O
OKComputer
Guest
I’m pretty unstable when it comes to religion, so I question the Catholic church all the time. It’s mostly between “Was Luther right about Grace/Scripture alone, etc?”. That’s it. Just being honest.
- Status
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Oh, sure. As a priest once told me, if they indisputably dug up Jesus’s bones (thereby disproving the resurrection), that’d do it. (That one would actually disprove any form of Christianity at all.) Of course, we don’t believe that’ll happen (and the ‘indisputably’ part is key; even if someone tried to claim a skeleton they found belonged to Jesus, how on earth would they go about reliably ‘proving’ that? At best they could probably say: we found a crucified Jewish man dating from this time when Romans’ crucified lots of people including Jewish men! Or they could claim there’s some inscription in the cave or whatever… but that’d be almost laughable because if you go back to the motive anyone would’ve had to hide Jesus’s body, it’d almost categorically exclude identifying his body in a memorial or inscription, so again, it’s practically a non-starter of a thought experiment.).
I might add to that: if the Church ever teaches with binding authority that I must believe not-X, when it previously decreed with the same binding authority I must believe X, that’d do it. There’s no room for ‘Whoopsie!’ in a Church that claims to have a once-for-all deposit of faith and interpretative authority protected by the God who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If she ever comes out and tells us she got something (within her scope of authority, i.e. faith and morals) ‘wrong’ in the past but we should still trust her today, I would be left none the wiser about whether she was more right yesterday or today, but I would have to agree that I cannot trust her.
So that’s basically my answer I guess. I have placed my trust in the Church and so far she has not disproved herself to me. If she is correct in her claim about God’s preservation of her, she will never disprove herself to me. But I do live with my eyes open, and she has made strong claims that are falsifiable (that is, it is conceivably possible for an action to be taken that disproves something she has claimed about herself – even if it’s not actually possible because the truth really is with her). So just as I followed the truth into the Church, I can imagine following the truth back out.
I just still hope that’s all in the realm of the hypothetical. At this time, I do still believe that even when representatives of the Church have spoken and acted in ways that are difficult for me to wrestle with, it is possible to reconcile my understanding such that no complete contradiction of teaching can be proved to have taken place.
Last edited:
J
JerryZ
Guest
If I could I would give 10 likes in a row for this comment!
Peace!
Peace!
J
JerryZ
Guest
Ah! But the church of England broke with Catholicism and made the king their pope. So is it any wonder they can go astray?
Sooner rather than later. Look at all the heresies that were combated against since the beginning in all those Councils. They are popping up again everywhere.
Everywhere where the Holy Spirit is not the guide in truth!
Peace!
Sooner rather than later. Look at all the heresies that were combated against since the beginning in all those Councils. They are popping up again everywhere.
Everywhere where the Holy Spirit is not the guide in truth!
Peace!
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
We’re not Protestants. Please remember that the Protestant churches rely on having people attend them in order to stay in existence. That was the whole reason they existed in the first place; they had enough popular support to stay in business. If they run out of “customers”, they will go extinct.
The Church, on the other hand, will stay in business even if there’s less than 10 faithful Catholics on earth, because it is God’s one true holy and apostolic Church. If you truly believe that, and believe God will protect his Church like he has through 2 millennia of humans doing their best to screw up the works, your question becomes irrelevant.
The Church, on the other hand, will stay in business even if there’s less than 10 faithful Catholics on earth, because it is God’s one true holy and apostolic Church. If you truly believe that, and believe God will protect his Church like he has through 2 millennia of humans doing their best to screw up the works, your question becomes irrelevant.
Last edited:
V
VonDerTann
Guest
Fascinating you threw that out there: I read a short story long ago where precisely that happens. I have no recollection of who wrote it.
Anyways, here’s what was remarkable in the story IIRC: 1) Jesus’ bones are found and they are clearly His; and 2) DNA/scientific testing shows Jesus actually had cancer; but 3) the same testing shows He was miraculously receiving the equivalent of massive treatments with heretofore-unknown medical knowledge - proving He really was divine, at least to the narrator’s satisfaction.
L
Lea101
Guest
Anything that shows the Church changed in mind on something they said it was a settled issue. I don’t really have specific teachings in mind. Heck, they could even change its stance to something that aligns with my own views,I’ll still walk out or go to church as and when I please.
