What's the ONE Catholic Doctrine that you disagree with most?

[Sarcelle]

How so? What is your definition of Gnosticism that would make the consequence of Adam’s sin affect the body a gnostic belief? I don’t claim to know much about Gnosticism, but I think you are referring to the idea that the physical world is evil and we must ascend in spirit shedding our physical body. This is very different than the idea that the body has received a curse due to sin. Just as having to relieve ourselves, deal with illnesses, and fight against gluttony and other things, sexual relations were viewed as a curse by most of the Church Fathers, I don’t know of any of the more influential fathers that taught otherwise. This does not mean it is sinful by any means, just as relieving ourselves is not sinful. This also does not mean that every aspect of marriage is a curse. It just means that children would have been brought into being by another method had we not fallen. The Christian thing to keep in mind is that in the resurrection, the body will be made divine because of Christ’s Incarnation bringing Divinity to man, including the body. And we know that Christ plainly said that we will be like the angels, not married. It is also very clear from St. Paul’s words that only those Christians that would suffer from desire should marry. (not meaning that the majority should not marry, but simply that marriage is a consent for those that would be better off married.)

So if you could, please provide some evidence that this view is in fact Gnostic. Throwing around the word heresy so easily should have a better explanation.

What is this alternative method by which children would have been brought into being had mankind not fallen?

The view that sex was brought about by sin is never a Church teaching.

The various ways sex has been perverted is brought about by sin. Sexual relations within a valid marriage is not sin, even when done without the goal of procreation as long as it is open to the possibility of a new life.

Sex has both has a unitive and procreative aspect. The Augustinian view that sex should only have a procreative function would mean infertile couples cannot have a valid marriage.Again, the Church has not taught that.

 

[Sarcelle]

I have found the very weird descriptions of “sex” before the fall (how would they know) somewhat anti-body. In these descriptions there seems to be an abhorrent non acceptance that penetration and the obvious function and purpose of the human genitalia could really be true. If this isn’t somewhat Gnostic I don’t know what is.

Its the same sort of mentality that will not allow that Jesus exited his mother through the birth canal because that is somehow defiling. It is a common ancient Eastern type of thinking. Buddha, 600 years previous, too was allegedly not born through the birth canal. Buddhism of course is highly Gnostic influenced.

I see this view as inherently misogynistic.

I read a book written by a feminist who proposed the idea that the Catholic Church reveres Mary while holding ordinary women in contempt. Why? Because Mary was able to be a mother without sex. Motherhood which is the official role of women only comes from sex. This act of sex defiles a woman, so all mothers, aside from Mary are defiled.

 

[Sarcelle]

I would add that the anti-sex attitude definitely had something to do with the exploitative, “patriarchal” nature of sex in the ancient world. One of the paradoxes pointed out by feminist scholars (a paradox from a modern feminist perspective at least) like my old professor Liz Clark is that the early Christians who were most “pro-woman” tended to be most “anti-sex.” Jerome sounds like a raving misogynist one minute and a feminist the next, and he had close, respectful friendships with ascetic women. Asceticism offered women a way out of domination by men.

One of the things that reconciles me to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity (at least post partum) is the role that it seems to have played in developing a doctrine of consent as essential to marriage. If Joseph and Mary were married but didn’t have sex, then marriage must be based on something other than consummation.

Edwin

I don’t think this is official Catholic doctrine, but what bothers me is the title given to Mary, which is Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

So she is daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Wait, I thought Joseph was her spouse. She can’t have two spouses can she?

 

[alwayswill]

That’s very true. But they – and I mean not just the ones here but even the more hardcore SSPX-type traditionalists – do in fact agree with the views that were held by some past popes.

I think the deeper issue, at least sometimes, is when Protestants study history and come up with questions but then are silenced by a we-never-change type response that doesn’t do justice to their questions.

your observation is absolutely correct:

in 1302 this meant what it said"
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

after VII, it really meant:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is NOT absolutely necessary for salvation that ANY human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

as explained in over 6500 words
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447

After nearly 600 years of upholding the plain reading of Unam Sanctum, the current and exact opposite understanding is not a contradiction, but considered a clarification.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think this is official Catholic doctrine, but what bothers me is the title given to Mary, which is Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

So she is daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Wait, I thought Joseph was her spouse. She can’t have two spouses can she?

