| Author | |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Aug 22 2005 at 11:32am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Just jumping in for a minute here, but here's a couple of online articles, on Galileo and the Church --
The Galileo Affair
and on Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christian"
Retrieving Rahner
I think that the "anonymous Christian" is in some ways implicit in the teachings of the Church throughout history, IF properly understood --see Salvation in Christ, and that to at least some extent Rahner was legitimately wrestling with its outworkings which IS a theologian's role in the Church. Rahner writes:
"Even though anonymous Christianity is prior to explicit Christianity it does not render it superfluous. On the contrary, it itself demands this explicit Christianity in virtue of its own nature and its own intrinsic dynamism"
I think of the Israelites before the coming of Christ, the Holy Innocents massacred by Herod, the "good thief" -- all considered to be in heaven by the Church throughout history, though they were certainly not professed Christians (maybe the thief is somewhat in a different case, but he certainly wasn't baptized by water). Also, from what I understand, Fr Feeney was silenced back in the 40's well before VIIfor holding to a too-strict interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church" -- claiming that you had to be a baptized, professed member in EVERY case or that you were damned.
To add to Gwen's point, "Extra ecclesia nulla salus" can be more comprehensibly translated "Except for the Church, there is no salvation." rather than "outside the Church, there is no salvation" which makes the meaning clearer and shows that a different in emphasis is different from a contradiction in doctrine.
This is just a bunch of little footnotes, hope to *really* answer later, Julie. The main "message" of your post to me was your missionary heart that is troubled by injustice and incompetence and plain sin in evangelizing. You write: "If we are discussing whether or not truth is exclusive, the problem I have is how poorly communicated that truth has been throughout history and to the farthest corners of the earth (and how ineffective that truth is even when received in certain cultures that never really grasp the narrative elements of our story because they don't share our base understanding of those elements)."
That is SO big -- to think that the sin and incompetence of the Church's members (as opposed to the Church itself) -- cause people to fall away and/or be lost or never understand the Church in the first place. I was reading some books about St Therese and her whole contemplative life was devoted to reaching the unsaved, to the point where Pope Pius (IX I think) declared her co-patroness of the missions along with St Francis Xavier. We ALL have a missionary role and a call to sanctity.
It is definitely my thought to ponder for the day -- and rather scary and humbling, to think that what WE as Catholics or Christians do can help OR muddle up things so immensely... I imagine that the commission that tried Galileo either thought they were doing right or didn't care -- none of us are exempt from the responsibility to do and proclaim as we ought to.
But the Church itself in teaching us about God and how to live our personal lives -- Faith and Morals -- can't go wrong in teaching us, and that's the point of infallibility, not that priests or bishops or popes will always act or even think right..... Where we and our fellow Catholics take it from there is a completely different point, and I guess we all are responsible for our own little sphere of action and prayer. Thank God for the saints -- I am realizing more and more these days how much they "carry" us ordinary folk, and how much more good would be done if we all "became who we are" as John Paul II said to families.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Aug 22 2005 at 11:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
Thanks for this! Very helpful.
That's why I ask... 
Julie |
|
|
Hey Julie, we are all on a spiritual journey of sorts...I hope I do not sound harsh. I do not mean to. 
While I enjoy a good discussion of faith, I have been more personally enlightened by leaps of faith, followed by study.
As a cradle Catholic who was sent to study with a Buddhist at age 3 (my parents are really weird), I have had to do a tremendous amount of self-education...I took one theology class in college, and it was dreadful (it was "The Old Testament," and it was taught by a Shinto). Rather than enhancing my faith, it shook my faith, and it took a while before I felt confident enough to pursue Catholicism in a logical manner. Study was enlightening, but it was through the inner joy of Sunday Mass (and now daily Mass) that I have begun (for I am still young!) to grasp the truth...a leap of faith is necessary, and while study (especially orthodox study) can narrow the chasm, we must each still leap.
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
alicegunther
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1992
|
| Posted: Aug 22 2005 at 1:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
How do you understand the errors the Church has made in the past (for instance, their excommunication of and then exoneration of Galileo)?
1633: Galileo Galilei, astronomer, convicted of heresy, for supporting theory that Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. In 1992, Pope John Paul II said the church had wronged Galileo. |
|
|
Sorry to go on a "rabbit trail" from Richard McBrien, but that's what this group is all about after all!
