| Author | |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Aug 20 2005 at 1:54pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
juliecinci wrote:
This is a question I'd like to ask some of my professors. 
|
|
|
Dying to hear what they say.
Of course, Xavier is not the most orthodox of Catholic colleges, but even those institutions which have strayed the farthest usually have a few orthodox on the payroll.
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momwise
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 28 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
| Posted: Aug 20 2005 at 3:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Since this thread is about the orthodoxy of Fr. McBrien, I thought I'd point out that last night on Nightline there was a report about a lone nun who prayed in front of (name of Cathedral) where Tom Hanks and Ron Howard are filming The DaVinci Code. She pointed out that the book has numerous errors that are heretical and blasphemous. Up pops Fr. and it turns out he is the "Catholic" consultant to the film. He chided the Vatican for being too zealous in their criticism of the film. After all, according to him, it's "just a book." Nevertheless, Dan Brown said with his own lips right on the show that although he started out to disprove the theories in DaVinci Code, he was led to believe in them by the "evidence."
__________________
Gwen...wife for 30 years, mom of 7, grandma of 3.....
"If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." JPII
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Taffy
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 05 2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1567
|
| Posted: Aug 20 2005 at 4:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I haven’t read or even heard of the book “Catholicism” by Richard P. McBrien but I would like to make a comment about the discussion on this thread.
I think that the main problem with these types of books is that they purport to tell the reader what the Catholic faith teaches, then distort what the teachings actually are. The Catholic Church’s teachings have all been clearly spelled out in “Catechism of the Catholic Church: Revised in Accordance With the Official Latin Text Promulgated by Pope John Paul II”, (link for Amazon's description). Since the Vatican is the head of the Catholic Church, then one must assume that they are the ultimate authority on what the Catholic Church teaches.
McBrien's interpretations of what the church teaches seem to be in question here. Maybe he should have titled his book “My interpretations as to what the Catholic Church teaches”?
We here all have our reasons for being Catholic. Mine is that it is the religion that seems to be most concerned with ultimate truth - not what the “flavor of the month” is. The Church doesn't make its decisions based on a popular vote; rather, the works of many scholars and the Bible and Sacred Tradition guides her decisions.
I believe that we are all ultimately responsible for the choices we make in life. When I meet God after I die, I want to know that I am being judged on what I believed; therefore, it’s important that I become educated on what the church teaches and form opinions regarding her teachings. God will know where I am in disagreement or agreement with the Church’s teachings and only He will know if my choices are acceptable. I do not want to be condemned because I took the easy way out and blindly followed my church leaders. I want to know what I am saying I believe when I recite the Apostle's Creed, the Hail Mary, etc. That is why education is SO IMPORTANT. If I am to truly believe in something, then I must understand what I say I'm believing and decide if it's something I can honestly believe and teach others to believe. The Church's teaching's and guidelines allow me to know what the framework for my study is. When I am in agreement, there is no problem. When I am in disagreement, I know that there is an issue to resolve and that I need to make a decision. Many people don't know what the framework of catholic teachings is (myself included - I've only recently been starting to learn). As I study and learn about the catholicism I've followed fairly thoughtlessly before, God is becoming more real to me, more believable, and more important.
Regarding this book, it seems that if you are looking for an accurate description of the catholic faith, you are best served by looking elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Liz
__________________
Susan
Mom to 5 on earth and 1 in heaven
Susan's Soliloquy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Marybeth
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 02 2005
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1277
|
| Posted: Aug 20 2005 at 5:08pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
hmmmm....interesting what Dan Brown claims he was led to believe since he mixed up certain key figures in Jesus' time and in his dedication gives his love to his mil and wife for leading him to the sacred feminine.....ho much actual research could he have done....AAAHHH!!! Why does my least favorite book of all-time which is so poorly written get so much press?????
sorry....my tangent got my temper up....I agree with Liz if you are sincerely looking for good, solid Catholic books to read about the faith there are many authors who can help serve us better than McBrien
Maybe people could share their favorites?
Marybeth
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen T
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 16 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 927
|
| Posted: Aug 20 2005 at 11:27pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Julie,
I hope I can add a few thoughts here on the Protestant subjective vs. Catholic objective idea you mentioned. I was raised in the Methodist church primarily, but at various times attended several other Protestant denominations. While they all claim "sola scriptura" as their authority, they all disagreed on doctrine. Even individual churches within one denomination have differences. If a pastor strays a little too far off the beaten path, of course, he leaves and takes a few followers and starts a new church. All interpretation is left up to the individual. Yes, the Holy Spirit helps, but I can promise you that not every person sitting in church on Sunday (Protestant or Catholic) is listening to the Spirit. So how do they interpret what they hear? In the Catholic church, the "correct" interpretation has been passed down through the authority of the Magisterium. This is what Jesus began when said he would build his church on the rock of Peter. He sent the Holy Spirit to enable the Apostles to teach correctly from the beginning. There was no written Bible at the time!
