We Must ALL Agree!!! (part 2)

[Peter_J]

Hajnalcsillag,

There are a couple of important things to keep in mind. One is that attitudes that are expressed on a Catholic discussion forum on the internet don’t always represent the truth attitude of the Catholic Church.

The second is that there’s a difference between asking whether or not it was a good idea to dogmatically define such-and-such dogma, and asking what we should do now that it has been defined. In particular, Cardinal Newman clearly stated that dogmatically defining Papal Infallibility had been a bad idea, but once it had been dogmatically defined, he didn’t say “That was a bad idea, so let’s just pretend it never happened.”

 

[JonNC]

Great response!
I cannot offer an adequate response right now, but what you say is right on.

My friend and I discuss this once in a while. Your question is asked by Catholics a lot! It is a tough one. One which would require a thread of its own! (hint, hint…hehe!)

Though, if there were a dispensation, the persons receiving would still have to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation before hand; no ifs, ands, or buts.

I’m joining the thread late. Hope no one minds. A great thread, tgette.

Is the Sacrament of Reconciliation available to non-RC’s in first place? Could I, tomorrow, as a Lutheran, receive this?

Secondly, on the issue of we all must agree, is it enough to agree on the real presence, or do we all have to agree on “in, with and under”, or Transubstantiation? What level of agreement is sufficient?

Jon

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Hajnalcsillag,

There are a couple of important things to keep in mind. One is that attitudes that are expressed on a Catholic discussion forum on the internet don’t always represent the truth attitude of the Catholic Church.

The second is that there’s a difference between asking whether or not it was a good idea to dogmatically define such-and-such dogma, and asking what we should do now that it has been defined. In particular, Cardinal Newman clearly stated that dogmatically defining Papal Infallibility had been a bad idea, but once it had been dogmatically defined, he didn’t say “That was a bad idea, so let’s just pretend it never happened.”

Point taken, even though it’s not necessarily what I was driving at.

I’m a fan of various sports. If someone comes up to me and asks, “Are you a baseball fan?”, I’d respond with, “Yes, I am” or something to that effect. My response wouldn’t be, “Well, I’m a Cardinals fan.” Being a Cardinals fan, although nice, really has nothing to do with my love of baseball. It’s possible to be a Cardinals fan and not like baseball (as I see more Red Sox hats than you can imagine being worn by people who find baseball numbingly boring). It’s also possible to be a baseball fan and not be a Cardinals fan, or even a fan of any team.

And that’s one of the things that bugs me in general. If I ask 10,000 people around here or in the general public, “Are you a Christian?”, how many people would respond with, “Well, I’m a Lutheran” or “I’m Catholic” or “I’m Eastern Orthodox” or something similar? Maybe it’s just me, but that has nothing to do with the central question. The central question is, “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the resurrected son of God?” If my wife asked, “Do you love me”, would my answer be, “I can’t stand the way you leave the cap off the toothpaste”?

I can’t help but reflect on the story of the Tower of Babel. Man set his mind to build a tower, and God looked down and said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.” Why can’t we speak with one language? Because we have all these denominations that discourage associating with another. We had a thread here this week talking about a Catholic going to a Protestant Bible study, with a couple of responses basically accusing said person of heresy. We have a church that, from a doctrinal standpoint, considers it a mortal sin to observe Passover with Jews. And we see more fissures and splits over total non-issues than there ever should be.

The whole thing is ridiculous, really. There’s so much good that could be done if we would put the differences aside and show some unity, and we’re more interested in fighting with each other over nothing and setting a pretty bad example for non-believers to observe.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I can’t help but reflect on the story of the Tower of Babel. Man set his mind to build a tower, and God looked down and said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”

Why can’t we speak with one language?

“Christians” are divided for the same reason that God smote the world with a multiplicity of languages.

One of the consequences of being man is that we are to live in society as members of our societies.

One of the consequences of sin is that we come to be fearful of those from “distant places”.

These two “consequences” result in man grouping into smallish societies and developing “code talk” so that “we” can be distinguished from “them”.

Not until mankind as “more of” a whole realizes that the NEED (due to Godly imperative from our very nature as man) to be each other’s brother is greater than the WANT (due to the sin of putting “us” above “them”) of “unGodly diversity” will REAL unity be possible OR EVEN DESIRABLE.

It’s not even desirable because to have an “unGodly diversity” while calling it a “useful unity” is to call an untruth a truth.

That, in itself, is a denial of God. It would be the same thing as the people of Babel, after being divided by God into different language speakers, were to simply deny that they couldn’t understand each other and then try to operate under that premise.

We are dis-unified because we are supposed to be dis-unified. Our “job” is not to FORCE an untrue unity on what isn’t unifiable, but to change our “unGodly diversity” into “Godly unity”.