Not in the same “literal” sense to be sure.

We are all called to be spouses of the Holy Spirit.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Not in the same “literal” sense to be sure.

We are all called to be spouses of the Holy Spirit.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

I would add that the anti-sex attitude definitely had something to do with the exploitative, “patriarchal” nature of sex in the ancient world.

Interesting.

I don’t want to repost what I said before, particularly after what happened the first time, but let me know if this is relevant to what you’re talking about:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14205801&postcount=1

 

[DaveBj]

I have found the very weird descriptions of “sex” before the fall (how would they know) somewhat anti-body. In these descriptions there seems to be an abhorrent non acceptance that penetration and the obvious function and purpose of the human genitalia could really be true. If this isn’t somewhat Gnostic I don’t know what is.

Its the same sort of mentality that will not allow that Jesus exited his mother through the birth canal because that is somehow defiling. It is a common ancient Eastern type of thinking. Buddha, 600 years previous, too was allegedly not born through the birth canal. Buddhism of course is highly Gnostic influenced.

I still cavil at the term “gnostic.” It’s pretty clear from Augustin’s writings that he was speculating about antelapsarian sex, not that he was privy to some secret knowledge/gnosis.

 

[carefullytread]

I still cavil at the term “gnostic.” It’s pretty clear from Augustin’s writings that he was speculating about antelapsarian sex, not that he was privy to some secret knowledge/gnosis.

The confusion is just an overloading of the word gnostic. Blue Horizon is using gnostic in the sense of believing that the physical world is evil and sex is sinful (a common belief in gnostic sects), not in the sense of secret knowledge.

 

[DaveBj]

The confusion is just an overloading of the word gnostic. Blue Horizon is using gnostic in the sense of believing that the physical world is evil and sex is sinful (a common belief in gnostic sects), not in the sense of secret knowledge.

Yeah, and I frequently am very persnickety about keeping technical terms to their original definitions. Besides, there were a lot of other heretical teachings other than Gnosticism that believed that the physical world (including sex) were evil.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think this is official Catholic doctrine, but what bothers me is the title given to Mary, which is Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

So she is daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Wait, I thought Joseph was her spouse. She can’t have two spouses can she?

My PP regularly titles Joseph as “legal father of Jesus” in related homilies, prayers and readings at Mass. I suppose you could extend that to “legal spouse of Mary.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think this is official Catholic doctrine, but what bothers me is the title given to Mary, which is Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

So she is daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Wait, I thought Joseph was her spouse. She can’t have two spouses can she?

Aren’t dedicated female Virgins also mystically married to Jesus as well?
It does one’s head in.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The confusion is just an overloading of the word gnostic. Blue Horizon is using gnostic in the sense of believing that the physical world is evil and sex is sinful (a common belief in gnostic sects), not in the sense of secret knowledge.

There seems to be much overlap between the characteristics of Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Platonism.

Gnosticism maintains the absolute split between matter and mind/spirit with the latter being illusory and spirit being the more true and real knowledge which takes effort to attain. Only the superior person has the discipline and insight to see through the illusions of matter, emotion and the flesh.

Augustine was a Manichaean for 9 years until he rebelled. Indeed he is the reason we know so much about the teachings of Mani. Now I think it fair to say that Manichaeism is one of the many varied forms of Gonsticism.

Gnosticism does not seem to necessarily imply that matter/flesh is evil and defiling in the sense that Christians understand the word evil. However Western forms always seem to go that way. This is the essence I suppose of Western Manichaeism, Albigensianism, Catharism and Jansenism.

Platonism, which deeply affected Christianity for the first 800 years, it seems to me has much in common with an Eastern approach to Gnosticism…matter is not so much about defilement as illusion and self-chosen suffering. Hesychasm, Stoicism or even Epicureanism are perhaps the closest forms of Eastern Gnosticism in the West.

 

[commenter]

There seems to be much overlap between the characteristics of Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Platonism.

Gnosticism maintains the absolute split between matter and mind/spirit with the latter being illusory and spirit being the more true and real knowledge which takes effort to attain. Only the superior person has the discipline and insight to see through the illusions of matter, emotion and the flesh.