Now, on a personal level, I must admit that when I first became a Catholic, I was a cafeteria Catholic. I had trouble with certain issues, contraception being one of them, based on what I was taught in Protestant Churches and in the public schools. So, although I professed belief in the church's teachings, in secret I denied that one. Obviously in retrospect, I was committing a big sin by becoming a Catholic at that point, but I didn't fully understand that then. For years I went on in this way, attending Mass and that's about it. Then something happened about 3 years ago and I began to delve much more deeply into the Church, reading everything I could find. I took a Bible study at our parish, attended Light Weigh at another one (didn't lose much weight but I learned about the saints for the first time!) Each thing I did or read led me to more reading. I began to see my errors and at first I resisted giving up my reservations. I wanted to be a Catholic but it was hard, yk? But exactly what Elizabeth wrote occurred: I began with faith, and faith led to understanding. My whole thinking on this and some other issues turned completely around. If it had not, I probably would have left the church and become Protestant again. But b/c I knew the Church was right on so many other things (not the least of which is The Real Presence) I had to trust she was right on all of it.
I'm not sure I'm making sense; this is the first time I've really tried to articulate what happened to me over the last few years.
Now, we've used contraception as an example even though there may be many other issues that we struggle with. But I wanted to point out that before about 1930? (can't recall exact date) every single Christian denomination believed contraception to be morally evil, only one step less than abortion, which was also obviously evil. Why would the truth only begin to be known in the latter half of the 20th century, if you believe that it's OK?
I have read so many helpful books over the last couple years, but I think I began with Scott Hahn. He is a former Protestant pastor who was vehemently anti-Catholic, then converted. His book Rome Sweet Rome is a good place to start (his and his wife's conversion story) but he has several that delve more deeply into specific doctrine (The Lamb's Supper, Hail Holy Queen, etc.)
Another I read just last summer that really cemented my new belief on contraception was Christopher West's The Good News about Sex and Marriage. he writes and speaks on JPII's Theology of the Body, which of course is the wonderful original teaching, but West's book explains it very easily if you're not into reading papal documents
Sorry for the long post; someone please gently correct this former protestant if I've erred 
Karen T
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2005 at 10:16am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi Karen.
Thanks for your thoughts. I have read and listened to Scott Hahn (and his wife). They do a good job of explaining their journey. I have several friends who've converted to Catholicism as well from a Protestant background who recommended them and I feel I have a grasp of what the attraction is to Catholic teaching versus Protestant.
I have a different background, having been raised Catholic until high school, converting to Protestantism in college and then re-evaluating all of it in the last five years. I've shared here before that many Catholic theologians have been instrumental in my rethinking. They turn out to be Catholics, however, who are sometimes in tension with the magisterium.
That may be why they speak to me. They deal with similar issues that have troubled me and so I find that I can "track" their thinking because they are on the same page as far as how they frame the issues in Christian doctrine. Also, the Catholic theologians have a rich tradition and history of theological reflection that makes delving into these issues satisfying. There's lots to chew on.
My issues with faith are much broader than Catholic versus Protestant. I appreciate Christianity deeply - in both my Catholic and Protestant backgrounds, I have been profoundly guided by the vision of the kingdom of God (the Sermon on the Mount values), the beauty of the ideals that Jesus set forth, the message of forgiveness for sin and brokenness, the offer of hope that we can triumph over that brokenness to offer kindness to others, the help that the Bible is in engaging with life's most important issues, the framework for living as a family with love and commitment, the pro-life position of both Catholics and Protestants...
Christianity has had the chief role of formational influence in my adult life, and even my childhood.
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, how we develop values and ethics, where our notions of the divine come from and what role they have in creating and damaging the cultures we inhabit as well as the ones we try to influence.
I don't hold to the idea that divine truth is revealed in exclusivity to one group to be disseminated to other groups. This is probably the chief distinction between me and those of you here. That said, I'm deeply moved by the beauty of the expression of truth that this group lives and embodies in their families and on this forum.
As far as birth control:
My husband and I were among those Protestants that believed b.c. was evil and that it was right and good to trust God with our family size. We have five kids and they were a result of that viewpoint. My mother, a RC from birth, was stunned by our devotion to that position since even the RC believes in NFP which fundamentalist Protestants reject as being "unbiblical."
I share these thoughts not to argue but to let you know where I'm coming from. For me, the experience of living abroad in a Muslim country has had a profound influence on how I think about matters of faith. And I'm thoroughly enjoying studying theology with some brilliant professors at Xavier university. The conversations here give me some fun ideas to bat around with them, that's for sure.
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
alicegunther
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1992
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2005 at 11:01am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Forgive me for jumping in so late, but we were away on vacation!
