correct them. This is different from what some say here, I grant, and they could be right. I just do not see how they could be.
Ss Cyprian and Augustine are different from that. St Augustine lived in Rome, converted there I think, but does not show that much deference to Rome. Still his remarks did see the appeal to Rome as the final level of appeal. That got taken to an extreme, but the idea is in some way implicit.
Newman’s essay on the Development of Doctrine examines how developments like that happen, how to assess them as true or false. It is very influential on most Catholic theologians, though there is still a small number who reject the idea entirely. I think that is what @JM3 linked to I think. Your questions seem grouped around the idea that “everything the Church teaches is true.” The extreme forms of that comes out of the people who marginalized St John Newman.
- Status