We are all catholic. We are all defective

[frobert]

You may be very surprised how this issue plays out in years to come. Francis is laying the groundwork per the guidance of the holy Spirit. The very arguments against female priests did not prevail among many Protestant Christians. The issue of homosexuality is undergoing major transformation both in and outside the Church.

I hope your are correct but can you imagine how Pope Francis will demonized by the anti-LGBT crowd led by the fractions of the media, hate groups, prejudiced Catholics, and just possibly by many posters on CAF if he hints at modifying the CC’s stance on homosexuality.

 

[SteveVH]

You may be very surprised how this issue plays out in years to come. Francis is laying the groundwork per the guidance of the holy Spirit. The very arguments against female priests did not prevail among many Protestant Christians. The issue of homosexuality is undergoing major transformation both in and outside the Church.

That females cannot be ordained as priests is now a definitive teaching of the Church which cannot be changed by any Pope. And you are seriously misguided if you think that Pope Francis is headed in that direction.

 

[SteveVH]

I hope your are correct but can you imagine how Pope Francis will demonized by the anti-LGBT crowd led by the fractions of the media, hate groups, prejudiced Catholics, and just possibly by many posters on CAF if he hints at modifying the CC’s stance on homosexuality.

And just what do you believe needs to be modified concerning the Church’s stance on homosexuality?

 

[Nicea325]

I know you are not suggesting that female priests/ bishops are all Lesbian. Pope Francis is guiding the Church into an acceptance of all God’s children.

I saidpenly gay/lesbians. They admit it and are still ordained.

Acceptance of God’s children does equate into acceptance of openly gay/lebians being ordained.

Pope Francis is laying ground for the ordination of openly gay folks to be ordained? Based on whose perceptions? Gay and lesbians?

 

[frobert]

And just what do you believe needs to be modified concerning the Church’s stance on homosexuality?

We weren’t talking about what I think should be modified, I was only stating my thoughts about how the Pope would be demonized should he attempt to modify the CC’s stand which I believe is unlikely in my lifetime.

 

[Contarini]

“I am a defective Christian. This is according to a report released last week by the Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

That is a bold face lie. Regardless of what interpretation you might be able to pick out of the document, that is not what was said or even really implied in the document. That makes his statement a lie and he really has misinterpreted the document, and put words in the mouth of the Church that it never used and absolutely does not use.

Furthermore, this minister never said anything about being theologically defective. He made no distinction between theological defect and moral defect at all, which makes his lie even worse because it distorts the truth even more.

I can’t really sum up what he said any other way than just to say its a lie.

Well, that’s a failure in understanding and empathy on your part.

It’s not a lie to say that Catholicism holds other Christians to be defective in faith and practice. You’re right that he conflates theological and moral defect, and that’s the point you need to address.

Why distinguish between them, except because you need to do so?

In other words, we all know that all churches are morally defective. No church can claim to be perfect in this sense. Furthermore, it’s also obvious that all churches fall short of the fullness of the faith in terms of how they proclaim and practice the Gospel. In terms of how the faith is believed and practiced, then, all churches are defective.

The Catholic Church claims to have “the fullness of the Faith.” In order to make that claim without manifest absurdity, you must separate out the very narrow sense in which this claim is not obviously false from the many senses in which it is. To Protestants, including Anglicans, it is not clear why that very narrow sense of “fullness” (formal, dogmatic teaching) should be singled out in this way. Why not take all the ways in which Christians believe and live out the Gospel together and just admit that all churches are “defective” but God is faithful to us anyway?

I think there are answers to this challenge. But it is, in my view, the single most serious challenge to Catholicism. And your failure even to understand the challenge is typical of conservative Catholics, and poses a huge problem to Catholic apologetics and evangelization among those who are not committed to ultra-conservative versions of Protestantism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If all of Christianity has defective doctrines then Christ failed in his promise to send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.
.

We obviously haven’t been led into all truth yet, or development of doctrine would cease.

This is obviously a continuing promise, which will not be consummated until the Second Coming. The Holy Spirit is leading Christians into all truth. Catholics need to do a better job of explaining why formal doctrinal error can’t be part of that journey, just as every other form of error and sin manifestly is.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I read the article and think the following is the most important point the author is making:

“It is not news that the Pope thinks the Catholic Church was the best thing before and after sliced bread. If he didn’t think so, he probably wouldn’t have been elected to the top job in the world’s largest Christian denomination. What should be news is that he also signed a document affirming once again that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.”

The first two sentences are fluff but if the CC now truly believes that in the salvation of non-Catholic Christians that is good news for the evolution of Catholic thinking and nothing new for non-Catholic Christians’ thinking.

