Hey Jacques, enjoyed the exchange! And don't get the idea that I'm some kind of Catholic fundamentalist: I DO have a problem with some of our teachings, though not the core mysteries nor the role of the hierarchy as teachers and leaders.

Re. infallibility -- think of it more in terms of a gift of the Spirit to the leadership of the Church. Jesus is the Truth, and so it would seem he would bless the Church, his mystical body, with an understanding of Truth, especially regarding matters of faith and morals. That's how I see it, at least.

(addenda: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...of_the_Roman_Pontiff which, fairly, I believe, reviews the emergence of the Bishop of Rome as leader of the Church. Keep in mind that through the first three centuries, Christianity was just hanging on for dear life, with little opportunity to take institutional form, and so things muddled along quite a bit. But by the 2nd C. the Bishop of Rome was settling matters of doctrine, and by the 3rd his primacy was more formally recognized. Note the discussion in the article about the First Council of Constantinople, and how things were in relation to the Eastern Church. The article goes through the schism period as well. It's a good starting point for sorting things out. You might also investigate the conversion of John Henry Cardinal Newman, the esteemed Anglican priest/scholar who converted to Catholicism: see http://www.ad2000.com.au/artic.../may2001p10_427.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman )

Mon amie,

Ah. I had misunderstood then; thanks for the clarification.

Enjoy your new toy / tool! I guess I'll wait for the implant to arrive on the scene. Supposedly it will be here in less than 10 years. One will be able to think their way to and through the internet. We supposedly will all be becoming spiritual machines.

Think of the morailty discussions we will be having in the days ahead. Posts considering whether the implants will be the mark of the beast!

Should be great discussion.

Codger

No problem, Pop-pop,---clarifications are happily given and received.

Phil---

Your paragraph about "Re: infallibility..." to Jacques was good and clear, I thought, and that's how I've been looking at the possibility of a gift of infallibility. My difficulty is that, for one, I'm not convinced that Jesus promised such a gift, though I can see where the idea comes from--and I can see why it's attractive to believe that Jesus did make that promise. Secondly, as I've been doing pretty serious and focused looking at Catholicism during the past 9 or so months, it's become more and more my perception that important teachings have changed, even ones that where considered infallible. And I have a hard time with the formula I very often see from Catholics, that the Catholic Church never, ever teaches error. That's my perception, and I'd be happily shown to be off on that, if possible. I do think I have a decent understanding of the distinctions between dogma, doctrine, and disciplines.

Ariel, good that you're still thinking about all this.

Check out the links in the addenda I shared with Jacques 4 posts above. I think it will help.

Can you give me an example of a core Catholic doctrine that has changed over time? We do come to a deeper grasp of a doctrine through time, but that's not a contradiction with earlier expressions of it. We also, as Catholics, have what we call a "hierarchy of truth" -- that not all doctrines are equally important. Some of the more peripheral ones based on natural law reasoning, for example, have changed; those rooted in Revelation have not.

As for Jesus not teaching infallibility, there's a lot we believe and do that was not taught directly by Jesus. What we believe is that he gave us his Spirit to lead and guide us along the way. Yet we generally do find some foundation in Scripture, and that is surely the case with infallibility. E.g., http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp for a straightforward treatment. Folks can argue the meaning of the scriptures mentioned but I don't care about that, for it's how the Spirit worked in the Church that's important here, and the Spirit moved the early communities to order themselves around the teachings of the Apostles, among whom Peter was considered the leader. Later on the bishops who succeeded the Apostles looked to his Peter's successor, the bishop of Rome, for guidance in matters of teaching and governance. As evidenced in the post above about Irenaeus, this was going on as early as 177, even amidst persecutions and the difficulties Christians had with organizing institutionally.

Thanks for the links, Phil--I'm reading them.

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the Links, i'll be doing quite a bit of that kind of reading over the next while.

Don't worry, I don't think you're any sort of fundamentalist

quote:

I DO have a problem with some of our teachings

If you don't mind, please could you share some of your disagreements, it would really help me to understand where a committed Catholic like yourself would feel justified to disagree - even if it isn't with regards to the core mysteries and hierarchy.

