What Would It Take? (imagining)

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnowRose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Quia/Quatenus divide makes sense in the various interpretation of any scripture. Is it true in and of itself, or does it mean something else all together? (Cf KJVOnlyism and similar) Does increased understanding of the time and place something was written influence its true meaning?
But Iā€™m comfortable with most things being less than absolute, just as some mysteries are fine as mysteries. The Real Presence springs to mind.

And to lighten the discussion:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
steido01 said:
Personally (and this will ruffle some feathers of the less-ecumenical Lutherans on my ā€˜sideā€™), papal infallibility may have a solution thatā€™s amenable to both sides. And yes, Iā€™m speaking of Infallibilty, not just primacy (which many Lutherans already could accept) or even supremacy (which the Lutheran Confessions are not necessarily opposed to, and indeed may long for).
Click to expand...
This is one of the things that look insurmountable, but can be mutated into something all/most Lutherans can live with. When I speak out against Infallability as a hurdle to reapproachment, I most definitely mean it in the current version of it.

But you and I have discussed and agreed about this before on CAF.
 
SnowRose said:
The Quia/Quatenus divide makes sense in the various interpretation of any scripture. Is it true in and of itself, or does it mean something else all together? (Cf KJVOnlyism and similar) Does increased understanding of the time and place something was written influence its true meaning?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I didnā€™t explain the difference between Quia and Quatenus clearly. It is not a means of interpreting Scripture (though the Quatenus subscription invents one), but a type of subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. In other words, are the Lutheran Confessions correct because they reflect Scripture (Quia), or are they correct in so far as (Quatenus) they reflect Scripture? While the latter might sound, at the surface, to be truer to Scripture, it is not. Quantenus essentially replaces the foundational interpretations of Scripture with Zeitgeist. It becomes about ā€˜me.ā€™ This is why liberal bodies like the ELCA tolerate un-Christian abominations like this. Meanwhile, the Quia subscription grounds the interpretation of Scripture in creeds and confessions, allowing for comprehensive historical study based on Scripture as an unchanging Truth, rather than a personalized ā€œtruthā€ that may change. Put another way, Quia says Scripture is the Word of God, while Quatenus says Scripture merely contains the Word of God and needs human feelings and ideas to worm it out ā€“ thatā€™s dangerous.

For a comical read, enjoy.
For more serious info, the wiki isnā€™t all that bad.
SnowRose said:
But Iā€™m comfortable with most things being less than absolute, just as some mysteries are fine as mysteries. The Real Presence springs to mind.
Click to expand...
This is precisely why the Quia subscription has not fallen victim to ā€œreinterpretationsā€ of marriage, the ministry, etc. It doesnā€™t seek to define further than Scripture permits. Scripture is truly used as the rule and norm for identifying doctrine, not any individualā€™s personal feelings. The lack of holding to the Confessions and Scripture is why Quatenus communions share pulpit and altar fellowship with the Reformed, who profess no Real Presence. šŸ˜„
 
We will have to agree to disagree about this, as I still find a fixed interpretation of most things potentially misleading.
 
Well, Iā€™ll concede that I could be convinced otherwise if you can present a single Quatenus body that hasnā€™t accepted one or more of the following: female ordination, gay ā€œmarriage,ā€ feminist Gnosticism, communion with the Reformed, neutered-God language, substitution of Social Gospel for True Gospel, or explicitly-pagan worship practices.
 
Truth is truth.
And it resides within the Catholic Church.
As handed to us by Christ Himself.
 
SnowRose said:
Female clergy

Along with socially

Abortion

Gay marriage

Those look like overall interpretations of Priesthood of all believers, but I could be wrong. And of course the downstream interpretation of sex is and only is to spread the human species.
Click to expand...
That bolded quote is very much not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Non-negotiable issues for Catholics, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox begin with all seven sacraments. We simply cannot compromise on some lesser number.

Female priests, abortion of children, homosexual activity are non-starters for apostolic Christians. I know that the liberal Protestant churches have embraced those things in a big way in the last few decades. But they would have been unthinkable for Christians for two thousand years before that.

Things like Papal authority, liturgy, prayers, devotions, etc., are actually very negotiable. Non-Latin Churches could have considerable independence and still have inter-communion.
 
Last edited:
ā€œThere are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.ā€

ā€• Fulton J. Sheen

I think this applies to Scandinavia as wellā€¦
 
Hate is a very strong word, and doesnā€™t really apply, to the situation.
 
(Thanks for a reasoned answer to a post that turned out more inflammatorily phrased was intended due to stress)

I think what I tried to express was that I keep running across statements of marriage not being allowed due to impotence (but female infertility is acceptable?), discussions of if and when shared masturbation is allowed between life-approving spouses, a general ban against barrier methods, but affirming the more complicated NaPro type methods so on.
Itā€™s difficult not to draw a conclusion that whatever the actual teaching, it does give the impression of such.
 
The Catholic Church doesnā€™t need to change. The rest of the churches do.
 
I think that the first question to be resolved would be the question of apostolic succession.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
Non-negotiable issues for Catholics, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox begin with all seven sacraments. We simply cannot compromise on some lesser number.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the numbering of the sacraments isnā€™t an issue to Lutherans. See, Lutherans retain all the traditional rites of the church (marriage, ordination, confirmation, etc.), but typically use a ā€˜narrowā€™ defininition of a sacrament: those things which are instituted by Christ for the forgiveness of sins and reception of Grace, attached to a physical sign. So most Lutherans count two or three chief sacraments, but donā€™t really get dogmatic about the number - only how they are used.

Lutherans avoid using the ā€˜broadā€™ definition of sacrament only to highlight the importance of the chief ones (Baptism, Holy Communion, Confession & Absolution) in the life of a Christian. None of the others are mandatory in Christian life.

Contrast this to the very broad definition used by the Orthodox, where there are ā€œat leastā€ seven sacraments. Even things as innocuous as blessing a boxcar are often referred to as sacraments.

And so hereā€™s why I think itā€™s important we read each otherā€™s founding documents. The Defense of the Augsburg Confession notes precisely what Iā€™ve written above:
In the Thirteenth Article the (Roman Catholics) approve our statement that the Sacraments are not only marks of profession among men, as some imagine, but that they are rather signs and testimonies of Godā€™s will toward us, through which God moves hearts to believe [are not mere signs whereby men may recognize each other, as the watchword in war, livery, etc., but are efficacious signs and sure testimonies, etc.]. But here they bid us also count seven sacraments. We hold that it should be maintained that the matters and ceremonies instituted in the Scriptures, whatever the number, be not neglected. Neither do we believe it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose of teaching, different people reckon differently, provided they still preserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture. Neither have the ancients reckoned in the same manner. [But concerning this number of seven sacraments, the fact is that the Fathers have not been uniform in their enumeration; thus also these seven ceremonies are not equally necessary (in the life of the Christian).]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Have you read Hmanae Vitae by Pope Paul vi along with the the Theology of the Body by John Paul ii? They may well help you understand Cathoicism in this regard more.
 
I have read summaries on several occasions over the years, but I admit I have never read the document in its entirety.
The parts I read always struck me as nicely reasoned but missing the mark. Thatā€™s what happens when you begin with preconceptions (I mean in thinking, not mores) and reason from there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top