"You think you know better!"

[Jennifer_J]

One hundred years ago, the Vatican insisted that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Old Testament, and at least one Catholic theologian who disagreed with that lost his academic position (at Catholic University of America?) as a result.

Who is to say that the Vatican won’t likewise change its mind about Charles Curran in another hundred years.

Please provide link to the info that you are putting forth, it’s only fair.

 

[Tosk]

One hundred years ago, the Vatican insisted that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Old Testament, and at least one Catholic theologian who disagreed with that lost his academic position (at Catholic University of America?) as a result.

Who is to say that the Vatican won’t likewise change its mind about Charles Curran in another hundred years.

If the Church ever changes its mind about Charles Curran in any of his issues of disagreement I will be so ticked off. Particularly if they change anything concerning ABC. I would feel like I put up with NFP bs and made all of these sacrifices for nothing.

You would also have to admit that the Holy Spirit guided all the protestant churches better than the Church and that for centuries many popes acted very stupidly and seriously misled billions of people by condemning a perfectly harmless act. The Church is too committed to the immorality of ABC to turn around now and continue to exist. with all of the issues of ABC, divorce, masturbation the Church is all in and there is no turning back now.

 

[newbetx]

One hundred years ago, the Vatican insisted that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Old Testament, and at least one Catholic theologian who disagreed with that lost his academic position (at Catholic University of America?) as a result.

Who is to say that the Vatican won’t likewise change its mind about Charles Curran in another hundred years.

maybe, maybe not… Time will tell. But to assume the guy is right today is to prejudge the outcome based on what one wants to believe.

Some things are open for change. Others are not. Like the example of ladies and hats in church.

The Church has good basis for most of the teachings that are unpopular. In my case, I find it very frustrating that some things don’t change… that doesn’t make my opinion right and Her’s wrong, however. The Church is our guide… what some associated with it might be guilty of, does not change that. I for one know that I don’t have the authority, nor the theological background to dispute it.

If someone doesn’t like the Church’s teachings, we are given choices. There are plenty of “feel good” churches out there you may attend, you may act on your opinions as you wish and hope and pray you are right, you may select to limit your future options, or you may dig deeper to understand why the church teaches as it does.

All this “right and wrong” with the Church and how it inconveniences us is a bunch of hooey. She has good reason to teach what She does. If you don’t have a valid, theological reason to change, one’s opinion does not count. “I feel that the church’s teaching on blank is hard on some obscure group of people, so the whole teaching must be wrong.” Big Whoop.

Either the spirit is with our leaders or it is not. Take all of it or none of it. Your choice, still! No one likes a lecture… so it’s no surprise that people don’t like being told they are sinners and why. That’s why the feel good churches have so many in their number. It take humility to admit one is wrong. Humility isn’t an easy thing for a human to exercise.

And this gets back to another problem we have. The abuse the “Cafeteria Catholics” get. IMO, being a Cafeteria Catholic is far better than being an anti-Catholic. But there is a difference between a Cafeteria Catholic and a dissenting Catholic. A dessenting Catholic declares the Church is wrong and it must prove to them that it is right. A cafeteria catholic, IMO, declares that they don’t know, nor care if the church is correct and they may feel they don’t have to make the effort to understand…

The Church is patient… Not sure where that came from but I latch on to it with all the hope and prayer I can muster. Being Catholic is a journey. Not a checklist. The faith is far too rich for most humans to grasp all of it all at once.

Peter was given the keys, not us here on CAF. It is wrong to judge someone’s heart when you can’t know it. Worse yet to label them, toss them into a bucket and leave them there until they apologize to us. It is right to try to take those willing to come to an understanding of the faith on that journey to truth.

And lastly… Imagine what would have happened if Thomas was tossed out of the group because at first, he did not believe? The lesson of Thomas is very important. If it were not, it wouldn’t be in the Bible. Jesus didn’t love Thomas any less for his stubbornness. Or for any apostle for a failure in faith.