Phil, I'm still reading, too. I had read part of that long wiki article on the primacy of the Pope before but not all of it. I'll start another thread when I finish it.

I would echo Jacques' last question as well. The majority of my internet reading has been at Catholic Answers, and soon after a discussion of birth control had come up here, a thread came up at CAF saying there is no licit dissent from that teaching; and that JPII explicitly clarified that; also that if you do dissent you may not say so publically, especially if you're a teacher. All that left me confused as to what the real teaching is on disagreements, as it seemed (from discussion on the thread, and the use of the CCC and Papal sayings) many Catholics are unsure of the teaching on disagreements as well. I hesitated to put you on the spot, so to speak, about how I was hearing two different sides on what is allowed and what isn't.

r

t

Here's that thread, fwiw, from CAF--- http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=557809. It's kind of long, so don't know if anyone wants to read it, but there it is.

Ariel,

r

t

2

u


Codger

Jacques and Ariel, one of the teachings I don't like is that the Pope closed the door in the mid-90s on discussing the possibility of ordaining women. I regret that, as I don't see much value in closing down theological discussion on anything. Letting the dialogues go on would be better, imo.

Another is the way the teaching on birth control is taught. This is a moral teaching based on natural law reasoning, not Revelation, and our understanding of natural law can change, and has, through time. Sites like "Catholic Answers" and many others also fail to point out that couples have the right to form their conscience on this issue and do what they believe is best for their marriage and family. Circumstance and intent are always factors in determining the morality of an action, and some of these sites present artificial contraception as a wrong that is irremediably evil in every circumstance, which is ridiculous. So it's not immoral to kill another person in self-defense, but it's always immoral for a couple to use contraception. That's absurd. This teaching is a source of dysfunction in the Church, and it's one that's largely ignored by Catholic couples, over 98% of whom used some form of artificial means of birth control.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ontrol_n_849060.html
Stats like this indicate that the teaching hasn't really been received by the Church, and so we have this odd situation where the Magisterium insists upon a belief that the faithful do not actually value.

So you're a wise guy, eh, Pop-pop? I hit a couple of keys by mistake...but, as matter of fact, I am arty.

That makes sense to me, Phil. It's sometimes confusing to me to try to sort out what's what when it comes to some of the nuances of Catholic teaching, particularly when I see two different sides each saying they represent the true Catholic view, and using the CCC and Papal sayings to try to prove they are correct. At least one of the posts on that CAF thread asserts that the stance on the immorality of birth control has been declared infallibly, and to be honest I don't know if that's true, so that in itself is confusing.

To clarify, I wasn't thinking of you, Phil, in regard to the sort of proof-texting I spoke of above---I was thinking of argumentative threads at CAF and articles at other Catholic websites. I went from having familiarity with the well-considered kind of writing on Catholicism that I knew from First Things magazine and people such as Peter Kreeft, to the wild and wooly world of Catholics on the web, and it's just been weird to me to see another side of Catholicism.

Then there's Pop-pop, in a class by himself...in a good way, Pop-pop.

Mi Hermana de Pennsylvania (the Contessa of ZOOM),

Mon amie …. I know that you have to do what you have to do. And that nobody could stop you anyway – you’re feisty in your own kind of cowgirled way. So you visit CAF and other Catholic sites on the web. (Dig we must). And sometimes you encounter the ubers. You find them scarey you said. Kind of like pursuing the buzz one gets watching horror movies. Sometimes you get wrapped up in various issues that even theologians themselves get wrapped around the axle about understanding (issues that in everyday living seldom if ever arise in your daily life and have little to do towards the increasing of your devotion to Christ – towards your love affair with Love).

Now I realize that ‘you will be who you will be’ a la Yahweh and his ‘I will be who I will be’ ‘I am who am’.