Yes and no.
First we need to hav faithfull people to have men who wants to become priests. If there is no longer candidates and the last priests on Earth die, there would be no longer a Catholic Church. She will be dead. We are not protestants and we cannot have a group of people with no clergy and claim to be a Church by itself.
Eventually they can be some believers and they may want to start the Catholic Church again, but the lineage of Apostolic succession will be forever lost…
It can happened it is not farchetched or science fiction.
J
jredden92
Guest
More liberals people, who are legions in the Church can argue th contrary and said that the current “conservatism” on some doctrine and discipline make them doubt or leaving the Church…
This question have two sides.
@Polak, for the Anglican Church, the situation is different. First, they broke with the Catholic Church, so its should not be a surprise if they disagree with us on many topics.
Their government structure is also very differnt from us. They are as less centralized as they can compared to us. The local specifics of the Churches are taken seriousely in consideration as the primary of conscience. They also are much more "democratic " and want more or less to blend in with the spirit of the times.
That’s why they have got contraception allowed.
Remember, as an historical fact, if Pope Paul VI has followed the spirit of the time, the opinions of the majority of the faithfull, or simply the advise of the majority of the conselors that he has chosen himself, we would have contraception as a moral possibility. What prevent us is the decision of the Pope only. In others words our hierachical structure versus collegial government.
That’s why they have women as priests and no strong argument against homosexuality. Hopefully, we will never have women as priests because a Pope engaged pontifical infallibility.
But it can happened that more liberal choices would happened in the future, depend on what on on what degree.
This question have two sides.
@Polak, for the Anglican Church, the situation is different. First, they broke with the Catholic Church, so its should not be a surprise if they disagree with us on many topics.
Their government structure is also very differnt from us. They are as less centralized as they can compared to us. The local specifics of the Churches are taken seriousely in consideration as the primary of conscience. They also are much more "democratic " and want more or less to blend in with the spirit of the times.
That’s why they have got contraception allowed.
Remember, as an historical fact, if Pope Paul VI has followed the spirit of the time, the opinions of the majority of the faithfull, or simply the advise of the majority of the conselors that he has chosen himself, we would have contraception as a moral possibility. What prevent us is the decision of the Pope only. In others words our hierachical structure versus collegial government.
That’s why they have women as priests and no strong argument against homosexuality. Hopefully, we will never have women as priests because a Pope engaged pontifical infallibility.
But it can happened that more liberal choices would happened in the future, depend on what on on what degree.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
What a strange little sci-fi piece! I wonder if the author wasn’t too familiar with Christian theology or didn’t think too much as they were writing it, because this would seem to leave so many unaddressed loose ends (e.g. the eyewitness accounts of Jesus not only resurrected and well, post-crucifixion, but also ascending into heaven visibly, in front of eyewitnesses). Like, basically the story would have to implicitly or explicitly take a position about that being a mass delusion, or fraud, etc.
Anyhow, yes, I’m not surprised the fiction premise has come up before. Ideas like “What if Jesus actually stayed dead?” or “What if Jesus secretly had a child?” are, unfortunately, all too common for writers looking for snazzy new narrative angles to play with.
At least this short story you’re recalling attempted a ‘twist’ in which the undermining of a religious narrative was itself undermined at the end by something framed to still be supportive of religious belief. Reminds me a bit too much of Star Trek’s occasional treatment of religion though: emphasizing the most rationalistic and materialistic interpretation, but trying to leave open a vague space at the end for another interpretation if a viewer is so inclined. A sort of look off into the distance and wonder… but never ‘know’.
V
VonDerTann
Guest
One of the absolute best pieces of alternate history fiction I ever read was “What if Pontius Pilate had listened to his wife and not condemned Jesus?” Talk about a fascinating changed premise! IIRC Jesus lives to a ripe old age and founds a religion remarkably like present-day Christianity - and He’s seen alive after He dies of old age at like 80. The best scene IMHO is where Pilate releases Jesus - and Jesus, being 100% prepared to die, and expecting death, is absolutely bewildered by Pilate’s decision.
Last edited:
V
VonDerTann
Guest
Now that I did not know.