 

[newbetx]

If the Church ever changes its mind about Charles Curran in any of his issues of disagreement I will be so ticked off. Particularly if they change anything concerning ABC. I would feel like I put up with NFP bs and made all of these sacrifices for nothing.

You would also have to admit that the Holy Spirit guided all the protestant churches better than the Church and that for centuries many popes acted very stupidly and seriously misled billions of people by condemning a perfectly harmless act. The Church is too committed to the immorality of ABC to turn around now and continue to exist. with all of the issues of ABC, divorce, masturbation the Church is all in and there is no turning back now.

If there was a theological basis for change, it would change. The church doesn’t just make this stuff up you know.

And personal rejection of a teaching doesn’t make Her case for the teaching any less correct.

 

[newbetx]

People generally don’t provide any new information, so there normally isn’t a need to pry. And I know in all things I might be wrong- but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t defend my view points.

Well, we try. Sometimes you just reject it. Maybe for good reason, maybe not. There is a difference in defending yourself and truthfully wanting to come to an understanding.

And you know what… it just may be that you never really get some of this stuff. I know I have doubts that I’ll get it all before I die. If a person doesn’t “get something”, it does not guarantee the something is wrong. There are many things in this world I don’t “get” that others do. That doesn’t mean my perspective is right and the world is wrong. We forget this sometimes.

I would suspect a person that says they “get all of it”. But it’s really uncharitable to come out shooting at someone who admits trouble with a teaching.

 

[gardenswithkids]

And you know what… it just may be that you never really get some of this stuff. I know I have doubts that I’ll get it all before I die. If a person doesn’t “get something”, it does not guarantee the something is wrong. There are many things in this world I don’t “get” that others do. That doesn’t mean my perspective is right and the world is wrong. We forget this sometimes. …

Good point. God probably looks very lovingly on any person who humbly follows a Church rule they don’t understand simply out of obedience. God likes obedience and humility. He chose a humble virgin as His mother. Jesus was obedient to His Father unto death on the cross.

Funny when it comes to dissent. No one seems upset too much about the discipline of not eating meat on Fridays during Lent. I’ve never heard any Catholic who doesn’t follow that raise a fuss and insist the Church is wrong. I never heard any older person complain about all the fish dinners they ate years ago when the rule was every Friday being a “waste” when they could have eaten more juicy steaks. “Not eating meat” was/is a discipline, not a moral teaching, and disciplines can change. If someone really thinks the Church teaching on contraception is not a moral issue and/or that it will change, then they could obey it as if it were a discipline. There’s no harm in humbly obeying a Church rule that you don’t fully understand. Luke recorded for us what Mary said: God looks upon the humble with favor.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I suspect this is related to the group of posters here who are deathly afraid that people will read the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Catholicism and find out what real-world Catholics think and believe.

Truth is neither a matter of consensus nor opinion, but the revealed Word.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Please provide link to the info that you are putting forth, it’s only fair.

Here is a link to a general survey of Catholic biblical scholarship, which contains the following:

Pope Leo XII adopted a less polemical posture with respect to modernity, and his pontificate (1878-1903) witnessed the initial budding of Catholic biblical studies, especially in the work of Joseph-Marie Lagrange, O.P., who founded the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem in 1890 and the Revue Biblique in 1892. The first buddings of biblical scholarship were quickly blighted by the reaction against modernism, especially during the anti-modernist crusade initiated by Pope Pius X (1903-14), which soon turned against unquestionably orthodox scholars such as Lagrange. Arguably the greatest Roman Catholic biblical scholar of the first half of the 20th century, Lagrange was constantly attacked by conservative Jesuit scholars, and his works were forbidden to seminarians in a consistorial decree of 1912. The decrees issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (1905-15) mandated for Catholic scholars the most traditional position on virtually every issue raised by critical scholarship. As Gerald Fogarty, S.J., notes, the anti-modernist reaction was espe*cially destructive of biblical scholarship in the United States: “[By the late 1930’s] whatever scholarship there had been at the beginning of the century had either been destroyed or gone underground …