My opinion is that this will happen only by the self-assignment of one portion of mankind into it’s hell, and the other portion into it’s heaven.

Both portions will then know what Godly unity means, but only one will experience it.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Amirrordimly - you state:" So ultimately you would choose division before allowing disagreement on such matters as say Marian doctrine. That saddens me greatly that these differences would trump the much larger areas of agreement, but I continue to pray and anticipate the day when the body of Christ will truly be one."

Look, if you don’t agree with the Church and don’t want to why bother asking? I’m glad that you are “saddened” by my answer. Perhaps that is contrition trying to settle into your poor soul. I hope so. But if you’d like to argue with me till it does and you understand, I’m game. Perhaps you could try to receive sacrilegiously and be your own pope, but I wouldn’t advise that. You could get even worse off then you already are.

Peace,

Gail

 

[GailMac]

Dear tGette - you ask:“I’m sorry…I do not quite see the point your are trying to make. Maybe it is the wording? Are you feeling remorse for my poor soul because of this thread topic?” No, I don’t feel remorse for your poor soul, but I’d like to try and help you understand. It is obvious to me that you have a basic understanding of why the Church is the place to be, yet you have your reasons for remaining away from her. I wonder what they are. I’ll check some of your previous posts and see if I can help.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Peter_J]

Hajnalcsillag,

I see a lot of this as a commentary, not on Catholicism, but on the internet. Let’s be honest here: people can say just about anything on the internet. Like the poster who claimed it’s heretical to attend a Protestant bible study. Give me a break. And yet I can seriously see someone reading that and saying “Oh, I learned something new about Catholicism. Thanks, internet.”

And of course, I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of cases of one Catholic poster saying that another Catholic poster “isn’t really Catholic”. Sometimes there’s a real basis for claiming that, other times they’re just talking out of, well, thin air. (And, of course, sometimes a poster doesn’t come right out and claim another poster isn’t Catholic, but instead speaks as though it’s already been established that he/she isn’t Catholic.)

Sorry if I am taking us away from the thread’s topic, but sometimes I just feel like punching the internet in the nose. Blessings,

P.S. You might wonder, in light of all that, why I even bother participating on internet discussion forums. Sometimes I wonder myself, but thus far I’ve been able to convince myself that I can do some good by being here.

 

[tGette]

Dear tGette - you ask:“I’m sorry…I do not quite see the point your are trying to make. Maybe it is the wording? Are you feeling remorse for my poor soul because of this thread topic?” No, I don’t feel remorse for your poor soul, but I’d like to try and help you understand. It is obvious to me that you have a basic understanding of why the Church is the place to be, yet you have your reasons for remaining away from her. I wonder what they are. I’ll check some of your previous posts and see if I can help.

Peace,

Gail

Maybe the way I worded the thread was confusing. I tend to use a lot of rhetorical questions, because:

. . . I am Catholic.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Hajnalcsillag,

I see a lot of this as a commentary, not on Catholicism, but on the internet. Let’s be honest here: people can say just about anything on the internet. Like the poster who claimed it’s heretical to attend a Protestant bible study. Give me a break. And yet I can seriously see someone reading that and saying “Oh, I learned something new about Catholicism. Thanks, internet.”

Correct, but then again there was also a great deal of debate and dissension long before the Internet was a twinkle in Al Gore’s eye. Although there may be a greater number of extreme positions relative to the general population on discussion boards, it’s still a reflection of commonly held attitudes and beliefs.

And of course, I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of cases of one Catholic poster saying that another Catholic poster “isn’t really Catholic”. Sometimes there’s a real basis for claiming that, other times they’re just talking out of, well, thin air. (And, of course, sometimes a poster doesn’t come right out and claim another poster isn’t Catholic, but instead speaks as though it’s already been established that he/she isn’t Catholic.)

I grew up in the Roman church, attended 9 years of CCD, then three years of Catholic high school. In that time, I saw all sorts of attitudes that range from peaceful to raging as it pertained to Protestant thought, fellow Catholics who disagreed on a minor point, and all sorts of other stuff.

I don’t believe we ever cracked the cover of a Bible during that time either, but the catechism sure got a workout.

Sorry if I am taking us away from the thread’s topic, but sometimes I just feel like punching the internet in the nose. Blessings,

It could be worse. Try doing research on anything sport-related; it’ll make you tear your hair out.

P.S. You might wonder, in light of all that, why I even bother participating on internet discussion forums. Sometimes I wonder myself, but thus far I’ve been able to convince myself that I can do some good by being here.

There’s a great deal of information that can be disseminated, and it’s also a great opportunity to learn other sides of debates and how effectively to discuss. I believe the good outweighs the bad myself, but since I don’t believe in Sacred Tradition I know nothing at all.