Truthfully, I think the fact that the Galileo affair is repeatedly brought up as evidence of the Church's fallibility just goes to show what a great record the Church has had in 2000 years! The popular account of the story is also oversimplified (and often just plain wrong) and does not give the Church a fair shake. When John Paul II suggested that the Galileo case be re-examined and apologized on behalf of the Church for any wrongs that may have been done to him, the news media jumped all over it as the Church finally admitting its scientific shortcomings. (I even recall some wiseacres implying that it took the Church 400 years to realize that the earth does in fact revolve around the sun!) Few, if any, noted that in 1741, just over a hundred years after Galileo, Pope Benedict XIV bid the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo. John Paul II's more recent request that the case be reopened and examined, far from an act of weakness, is a good indication that he knew the Catholic Church is able to withstand scrutiny.
Also, contrary to popular belief, Church officials did not go looking for Galileo to condemn him for his teachings about the sun. Nicholas Copernicus, a churchman in good standing, had published this view, and it had been in print for close to 70 years with no attempt made by the Church to restrict its teaching. Galileo brought the Church into the scientific debate because of a letter (Letter to Castelli) advocating the Copernican view and recommending that scientists employ a figurative interpretation of Scripture to bring this and other potential scientific findings in line with statements in the Bible. The problem, of course, is that this amounted to advocating personal interpretation of Scripture by individual scientists. This was a particularly problematic assertion during this time in history and caught the attention of church officials. Hearing whispers that his views might be heretical, Galileo presented himself in Rome and was received with courtesy.
At any rate, Galileo was *never* excommunicated. (Even PBS notes this saying: "[T]he real Galileo, never tortured or excommunicated, remained a loyal Catholic throughout his life.") The judgment of the Church tribunal against him was that he was "vehemently suspected of heresy." He was asked to stop teaching his ideas and sentenced to the residence of his friend, the Archbishop, at Venice and to his own villa. There he was allowed to continue to study science and receive visitors for the remaining ten years of his life. When he died, he was buried in holy ground and received the Papal Blessing. "Vehemently *suspected* of heresy"? This was the Church's big mistake in 2000 years? Not bad, I say!
It is worth noting that no Pope ever made a pronouncement on the case, unless you include Pope Benedict XIV's recommendation of an imprimatur for Galileo's work just over a hundred years later. For more information (admittedly from orthodox Catholic sources) on the Galileo case, please see:
Catholic Encyclopedia--Galileo Galilei
The Galileo Affair
Pope John Paul II--On the Centenary of the Birth of Albert Einstein
The Galileo Legend
Galileo and the Magisterium: a Second Look
Galileo Galilei
Julie, thank you for raising another interesting point! This is like Brave Writer for moms!
__________________
Love, Alice
mother of seven!
   
Cottage Blessings
Brew yourself a cup of tea, and come for a visit!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: Aug 22 2005 at 1:32pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
Richelle, you asked if I've read any JPII yet. No. I have him on my list but have been writing more than reading this summer. School starts tomorrow for me so I will be back in a theological frame of mind. That ought to help. I needed a summer off!
Julie |
|
|
Very understandable. BTW congratulations on finishing your high school book! 
Your comments had me digging last night. I had been planning on reading Fides et Ratio myself for a month or so now. I pulled it out and started last night. It really is a great document. I think you'd enjoy reading it. I'd like to quote some sections that jumped out at me.
Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesa; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives.
__________________
The Church is no stranger to this journey of discovery, nor could she ever be. From the moment when, through the Paschal Mystery, she received the gift of the ultimate truth about human life, the Church has made her pilgrim way along the paths of the world to proclaim that Jesus Chris is "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6). It is her duty to serve humanity in different ways, but one way in particular imposes a responsibility of a quite special kind: the diakonia of the truth. (1) This mission on the one hand makes the believing community a partner in humanity's shared struggle to arrive at truth; (2) and on the other hand it obliges the believing community to proclaim the certitudes arrived at, albeit with a sense that every truth attained is but a step towards that fullness of truth which will appear with the final Revelation of God: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully" (1 Cor 13:12).
__________________
It is an innate property of human reason to ask why things are as they are, even though the answers which gradually emerge are set within a horizon which reveals how the different human cultures are complementary.