I can’t find the specific situation I mentioned online, but it is contained in Fogarty’s book American Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A History from the Early Republic to Vatican II.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Here is a link to a general survey of Catholic biblical scholarship, which contains the following:

Pope Leo XII adopted a less polemical posture with respect to modernity, and his pontificate (1878-1903) witnessed the initial budding of Catholic biblical studies, especially in the work of Joseph-Marie Lagrange, O.P., who founded the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem in 1890 and the Revue Biblique in 1892. The first buddings of biblical scholarship were quickly blighted by the reaction against modernism, especially during the anti-modernist crusade initiated by Pope Pius X (1903-14), which soon turned against unquestionably orthodox scholars such as Lagrange. Arguably the greatest Roman Catholic biblical scholar of the first half of the 20th century, Lagrange was constantly attacked by conservative Jesuit scholars, and his works were forbidden to seminarians in a consistorial decree of 1912. The decrees issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (1905-15) mandated for Catholic scholars the most traditional position on virtually every issue raised by critical scholarship. As Gerald Fogarty, S.J., notes, the anti-modernist reaction was espe*cially destructive of biblical scholarship in the United States: “[By the late 1930’s] whatever scholarship there had been at the beginning of the century had either been destroyed or gone underground …

I can’t find the specific situation I mentioned online, but it is contained in Fogarty’s book American Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A History from the Early Republic to Vatican II.

Without having more info, all I can say is this deals with biblical scholarship and has little to do with doctrine or dogma, per se. The historical view of who wrote the bible hasn’t been dogmatically claimed, as far as I know. I’m also a bit skeptical of America magazine…I imagine there is more to the story.

 

[newbetx]

Good point. God probably looks very lovingly on any person who humbly follows a Church rule they don’t understand simply out of obedience. God likes obedience and humility. He chose a humble virgin as His mother. Jesus was obedient to His Father unto death on the cross.

True and He said so, specifically. But he didn’t say “Cursed are those that don’t believe blindly.” He generally tried to persuade them to have more faith.

In this discussion on dissent, I think of Moses. And about divorce… Here is an example where the popular opinion was impressed upon the faith and it was not from God. Jesus pointed that out.

So that is why I’m not so bold to say some teachings CANNOT change. If wrong, God will make them right somehow. We are called to keep faith in the Church he built. Just because a leader faulters some, does not mean we don’t have to follow. If the coach says “Steal” and you are out, so be it. That does not mean the next time he says it you are allowed to just stand there. If the coach says throw the “bean ball,” You know he’s wrong and you don’t. Moral compass has to do with direction, not desire. When desires override moral direction, that is where we run into trouble.

 

[Just_Lurking]

.I imagine there is more to the story.

Not really. The Catholic Church’s overreaction to modernism in the early twentieth century left a lot of collateral human damage in its wake, similar to that of McCarthyism in cold war America.

 

[Just_Lurking]

See here for a recent (1998) example of a witch hunt by the Vatican. The accused theologian writes back:

The serious problem with anonymous denunciation is that it breeds suspicion. Accusers act in the dark and do not have to assume moral responsibility for what they do, so there is an inevitable perception of injustice. I am obliged to answer publicly for my book, but they can act silently, without having to assume any public responsibility for their attacks on me and my perceived opinions.

In any event, I think it would make more sense to discuss the content of Corran’s book rather than continue in the ad hominem attack against Corran himself.

 

[newbetx]

See here for a recent (1998) example of a witch hunt by the Vatican. The accused theologian writes back:
The serious problem with anonymous denunciation is that it breeds suspicion. Accusers act in the dark and do not have to assume moral responsibility for what they do, so there is an inevitable perception of injustice. I am obliged to answer publicly for my book, but they can act silently, without having to assume any public responsibility for their attacks on me and my perceived opinions.
In any event, I think it would make more sense to discuss the content of Corran’s book rather than continue in the ad hominem attack against Corran himself.