 

[Truthfaithlove]

Thank you O Most Holy Spirit!
Fill us with everything that we lack!

OK! It never hurts to begin with a short prayer!

I have been wondering when The Spirit would inspire me to begin “part 2” of my thread series…so here goes: (This is similar to “part 1”)

For all you Christians out there:
Do you think it is important that we unite under one truth, one belief, one faith?

Is knowing about what gets us saved the only important thing and these theological differences merely inconsequential?

-or-

Is uniting under ONE theological understanding also important?

Please keep this Scripture quote in your meditations when considering a response:

John 17:17-23
"Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.
As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.”

Haven’t you heard? They are united IN SPIRIT..

• The scripture (Holy Bible) is the same, but the understanding is different for different people. This is necessary because only some will go to heaven. And these people are united in spirit because the same Holy Spirit of God will guide them towards the same understanding. There is therefore no necessity for any form of ‘unification’ and you cannot force fit people into unity because whatever is formed is fixed, and since it cannot be perfect (because it will be performed externally and not spiritually with the Holy Spirit), it will bring everyone in it DOWN.

‘My sheep hears my voice’

.

 

[tGette]

Haven’t you heard? They are united IN SPIRIT..

• The scripture (Holy Bible) is the same, but the understanding is different for different people. This is necessary because only some will go to heaven. And these people are united in spirit because the same Holy Spirit of God will guide them towards the same understanding. There is therefore no necessity for any form of ‘unification’ and you cannot force fit people into unity because whatever is formed is fixed, and since it cannot be perfect (because it will be performed externally and not spiritually with the Holy Spirit), it will bring everyone in it DOWN.

‘My sheep hears my voice’

.

I like these words!

When I say agree though, I mean agree as in the “same understanding”. Can there be the same understanding without unity?

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

Dear Amirrordimly - you state:" So ultimately you would choose division before allowing disagreement on such matters as say Marian doctrine. That saddens me greatly that these differences would trump the much larger areas of agreement, but I continue to pray and anticipate the day when the body of Christ will truly be one."

Look, if you don’t agree with the Church and don’t want to why bother asking? I’m glad that you are “saddened” by my answer. Perhaps that is contrition trying to settle into your poor soul. I hope so. But if you’d like to argue with me till it does and you understand, I’m game. Perhaps you could try to receive sacrilegiously and be your own pope, but I wouldn’t advise that. You could get even worse off then you already are.

Peace,

Gail

I ask because I’m curious to get a sense from Catholics on what things they consider to be more important than unity and what they consider to be less important. We can already see that Catholics see some things as less important than unity because they’ve thus far made a decision not to bind members’ consciences on those issues (e.g. apparitions of Mary, the idea of Mary as co-redemptrix).

As for why I ask, I do so because I believe that even when we disagree on doctrine we are called to unity in Christ as much as is possible. We could simply state, “You want unity, just agree with everything I say”, but if we both say that, we’ve gotten nowhere. Perhaps I’m just young and naive, but I’m not ready to settle for that just yet.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

As for why I ask, I do so because I believe that even when we disagree on doctrine we are called to unity in Christ as much as is possible.

I doubt you’d get much disagreement with that. Everyone SHOULD listen to the call to “unity in Christ as much as possible”, but what makes “unity in Christ” actual UNITY IN CHRIST is belief in the same doctrines (dogmas).

So, what you’re saying is that if we can’t agree completely on doctrine we should agree as much as possible on doctrine, which would seem to be rather obvious, though “the obvious” is often not seen by people as being obvious.

We could simply state, “You want unity, just agree with everything I say”, but if we both say that, we’ve gotten nowhere. Perhaps I’m just young and naive, but I’m not ready to settle for that just yet.

If both sides say “agree with everything I say”, and then “disengages” the conversation as soon as ANY disagreement is discovered, the “disengager” is being unChristian as we are to reach out with as much clarity as possible about ALL the truths we are committed to disseminate.

Both sides CAN say “agree with everything I say”, but they need to try to find ALL the points on which they disagree and make them explicit, because it’s sometimes persuasive to show “non-believers” (the heterodox) how coherent the full set of beliefs of “true Christianity” is.

It’s not naive to continue want to convince people that unity with the Church is a good thing which we should all want, but it’s very naive to think that “unity with the Church” isn’t actual unity with the Church.

Those who don’t want unity with the Church really aren’t interested in “Christian unity” at all, but only “operative unity”, which is agreement to “not be actually hostile”, which is a lesser good than actual “Christian unity”.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

Perhaps I need to rephrase. What I’m talking about largely is unity in fellowship and community. One way in which unity manifests itself is doctrine, but our attitudes towards one another in community and fellowship are also of great importance, certainly Christ was very concerned with right relationships.