___________________
Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness. Consider as well certain fundamental moral norms which are shared by all. These are among the indications that, beyond different schools of thought, there exists a body of knoledge which may be judged a kind of spiritual heritage of humanity. It is as if we had come upon an implicit philosophy, as a result of which all feel that they possess these principles, albeit in a general and unreflective way.
___________________
A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today's most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth. Even certain conceptions of life coming from the East betray this lack of confidence, denying truth its exclusive character and assuming that truth reveals itself equally in different doctrines, even if they contradict one another. On this understanding, everything is reduced to opinion; and there is a sense of being adrift.
I also spent some time digging through the catechism. I think you might find sections 830-856 especially interesting. It covers the topics "What does 'catholic' mean?, Who belongs to the Catholic Church, the Church and non-Christians, 'Outside the Church there is no salvation', and Mission-a requirement of the Church's catholicity".
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MaryM
Board Moderator
Joined: Feb 11 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13104
|
| Posted: Aug 22 2005 at 1:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Nothing like a little Galileo to shake things up. It is an interesting rabbit-trail. Some additional thoughts:
-The decisions in the Galileo case were disciplinary or procedural, not doctrinal matters. If these had been matters of dogma, the Church could not have reversed itself.
-The pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.
-No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo.
-The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.
The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.
Thanks for all the great links Willa and Alice. Many were new to me. I also recommend the booklet MacBeth mentioned.
__________________
Mary M. in Denver
Our Domestic Church
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Patrick
Forum Moderator
Joined: Aug 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Aug 22 2005 at 2:10pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Howdy Julie!
I would like to thank you for your earnestness in searching for the truth. I've been recently reading a lot on different people's philosophies and conceptions of God. The biggest error that I've found people making is them believing that they themselves possess the ability to find the truth. Obviously people have been using this process for thousands of years and each one is at least partially in error. I've found that often it is great to search for truth and question my authority constantly, but I've found that no matter where my head goes I can only receive life through submitting myself to Christ and his church. Here's a couple quotes from a couple of my favorite authors (as well as one of yours) that I like on this subject.
God bless,
Patrick
John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor, 36 wrote:
Some people, however, disregarding the dependence of human reason on Divine Wisdom and the need, given the present state of fallen nature, for Divine Revelation as an effective means for knowing moral truths, even those of the natural order, have actually posited a complete sovereignty of reason in the domain of moral norms regarding the right ordering of life in this world. Such norms would constitute the boundaries for a merely "human" morality; they would be the expression of a law which man in an autonomous manner lays down for himself and which has its source exclusively in human reason. In no way could God be considered the Author of this law, except in the sense that human reason exercises its autonomy in setting down laws by virtue of a primordial and total mandate given to man by God. These trends of thought have led to a denial, in opposition to Sacred Scripture (cf. Mt 15:3-6) and the Church's constant teaching, of the fact that the natural moral law has God as its author, and that man, by the use of reason, participates in the eternal law, which it is not for him to establish.
|
|
|
Thomas Dubay in Prayer Primer: Igniting A Fire Within wrote:
Love for the Church
St. Augustine (and Vatican Council II, which cited him) made the classical remark that "a person possesses the Holy Spirit to the extent of his love for Christ's Church" (OT, no. 9). Jesus in the New Testament so identifies himself with the Church he founded and loved into being that he is able to say that "he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me" (Lk 10:16); and "as long as you did it to the least of mine, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40). It has been a striking trait of the saints through the centuries, even into our own day, that men and women of deep prayer, genuine prayer, are outstanding in their love for the Church, the temple of the Holy Spirit on earth.
|
|
|
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Aug 22 2005 at 4:03pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
| In other words, belief in Jesus as divine must precede trust in Church authority... and the only way to make that judgment is to weigh evidence, experience and opinions. For instance, it does no good to suggest a Muslim submit to Catholic teachings or the instruction of the Bible because they don't accept Jesus as God. |
|
|
I agree... When I was basically an agnostic, it did no good for me to hear that things were true "because the Bible said so." and certainly "The Catholic Church says so" would have had little meaning for me as a Protestant. I mentioned in my post that I thought your point on subjective "assent" was well taken. Any truth isn't "realized" to us personally unless we have taken it into our minds/hearts somehow -- "apprehended" it so to speak and consented to it. And as we see in the "extra ecclesia nulla salus" issue -- most truths have facets, because they are multi-dimensional. Sometimes one aspect is emphasized, sometimes another, and our language system isn't always rich enough to bring out all the nuances without a kind of ambiguity that can be misleading. It's always a balancing act for all of us.