This is hardly new for Catholics either. It’s been the case at least since the 19th century, although it was stated far more generously than previously at Vatican II.

Whether we are defective or not is up for debate.

Not among any reasonable people–i.e., people not completely cut loose from reality.

The question, as posed by Fr. Frank’s article (of which I confess that I like the title more than the substance), is whether any church is not defective. That Anglicans and other Protestants are goes without saying.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

We obviously haven’t been led into all truth yet, or development of doctrine would cease.

This is obviously a continuing promise, which will not be consummated until the Second Coming. The Holy Spirit is leading Christians into all truth. Catholics need to do a better job of explaining why formal doctrinal error can’t be part of that journey, just as every other form of error and sin manifestly is.

Edwin

Edwin,

In your opinion,do you believe many Christians regardless of tradition, fail to comprehend doctrinal development?

 

[Contarini]

Opinion? History says otherwise and facts are not opinions.

“History” doesn’t and can’t say anything about sacramental validity.

Whether Pope Leo’s commission got the history right is up for debate. But at bottom, this is a theological judgment.

Tell me where God authorized female priests in the OT and the NT explicitly allowing female ordination?

Tell me why this is necessary?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

In your opinion,do you believe many Christians regardless of tradition, fail to comprehend doctrinal development?

Yes. And of course, there are different versions of it. I understand of course that Newman’s version, which is essentially that held by orthodox Catholics, is different from the “Catholic Modernist” version, which is on the whole more likely to be held by Episcopalians (the latter allows for actual “change” with far fewer qualifications than Newman’s version). And, of course, there’s debate about just what Newman meant anyway and how far he would or would not have agreed with the later “Modernists” (and there’s debate about whether there was really a coherent ideology called “Catholic modernism” anyway–there’s debate about just about everything, in other words!).

Edwin

 

[aidanbradypop]

The question, as posed by Fr. Frank’s article (of which I confess that I like the title more than the substance), is whether any church is not defective. That Anglicans and other Protestants are goes without saying.

Edwin

He added a lot of fluff in there and personal opinion but I do agree with the title like you said.

 

[Nicea325]

"History" doesn’t and can’t say anything about sacramental validity.
Whether Pope Leo’s commission got the history right is up for debate. But at bottom, this is a theological judgment.

Tell me why this is necessary?

Edwin

Says who?

Why is it necessary? Why don’t you ask God?

 

[frobert]

This is hardly new for Catholics either. It’s been the case at least since the 19th century, although it was stated far more generously than previously at Vatican II.

I appreciate Pope’s Francis’s generosity. I like his outspokeness

Not among any reasonable people–i.e., people not completely cut loose from reality.

Sounds like you are saying I am unreasonable. I have been called much worse things than that.

The question, as posed by Fr. Frank’s article (of which I confess that I like the title more than the substance), is whether any church is not defective. That Anglicans and other Protestants are goes without saying.

Can’t say for sure, I am neither

 

[SteveVH]

Catholics need to do a better job of explaining why formal doctrinal error can’t be part of that journey, just as every other form of error and sin manifestly is.

Edwin

Because it is divinely protected from bringing error into its doctrines.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I saidpenly gay/lesbians. They admit it and are still ordained.

Acceptance of God’s children does equate into acceptance of openly gay/lebians being ordained.

Pope Francis is laying ground for the ordination of openly gay folks to be ordained? Based on whose perceptions? Gay and lesbians?

Oops, sorry for missing “openly”.

To me the issue of biblical interpretation and spiritual transformation is not left in the hands of any one person, popes included. The entire Church struggles with discernment.

 

[Nicea325]

Oops, sorry for missing “openly”.

To me the issue of biblical interpretation and spiritual transformation is not left in the hands of any one person, popes included. The entire Church struggles with discernment.

And the pope does not do all alone. He is not king. Problem today is relativism and people embracing it over absolute Truth which is never in error. The latest fad does not mean it is okay or correct. People want God to conform to us and not the other way around

 

[EvangelCatholic]

And the pope does not do all alone. He is not king. Problem today is relativism and people embracing it over absolute Truth which is never in error. The latest fad does not mean it is okay or correct. People want God to conform to us and not the other way around

So a kid born homosexual is in violation of “absolute Truth”?

 

[frobert]

Problem today is relativism and people embracing it over absolute Truth which is never in error. The latest fad does not mean it is okay or correct. People want God to conform to us and not the other way around

I think it has more to do with complexity than relativism. When a system becomes too too complex to comprehend people will look towards something they can understand.

 

[Nicea325]

So a kid born homosexual is in violation of “absolute Truth”?

Oh please! That is like saying a blind and deaf child is in violation. You know exactly what I mean.

BTW: Is their conclusive scienctific evidence people are born gay?