Good point, but I suggest you start a new thread so tjm can get this one back.

 

[kage_ar]

One hundred years ago, the Vatican insisted that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Old Testament, and at least one Catholic theologian who disagreed with that lost his academic position (at Catholic University of America?) as a result.

Who is to say that the Vatican won’t likewise change its mind about Charles Curran in another hundred years.

Authorship of a book is NOT a matter of Faith or Morals.

I am not going to go buy a book by some whacky author. I challange you to state here one thing that was officially taught by the Catholic Church as a doctrine of faith or a doctrine of morals that was changed. If you cannot name one, those claiming would be honest to retract the claim.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Authorship of a book is NOT a matter of Faith or Morals.

The authorship of the books of the Bible is a matter of faith. What’s changed is that in 1913 the Vatican taught that the Pauline epistles were written by St. Paul himself, but Vatican II changed the authorship of the New Testament to the more general “apostles and apostolic men.” In 1913, Fr. Raymond Brown would have been excommunicated, but post-Vatican II, he was appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission twice.

I am not going to go buy a book by some whacky author.

I guess a library is out of the question too.

I challange you to state here one thing that was officially taught by the Catholic Church as a doctrine of faith or a doctrine of morals that was changed. If you cannot name one, those claiming would be honest to retract the claim.

The teaching on usury changed from the statement that charging any interest at all was sinful and immoral, to the modern concept that it’s only usury if excessive interest is charged. There is already a thread on usury here so this thread can get back on topic.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The authorship of the books of the Bible is a matter of faith. What’s changed is that in 1913 the Vatican taught that the Pauline epistles were written by St. Paul himself, but Vatican II changed the authorship of the New Testament to the more general “apostles and apostolic men.” In 1913, Fr. Raymond Brown would have been excommunicated, but post-Vatican II, he was appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission twice.

I guess a library is out of the question too.

The teaching on usury changed from the statement that charging any interest at all was sinful and immoral, to the modern concept that it’s only usury if excessive interest is charged. There is already a thread on usury here so this thread can get back on topic.

Again, these things weren’t declared as dogma or doctrine…this was what was believed by most at the time, with more research and study and scholarship the authorship may be a bit clearer, but we can never know for certain who wrote these particular books.

I don’t think usury was ever declared doctrine/dogma–it seems canonical and can be changed. But social justice wise, the Church is certainly against usury that harms people.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I don’t think usury was ever declared doctrine/dogma–it seems canonical and can be changed.

Let’s see: pope, papal bull, declaration that receiving any interest at all is immoral. What more do you want? You might as well claim that Humanae Vitae isn’t doctrine/dogma, but that would just put you in the same boat as Charles Corran.

Most of Catholic Church teaching on faith and morals is not infallible. So why are you so surprised when some of it turns out to be wrong?

 

[newbetx]

Let’s see: pope, papal bull, declaration that receiving any interest at all is immoral. What more do you want? You might as well claim that Humanae Vitae isn’t doctrine/dogma, but that would just put you in the same boat as Charles Corran.

Most of Catholic Church teaching on faith and morals is not infallible. So why are you so surprised when some of it turns out to be wrong?

OK, here it is. A new thread on what constitutes “church teaching”

 

[tjm190]

Authorship of a book is NOT a matter of Faith or Morals.

I am not going to go buy a book by some whacky author. I challange you to state here one thing that was officially taught by the Catholic Church as a doctrine of faith or a doctrine of morals that was changed. If you cannot name one, those claiming would be honest to retract the claim.

Because not changing equates to correctness? (this is the best way I could think of to casually reenter the discussion)

 

[newbetx]

Back to my questions for you tjm… What makes scripture “inspired” if it was written by man? (and I don’t care which one)

If scripture is inspired, why can’t other people be inspired too?