But to me…. to me….what you do by all your delving ……… is akin to surfing medical websites… and getting caught up intellectually and imaginatively in the exploration of symptoms and diagnostic techniques for the myriads of medical problems and diseases that indeed do exist but that you will never experience in your lifetime in the first place.

And you are not trying to become a doctor (theologian) in the first place.

Enjoy…….but….oh, boy.



Your friendly Uberdile in the east.

p.s. and you know what, mon amie? ....... There’s no end to the internet. You can delve till you die. Not only is God beyond your understanding … but the Catholic Church is beyond your understanding …. indeed you yourself … are beyond your understanding.

I mostly agree with your post above, Pop. Just think if one did this kind of looking around in all the nooks and crannies of the web concerning any Protestant sect, or any world religion? One would have a sick understanding indeed of Protestants by reading the uber-Catholic websites, just as one would not know much about Catholicism by reading what Fundamentalists say about us, or even some of those Orthodox sites Jacques linked to.

So if one wants to really learn what Catholics believe, the first and best place to go is to the new Catechism, which, despite its intentional use of non-inclusive language, is nonetheless a superb compendium of Catholic teaching, with numerous references to Scripture, various documents, and the writings of Saints. You can find it on the web:
- http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

I'd encourage every serious Christian to own a copy as a basic reference.

The New Advent web site has also done the world a great favor by publishing the 1913 version of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
There was an update in the 60s but apparently it's not public domain. Still, the 1913 version is very good on most matters.

Beyond that, every Catholic web site has its own slant or emphasis, and you can sort them out using Spiral Dynamics. Sites like EWTN and Catholic Answers are ultra-Blue and not much open to any other manifestation of Catholicism. The National Catholic Reporter is Green (almost what we call Mean-Green-Meme), while "The Liguorian" (which I once wrote for) is spread along Blue-Orange-Green lines, as is First Things, I would say. People are generally attracted to media resources that resonate with their own development, which is understandable, but which usually gives them only one perspective among many (of course, the ultra-Blues would say that only theirs is the valid one ).

Phil, I wasn't sure if "this kind of looking around in all the nooks and crannies" was just a general statement, which I agree with, or if "this kind..." was supposed to refer to me. If the latter, it simply doesn't apply. I've purposely avoided the fringe-y websites for the very reason you stated--I've occasionally clicked on an "out there" Protestant site by accident and a few polemical Orthodox sites by accident, and the Golden rule applies here--I'd hate for anyone, of any religion, to take them as representative of any form of Christianity. Catholic Answers bills itself as the largest Catholic forum on the web, with some 200,000+ members, and always comes up first on Google---that hardly describes any nook and cranny searching from me. Ibrought my questions here in good faith.

Ariel, my comments were meant to be "in general." I do recommend you check out the catechism at the link I listed above for more straightforward info, however. There are very few questions about Catholic teaching and practice that are not addressed in the catechism. Check it out of you haven't already.

Pop-pop---

I like that---la Contessa de Xoom (I mispelled it before). I've worked up to only hitting about 1 in 10 letters by accident now....sigh....you can dress me up with a sleek little black mobile device, but you can't take me out--once a technologically backward hick, always a hick.

Regarding you post---good thoughts, but not applicable to me here. I'm not being mean or sarcastic, but I feel you fairly often assume inaccurate things about where I'm coming from, and where I've been.

And I really hate horror movies. I'd leave the room rather than be near a TV if commercial for one were to come on. Aquila himself is plenty of thrill for my sensibilities.

Phil, I'll use that link. Thanks. And I have seen it quoted often, at length, on CAF, and I'm always happy when people share those relevant sections as they come up, because the parts I've read are written with refreshing consideration and care. Despite that, I'm still confused by some of the things I've read.

Pop-pop, if you or Phil think fielding some of these questions by PM might go more smoothly, that would be fine with me. I don't have a preference.

Thank you very much Shasha for sharing more.

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
Of course God has feminine, as well as masculine, characteristics. Of course, God can be known to us and experienced as nurturing, caring, tender like a mom. And He can be experienced and known to us as the strong, protective provider like a father. It's not one or the other but both in one God. cut...