St Paul says we are responsible for obeying the law written in our hearts, and that's what condemns or exonerates us. We can't be held accountable for what we do not know through no fault of our own. So as you say, we must weigh evidence, sort through our thoughts, plus we must find language to utter it, and that gets more challenging the farther afield we try to communicate it.
You mentioned that you don't see the difference between the Church's claim to authority and those of Mohammed, Buddha, or any other wise man or prophet-- that it's all humans claiming divine inspiration. I DO see a difference, which I tried to explain, but probably not very clearly. Here's another try; I liked your phrase about the "narrative elements" of a religion so I thought I'd try to approach it that way:
The Catholic "narrative" is that God was incarnated as a Man. That Man, who was God, personally lived and died on earth. There is a historical record about his life and death and in that historical record he is recorded as having entrusted a divinely-founded Church, Holy and Apostolic, to the keeping of His apostles. This trust is passed on by the laying on of hands through the generations. The gift of
Infallibility, according to the Catholic story, does not depend upon personal sanctity or wisdom. This is because God, having come to earth, according to Scriptures, left us the promise before He ascended that He would send the Paraclete and start a Church "against which the gates of hell shall not prevail." Infallibility is a limited charism straight from God that preserves the Church as a whole from teaching error in matters of Faith -- knowledge about God which is beyond our personal understanding -- and Morals -- how we personally should live. The charism of infallibility is not impeccability -- it does not protect individual priests or Church members or bishops from being foul men or heretics, if they choose to ignore their calling to holiness. But that's their own personal responsibility, just as its ours if we choose to do wrongly and say that our wrong is in God's name or in the name of the Church. If I smear filth on a pearl, the filth is mine, it does not originate from the pearl.
This Catholic "narrative" is qualitatively different from all the religious "root" stories I have heard, which most always involve one wise or holy man and some followers who try to pass on and apply his insight as best they might. I am not saying these prophets are evil or entirely wrong, at all. They probably have some kind of insight or power that makes people follow them, or why would anyone do so? That's not the point here.... the point is that the "story" is basically one I could make up myself, if I decided I was a holy person and could attract some followers. I might even be partly right on some things.
I'm NOT saying that the Catholic "narrative" is simple to believe or obvious on the surface. It's quite incredible that God would descend to earth as a Baby and live, die and be resurrected and offer us eternal life with Him. It is definitely nothing that anyone could intuit or reason out, which is why the story is called "Revelation" -- it had to be enacted and witnessed to -- it was a particular event in history.
It IS quite a strange story and if I had been raised Muslim it would be difficult for me to swallow -- which is part of YOUR point. Yes, we need to be conscious of the different cultures and presuppositions of those who were not raised in Western cultures, etc. It is STILL a continuing leap of faith for me, and it makes it real for me that Faith is a gift and something over and above Reason (though not contradictory to it). I think Robin's advice was wonderful -- go to the Blessed Sacrament and sit in front of it and pray that God will show you the truth. I'm not saying that because I think you are "wrong", Julie, because I think you are right on a lot of things. I would recommend that all Catholics go to the Blessed Sacrament OFTEN and pray that God will give them wisdom and counsel and a heart for the truth, because we surely all need it. We are ALL so likely to deceive ourselves, and the result is the confusions of thoughts that we see nowadays -- everything from Scientology to materialism and the list could go on and on.
But my point is that the Catholic narrative does base itself on something entirely different than the "wise holy man and his followers" basic idea, IF you can accept that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. If you say that Jesus founded Christianity and a Church, then Christianity's claim to be different rests upon the fact that its founder was divine and He intentionally built a Church and gave us His Spirit until the end of time to solve the problem of future disciples trying to solve future problems that couldn't be anticipated very well ahead of time. IF you (not you personally, but the generic truth-seeking person) think that Jesus was a holy person but not divine, then you have to explain the miracles, His claims to be divine, and His Resurrection. IF you explain these by saying that His disciples added all that stuff later and that Jesus didn't really claim to be divine or work any miracles, that the "resurrection" was a hoax, then you are indeed back in the camp of "one holy man and a bunch of followers that are trying to apply his wisdom". But then, it's truly all up for grabs again because what makes Jesus then different from Mohammed or Buddha except that we grew up in that tradition or that we happen to think it's more pleasant or beautiful? A sort of implicit admission, there, that brings us to believe that God, if He exists, wants us to struggle not just with the big issues that we see with our eyes, like horrible diseases, hurricanes and how we can mean well and yet offend our nearest and dearest; but even to have to hazard to guess at the things that we would have no way of finding out about by reason... and the stakes are eternal if you guess it wrong. Surely He wouldn't set it up like that and in fact, according to the Bible, He didn't.