Augustine was a Manichaean for 9 years until he rebelled. Indeed he is the reason we know so much about the teachings of Mani. Now I think it fair to say that Manichaeism is one of the many varied forms of Gonsticism.

Gnosticism does not seem to necessarily imply that matter/flesh is evil and defiling in the sense that Christians understand the word evil. However Western forms always seem to go that way. This is the essence I suppose of Western Manichaeism, Albigensianism, Catharism and Jansenism.

Platonism, which deeply affected Christianity for the first 800 years, it seems to me has much in common with an Eastern approach to Gnosticism…matter is not so much about defilement as illusion and self-chosen suffering. Hesychasm, Stoicism or even Epicureanism are perhaps the closest forms of Eastern Gnosticism in the West.

I would make a distinction between “Platonism” and Neoplatonism, more of a religion based on writings of Plotinus. Using the insights or method of Plato in one’s philosophy is still a part of much orthodox Catholic thinking today.

 

[fred_conty]

One of the things that reconciles me to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity (at least post partum) is the role that it seems to have played in developing a doctrine of consent as essential to marriage. If Joseph and Mary were married but didn’t have sex, then marriage must be based on something other than consummation.

Edwin

As far as I know, that is true today, that a marriage is a marriage when consent between the two is given. It isn’t a marriage until after it has been consummated, but at the point of consent.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would make a distinction between “Platonism” and Neoplatonism, more of a religion based on writings of Plotinus. Using the insights or method of Plato in one’s philosophy is still a part of much orthodox Catholic thinking today.

Yes I would have to agree that Neoplatonism is alive and well in Catholic theology and is necessarily “orthodox” as we cannot deny 800 years of history where the works of Aristotle were not available to Church thinkers to correct the non incarnational tendencies contained therein. Just as well Catholicism is not based purely on philosophy and other energies and antibodies were potent enough to “baptise” and innoculate Christianity against these excessively other worldly pagan tendencies in a less than perfect marriage of convenience until Aristotelian hylomorphism won the day in Scholastic philosophy.

I still find Eastern Christian monastic spirituality and common liturgy to be excessively other worldly in objective content even if subjectively it is grasped in a more incarnational manner than the content would suggest. The Eastern Catholic Church of course still runs on Plato not Aristotle because it did not have a Scholastic Renaissance as far as I know.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

Luke 12:35-48
35 “Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, 36 like servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. 37 It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. Truly I tell you, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. 38 It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the middle of the night or toward daybreak. 39 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”

41 Peter asked, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?”

42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Notice that in verses 35-40, Jesus is speaking of all the servants in the household (that’s us, Jon).

But in response to Peter’s question, Jesus, beginning in v. 42, speaks of the role of the manager or steward of the household, and He tells Peter (whom He calls the Rock upon which the Church would be built and to whom He has promised the keys) that the Master of the House (that’s Jesus, Jon) will put the steward (that’s Peter, Jon) in charge of all His possessions.

All. As in universal.

And lest anyone doubt Peter’s role as Royal Steward in the household of Christ the King, the case is made here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12366904&postcount=1

 

[commenter]

** The Eastern Catholic Church of course still runs on Plato not Aristotle because it did not have a Scholastic Renaissance as far as I know**.

More accurate to say that both Eastern and Latin Catholic Churches “runs” on the Bible, and on Tradition. Eastern and Western seminarians study Philosophy also. Philosophy played an important role in Thomas’ thinking for instance, though less than the Bible. Most Protestant seminarians study Philosophy now, as well.

 

[Porknpie]

More accurate to say that both Eastern and Latin Catholic Churches “runs” on the Bible, and on Tradition. Eastern and Western seminarians study Philosophy also. Philosophy played an important role in Thomas’ thinking for instance, though less than the Bible. Most Protestant seminarians study Philosophy now, as well.

The first two years of seminary are all or mostly philosophy. Yes?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

More accurate to say that both Eastern and Latin Catholic Churches “runs” on the Bible, and on Tradition. Eastern and Western seminarians study Philosophy also. Philosophy played an important role in Thomas’ thinking for instance, though less than the Bible. Most Protestant seminarians study Philosophy now, as well.

I am not sure I understand your point.