I confess I’ve always felt just a bit sorry for Pilate. He had a very difficult job to do, and no doubt handled it as he thought appropriate,considering his allegiance was to Rome while clearly harboring doubts about Jesus’ “guilt.”
I confess I’ve always felt just a bit sorry for Pilate. He had a very difficult job to do, and no doubt handled it as he thought appropriate,considering his allegiance was to Rome while clearly harboring doubts about Jesus’ “guilt.”
Last edited:
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
I don’t dwell on hypotheticals. I live in the present, one day at a time.
M
MtnDwellar
Guest
As Peter replied, “To whom should we go?”
C
CTBcin
Guest
The Anglican bishops who still believe in apostolic succession do believe they have valid apostolic succession.
But from the Catholic point of view, they do not.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Of course I question the Church, because I want to know why I’M wrong. But what I do NOT do is question, ignore, or dismiss Church teaching.
O
otjm
Guest
Here we go again with another “What if?” question.
Aside from the fact that both Scripture and the 2,000 year Tradition of the Church indicate such will never happen, someone has to propose a question “But, but, butbutbutbut what if…”
I stopped asking such questions in 1962, when I finished my second year of high school and left behind second year high school activities.
And now we have people questioning the work of 2,147 bishops of the world and their decisions, never mind that the questions are asked by people who have zero professional training in theology.
And the issue of the abuse scandal shows the near absolute ignorance of the last 2,000 years of Church history, which is replete with people betraying Christ to his face (Judas), and goes on its merry way through history to popes who had multiple lovers and sired children, and the list goes on. I seem to recall something about the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church - but not for lack of effort.
And of course for those concerned about “Catholics who seem to undermine the Church from within, including clerics”, how short the memory goes for the cleric who tried to upend the Church and had a new ecclesial community named after him and his efforts, which subsequently has sub divided itself and spun off other further communities, which have spun off further communities, ad nauseum.
And then there are those who proceed to act as if liturgical music is not liturgical unless it is sung in 4 part harmony to the sounds of a pipe organ - an instrument when it was first introduced caused a great deal of scandal. My how the worm turns.
And art - beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and all art was once “new”.
I spent two years in the seminary in college. nine of my classmates were ordained. One has died (much to the loss of the hearing impaired community, as he was adept at sign language); 3 have been laicized by request, with one of them married subsequently and one reporting he is on his third male lover; another one was removed from ministry due to allegations of sexual misconduct with youth; one is a Monsignor, and another who was a missionary for several decades in central South America is pastor to a large Hispanic community.
And none of it has shaken my faith in the Catholic Church, nor will anything else.
Aside from the fact that both Scripture and the 2,000 year Tradition of the Church indicate such will never happen, someone has to propose a question “But, but, butbutbutbut what if…”
I stopped asking such questions in 1962, when I finished my second year of high school and left behind second year high school activities.
And now we have people questioning the work of 2,147 bishops of the world and their decisions, never mind that the questions are asked by people who have zero professional training in theology.
And the issue of the abuse scandal shows the near absolute ignorance of the last 2,000 years of Church history, which is replete with people betraying Christ to his face (Judas), and goes on its merry way through history to popes who had multiple lovers and sired children, and the list goes on. I seem to recall something about the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church - but not for lack of effort.
And of course for those concerned about “Catholics who seem to undermine the Church from within, including clerics”, how short the memory goes for the cleric who tried to upend the Church and had a new ecclesial community named after him and his efforts, which subsequently has sub divided itself and spun off other further communities, which have spun off further communities, ad nauseum.
And then there are those who proceed to act as if liturgical music is not liturgical unless it is sung in 4 part harmony to the sounds of a pipe organ - an instrument when it was first introduced caused a great deal of scandal. My how the worm turns.
And art - beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and all art was once “new”.
I spent two years in the seminary in college. nine of my classmates were ordained. One has died (much to the loss of the hearing impaired community, as he was adept at sign language); 3 have been laicized by request, with one of them married subsequently and one reporting he is on his third male lover; another one was removed from ministry due to allegations of sexual misconduct with youth; one is a Monsignor, and another who was a missionary for several decades in central South America is pastor to a large Hispanic community.
And none of it has shaken my faith in the Catholic Church, nor will anything else.
- Status