I am not saying that we should pretend doctrinal differences don’t exist where they do, but rather am putting forward these two questions/propositions:

1. Are the things on which we agree of greater consequence than those matters on which we disagree?
2. If they are, shouldn’t our behavior in fellowship and community reflect the fact that we are bound together by more than we are divided?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Perhaps I need to rephrase. What I’m talking about largely is unity in fellowship and community.

What the heck does “fellowship” mean? What makes us a “community” if it isn’t our shared beliefs?

One way in which unity manifests itself is doctrine, but our attitudes towards one another in community and fellowship are also of great importance, certainly Christ was very concerned with right relationships.

I am not saying that we should pretend doctrinal differences don’t exist where they do, but rather am putting forward these two questions/propositions:

1. Are the things on which we agree of greater consequence than those matters on which we disagree?

My answer to that question would be “yes”, in general.

But what does one do when a fundamental non-negotiable, such as in a case of a “church” who promotes candidates who favor abortion, is one of those disagreements?

1. If they are, shouldn’t our behavior in fellowship and community reflect the fact that we are bound together by more than we are divided?

It depends on the items agreed to and those not agreed to.

Once again, I’d like to know what you mean by “behavior in fellowship and community”?

 

[tGette]

What the heck does “fellowship” mean? What makes us a “community” if it isn’t our shared beliefs?

Yeah!? Because I can fellowship with an atheist based on certain ideas, but we could never fellowship based on the idea of God.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Yeah!? Because I can fellowship with an atheist based on certain ideas, but we could never fellowship based on the idea of God.

I must admit, I simply don’t like the word “fellowship”, unless it’s used in connection with Hobbits.

Isn’t fellowship a noun, and not a verb?

Instead of “fellowship” I would prefer (the more wordy phrase [huge surprise there, eh!?]) “polite friendliness for a common goal”, or perhaps “purposeful questing”.

This “questing” implies that our focus is on our goal, where the goal is NEVER our (or their) HIGHEST goal.

If we think that we can pursue our highest goal in “fellowship” (purposeful questing) with those who don’t share that goal, then aren’t we simply deluding ourselves and others?

We can CERTAINLY “fellowship” with people on lesser goals, but never on higher ones, specifically those of issues about God qua God and the most profound implications of the actual truths (ie implications of Magisterial dogma).

Feeding the hungry is “do-able” in “fellowship”, while moving toward the goal of an individual’s salvation due to refusal to believe God is God is not “do-able” in fellowship.

Don’t confuse secondary effects of the truths of the Church with primary goals of the Church. We feed the hungry so that they may have the chance to be saved, as well as that being simply a good thing to do, but it is their potential salvation that is the primary goal, while relieving their suffering is merely (!?) a secondary effect.

(( Now, I’m not belittling “relief of earthly suffering”, but compared to “relief of eternal suffering” it is a very very trivial matter indeed. ))

 

[tGette]

I must admit, I simply don’t like the word “fellowship”, unless it’s used in connection with Hobbits.

Isn’t fellowship a noun, and not a verb?

Instead of “fellowship” I would prefer (the more wordy phrase [huge surprise there, eh!?]) “polite friendliness for a common goal”, or perhaps “purposeful questing”.

This “questing” implies that our focus is on our goal, where the goal is NEVER our (or their) HIGHEST goal.

If we think that we can pursue our highest goal in “fellowship” (purposeful questing) with those who don’t share that goal, then aren’t we simply deluding ourselves and others?

We can CERTAINLY “fellowship” with people on lesser goals, but never on higher ones, specifically those of issues about God qua God and the most profound implications of the actual truths (ie implications of Magisterial dogma).

Feeding the hungry is “do-able” in “fellowship”, while moving toward the goal of an individual’s salvation due to refusal to believe God is God is not “do-able” in fellowship.

Don’t confuse secondary effects of the truths of the Church with primary goals of the Church. We feed the hungry so that they may have the chance to be saved, as well as that being simply a good thing to do, but it is their potential salvation that is the primary goal, while relieving their suffering is merely (!?) a secondary effect.

(( Now, I’m not belittling “relief of earthly suffering”, but compared to “relief of eternal suffering” it is a very very trivial matter indeed. ))

Great point!

And thanks for the English lesson!!!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Great point!

And thanks for the English lesson!!!

I suppose you COULD say “fellowshipping”, but that rather sounds like something that UPS does, doesn’t it?

It’s “bagging” your fellow man, and sending him to a better (or worse!?) place, perhaps?

 

[tGette]

I suppose you COULD say “fellowshipping”, but that rather sounds like something that UPS does, doesn’t it?

It’s “bagging” your fellow man, and sending him to a better (or worse!?) place, perhaps?

:choocho: (That’s the Universal Prayer Service!)
We use trains, not vans!

They really need a laughing emoticon!
I had to pick this one and make something up.

So…I must default to…LOL!