That was the thinking process that brought me out of Protestantism into agnosticism, then back into the Christian faith and then into the Catholic Church.
I think you are absolutely right that for different cultures and different mindsets, the approach to evangelization will need to be different. I would add that we can do a lot by our prayers and by our lives, letting God work through us. If we all did that perfectly, we probably wouldn't have all the problems we see in our society and globally nowadays. But we don't, and it is sad.
I think you are also right that the many sins and misinterpretations of the Church's teachings through history have led to cruelty, heartbreak, etc -- that is the exact definition of the word "scandal".
We have to distinguish though between what is taught, and what is done in the name of the teaching -- two different things. There is the beauty you mention, and then there is such ugliness. The ugliness is our own, I believe. The eternal Beauty though is what attracts me to the Church..... the pearl, though swine have left their muddy tracks.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Aug 22 2005 at 6:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
alicegunther wrote:
| At any rate, Galileo was *never* excommunicated. |
|
|
We are always learning new things here... 
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen E.
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
|
| Posted: Aug 23 2005 at 12:29am | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
IF you (not you personally, but the generic truth-seeking person) think that Jesus was a holy person but not divine, then you have to explain the miracles, His claims to be divine, and His Resurrection. IF you explain these by saying that His disciples added all that stuff later and that Jesus didn't really claim to be divine or work any miracles, that the "resurrection" was a hoax, then you are indeed back in the camp of "one holy man and a bunch of followers that are trying to apply his wisdom". But then, it's truly all up for grabs again because what makes Jesus then different from Mohammed or Buddha except that we grew up in that tradition or that we happen to think it's more pleasant or beautiful? |
|
|
I'm really late to this thread, and can't add anything much, but I was struck, as Mary was, by yesterday's Gospel reading at Mass -- Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?"
And it all comes back to that, really. Having grown up without Christianity, I really started at square one as an adult seeker. Once I believed that God -- some kind of God, but I didn't know Who/What yet -- was making some kind of claim on my life, I looked at all kinds of options -- Buddhism? Judaism? What about this Christianity business? One can't look seriously at religion and not eventually have to answer some questions about who this Jesus person was. "Who do you say I am?"
That question took many forms during my initial search. "Who do I say God is?" ... "Who do I say Jesus is?" ... and eventually, whether I wanted to face it or not, "Who do I say the Catholic Church is?"
And, as others have pointed out, our intellects can only take us so far. At a certain point, we realize that we are not in charge of the answer. We abandon ourselves to God and ask Him to direct our feet onto the next step of that path.
The church on earth, because it's both human and divine, is full of both the wheat and the tares. We can't eradicate the "weeds" entirely ... that's not our job.
But, we can answer the question, "Who do you say that I am?" And then we go from there, one day and one encounter (with wheat and with tares) at a time.
__________________
God bless,
Karen E.
mom to three on earth, and several souls in God's care
Visit my blog, with its shockingly clever title, "Karen Edmisten."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Aug 23 2005 at 9:01am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm really unable to answer adequately to all the wonderful links and replies here. Thank you. (Patrick, I own and have read two books by Thomas Dubay: The Evidential Power of Beauty and Fire Within...)
Also, it might help to remember that I've been a Christian for 25 years. I'm not unfamiliar with the framing of the arguments for faith in Christ or how to understand other religions in light of Christianity. I've offered the same ones for years. I'm sort of at the opposite end of the continuum because I'm evaluating claims I've believed with my whole heart in light of new information that has modified how I understand it. I've spent a ton of time on the question of "who is saved" because it has been of primary importance to me. I actually do know something of the Catholic position on that question, having studied it both privately and in grad school last year.
I brought up the issues about Jesus not because I've not understood Jesus as God but because I am looking at how that claim is experienced in other cultures and what that says about our theology of salvation and evangelism etc. This is something of a specialty of mine. Imho, it's difficult to grasp the scope of how significant this issue is if you haven't lived abroad or studied other cultures/religions in depth.
Your collective insights into how the Catholic church works, how it develops its doctrine, the mistaken notions of how the Church has treated people like Galileo etc. are really wonderful and I appreciate the time being taken to give me so much to chew on. I am going to dig out my catechism and do some reading.
Julie~~who starts New Testament Greek tonight!
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Aug 23 2005 at 10:23am | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
(Patrick, I own and have read two books by Thomas Dubay: The Evidential Power of Beauty and Fire Within...)...
....Also, it might help to remember that I've been a Christian for 25 years. I'm not unfamiliar with the framing of the arguments for faith in Christ or how to understand other religions in light of Christianity....
Julie~~who starts New Testament Greek tonight! |
|
|
Julie,
Sorry about merging together these clips -- I haven't figured out how to quote things individually without spending lots of time....!
Good luck with the NT Greek! My oldest got ahead of me with that -- I really want to learn it for real sometime. That's the one you're taking with your oldest, right? I'd love that opportunity ...
That Thomas Dubay book about Beauty sounds interesting-- I have The Fire Within and Blessed are the Poor and have gotten a lot out of them.
About you already KNOWING your faith and how to present the basic arguments -- I cringed a bit looking over some of my posts thinking that they sounded so superficial and possibly even patronizing... I sure hope not. I KNOW you are well read and have much experience in Christianity. It's part of the language problem that was on my mind yesterday -- (1) we are in a public forum where many varieties of different Christians or possibly even non-Christians are possibly "listening" and (2) we have to spell things out because we don't want to assume something that remains to be proved.
I suppose that's one reason why contemplative prayer can be as effective or more so than explicit person to person evangelization, though obviously the latter is necessary too. Anyway, this whole issue gave me some specific ways to pray for our whole world situation and our Catholic Church and I am intending to persevere in doing so.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen E.
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
|
| Posted: Aug 23 2005 at 2:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
| What I am interested in now is how all of us (not just Americans or Europeans who've had a Christian worldview for 2000 years, but Musliims, Africans, Indians, Aisians...) form worldviews |
|
|
In trying to remember what started this thread, I went back a few posts and found this ... I think this is at heart of what you're getting at -- is that right, Julie?
And I think that the natural reaction of a bunch of Catholics (not naming any names, but, ummm... well, most of us here ) is to say that we are beginning from such radically different premises that it's hard to know where to take this discussion. Catholics, of course, believe the Church to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic institution of the Divine. Not that we're arrogant ...  But, we believe God was working toward the Catholic Church since Adam and Eve -- it's far more than just 2000 years of tradition. And, since we believe that the Church is the only place on earth that we've been able to find clear, consistent, objective teaching on faith and morals, perhaps we too casually toss aside questions about how other religions fit into all of this. I don't think anyone means to.
I understand completely what you're saying, Julie, when you say you find it intellectually interesting and challenging to study cultures, religions, and beliefs, and to question why, if the Catholic Church (to use just one example) is so Right, Real, and True, isn't it doing a better job? It's a valid question. If God has revealed an objective Truth, why isn't it more closely adhered to and why isn't it just plain clear to all of us? (If I were making a circular argument, I'd say here that our fallen nature is the reason, but then you could rightly say, "Aha! The Fall is a Christian belief, so you're arguing from your own bias again!")
But, bias doesn't necessarily negate an argument if the argument is objectively true. I'm biased in favor of one and one being equal to two as well. And that is precisely how a Catholic views the Church -- it's a fact that can be trusted. Some people follow it because they were brought up to believe it was true, some of us began to follow it only after exhaustive study. But the point we've all reached is the same -- if it's Truth, it must be followed and it can be trusted.
If I understand you correctly, you see a bigger picture that you feel others aren't grasping -- the challenge to look beyond one's own culture and religious tradition to see that there are many "varieties of religious experience" (to quote William James) in the world. And, your conclusion thus far is that the variety itself is telling -- no one religion can dominate or make a claim to ultimate Truth. In my opinion, that rather diminishes God and waters down the very idea of Truth. Saying that Truth is something that can be interpreted in a relative way is to make it something other than Truth. (It *is* true to say that God can be experienced in a variety of ways, but that's a separate issue from His revelation of Truth.)
Also, if I'm understanding your main interest correctly, it begs the question -- how is a Muslim raised knowing only Islam any different from a Christian raised knowing only Methodism, or an Indian raised only to know Hinduism? If the point is that we all become what we're raised with or what's most culturally comfortable, well, that's certainly partially true. Many people never look beyond their own family tree for Truth, whether that family tree is in Anytown, USA or in the middle east or elsewhere. Many others, however, do search and study and reach conclusions that are far outside of their original "comfort zones." I was one of those.
The fact that there are so many expressions of religion in the world all circle back to the same questions: Who is God really? Where and how has He revealed Himself? Where do I find His Truth?
__________________
God bless,
Karen E.
mom to three on earth, and several souls in God's care
Visit my blog, with its shockingly clever title, "Karen Edmisten."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: Aug 23 2005 at 2:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
| What I am interested in now is how all of us (not just Americans or Europeans who've had a Christian worldview for 2000 years, but Musliims, Africans, Indians, Aisians...) form worldviews |
|
|
A great historian to read is Christopher Dawson. He was a Catholic, but focuses on worldviews and has insights about the different types of influences the world religions have had. His work is respected by secular and Catholic historians alike.
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Aug 24 2005 at 10:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks for Christpher Dawson's name. I'll look him up. I don't know him and love to add new names to my list of people to consider. I start a new class tonight that is called Global Ethics and Religion taught by two Catholics, as a matter of fact, so I should be deep in these ideas starting tonight.
Karen I wanted to thank you for trying to articulate my position. You did a great job of narrating how you read me.
Indeed, these questions about the nature of truth and the universality of it drove me into a thorough investigatory period of matters related to faith. Hans Kung was a huge influence on my thinking when I began this study. His work _On Being Christian_ kept me in the faith. I found his scholarship as well as his exahaustive explanations (both exhaustive and exhausting, I must admit) so useful for helping me articulate better questions.
I'm also a big Dietrich Bonhoeffer fan and have written several papers now about his theology and ethics.
As I puruse my studies in theology, I've come a place where my goal isn't the acquisition of answers, but a sharper mind for questions. It's been my experience that saturation of material combined with incubation produces questions that lead to insight, not necessarily answers.
My experience of God, then, in the last five years, is process-oriented, rather than goal-oriented. Catholicism has given me a much wider field of theological reflection to draw on than my evangelical roots so I appreciate it for that. I respect the inter-Church dialog across the ages and find it stimulating. I've also attended Catholic mass several times over the course of these years as I ponder what I study.
Willa, not to worry about sounding condescending. I don't take it that way. I hope I don't come across as "been there, done that" either. I am genuinely interested, even if I am not in the same place.
You said:
And, as others have pointed out, our intellects can only take us so far. At a certain point, we realize that we are not in charge of the answer. We abandon ourselves to God and ask Him to direct our feet onto the next step of that path.
This is how I began my quest... with this very heart attitude. I consider the process I'm in one that is allowing my path to be directed.
Intellect is not in opposition to faith. Faith is the expression of trust. Trust is always rooted in confidence in the reliability of the trusted. Confidence is born out of experience, reason, example, and inner witness. That's why we can't always explain why we have faith, or how we got it. That's why we credit the Spirit with giving or imparting faith. It comes from where we know not of. We have forces working in us that we can't articulate, but that buoy us and support us and offer us little life boats when the seas get stormy. I am in that place... trust.
I have great respect for the power of faith and trust. I also know how important it is to respect the questions that come from reason. A lack of internal congruence is damning, literally. It leads to pretense and pretense is never capable of faith or trust.
Thanks for exploring these ideas with me. Gotta get back to my home responsibilities (iow, Flylady is calling me!)
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen E.
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
|
| Posted: Aug 24 2005 at 2:31pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
Intellect is not in opposition to faith. |
|
|
Oh, no, not at all ... I hope I didn't imply that I believe it is. I didn't mean to. As one who came to the faith only after loads of intellectual study, I'd be the first to argue that God gave us both an intellect and a will. My other statement seems to diminish my "faith in intellect", if you will.
Also, I think others mentioned the encyclical "Faith and Reason" -- one of the most edifying things one could hope to read.
Out of time for now ....
__________________
God bless,
Karen E.
mom to three on earth, and several souls in God's care
Visit my blog, with its shockingly clever title, "Karen Edmisten."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Domestic Church
Topic: Catholicism by Richard P. McBrien