Elizabeth wrote:
When you decide to be Catholic, you decide not to abandon reason, but to temper it with faith.You can step out in faith and accept something even if you don't intellectually understand it and then, one day, with grace, you might actually find you embrace it with heart, soul and mind.  |
|
|
I have taught my children that if someone ever tells them something about church teaching that confuses them or sounds wrong, they should feel confident that the church is correct and have no fear of it. Then they should go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church or other papally promulgated sources to find the answer or explanation. The Magisterium is the compass that points true north and will assist them throughout their lives. It is a beautiful thing that Christ did not "leave [us] orphans," but gave us a final authority in difficult situations.
The book, "Catholicism," cannot receive an imprimatur, because, in spite of its authoritative title, it does not articulate the Catholic faith. McBrien disagrees with many (perhaps most) of the truths of our faith including the sinlessness of Christ, papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals, the virginal conception of Jesus, and many others. A bishop in good standing could not give a book promoting these views a certificate of authenticity.
When John Paul II became pope, he recognized the confusion that had descended upon the church in the wake of Vatican II, and ordered the preparation of a new Catechism. This book, written in large measure by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, showed that the truths of our Faith are unchanging and that many of the doctrines thought to have been altered or discarded by Vatican II were alive and well. The Catechism is a gold mine of truth and is the true book with the right to be called "Catholicism."
By the way, it is interesting to note that in the days preceding the election of our current pope, Richard McBrien was appearing on television, giving his usual opinion. Here are some quotes from a discussion on a homily given by Cardinal Ratzinger during the conclave:
"The Rev. Richard P. McBrien, a theologian at the University of Notre Dame, said Ratzinger's homily indicated that he believes the pope's role is to 'protect the sheep from the prowling wolves of unorthodoxy and relativism. He wants to defend the fact that truth is absolute and the church must speak the truth and be faithful to it.'"
"McBrien added, 'If Cardinal Ratzinger were really campaigning for pope, he would have given a far more conciliatory homily designed to appeal to the moderates as well as the hard-liners among the cardinals.'"
"'I think this homily shows he realizes he's not going to be elected. He's too much of a polarizing figure,' McBrien said. 'If he were elected, thousands upon thousands of Catholics in Europe and the United States would roll their eyes and retreat to the margins of the church.'"
(The Washington Post, April 19, 2005)
McBrien was certainly right about a couple of things--Cardinal Ratzinger was *not* campaigning, and he does see the role of the pope as one of protecting the faithful from the "prowling wolves of unorthodoxy and relativism." Now, calling those who would dismantle the Faith "prowling wolves" may seem harsh, but, don't forget, those are McBrien's words, not mine!
If you are interested in articles opposing the views of Richard McBrien, please go to:
The Trouble with Catholicism and Theology According to Richard McBrien.
__________________
Love, Alice
mother of seven!
   
Cottage Blessings
Brew yourself a cup of tea, and come for a visit!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
alicegunther
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1992
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2005 at 11:03am | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
| That said, I'm deeply moved by the beauty of the expression of truth that this group lives and embodies in their families and on this forum. |
|
|
Many thanks, Julie--and thank you for sharing your journey of faith with us.
__________________
Love, Alice
mother of seven!
Cottage Blessings
Brew yourself a cup of tea, and come for a visit!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2005 at 12:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
| I don't hold to the idea that divine truth is revealed in exclusivity to one group to be disseminated to other groups. |
|
|
Dear Julie,
I've been following this thread but knew it would be difficult to jump in without thinking a bit -- anyway, I am glad you continue to express your differences with and attraction to Catholic orthodoxy -- that you are willing to "engage" this way. I have been thinking hard about your points, even though I haven't posted!
The CCC says: "The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332 Article 9
Also, "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these [non-Christian] religions." (Nostra Aetate)
So the Church DOES acknowledge that people outside the formal body of the Church can be honestly seeking divine truth and that they can find bits and pieces. The honest, open search for Truth is a preparation of oneself to find it. So often though, as sinners we WANT to believe that truth is basically what we already think or prefer to believe. That's the frustrating part of living as humans -- it's so hard to get outside of oneself and one's own preoccupations. Probably the willingness to search and look outside one's preconceptions is a manifestation of God's grace. I know that my journey from teenage semi-agnostic to Christian to Catholic is a story of grace, not my own wisdom : ).
Of course, the Church DOES also hold that it has a unique role in preserving and interpreting the deposit of faith. It maintains that it received this duty from what Jesus said to the Apostles particularly Peter as it was recorded in the Scriptures.
The main reason I am a Catholic at all rather than an agnostic or Protestant, and a Catholic who assents to the Magisterium in entire rather than a "cafeteria" or "bits and pieces" Catholic -- is because of the Catholic doctrine about the founding and mission of the Catholic Church. Every other religion expected me to believe THEIR interpretations of truth basically because THEY said so. A Protestant will claim that Scriptures alone are the rule of faith, but that isn't actually found in Scriptures, so right away there is a "tradition of man" that you have to believe just because they say so. And for that matter, where does the Bible come from? There's no satisfying answer to that question from a Protestant perspective. From what I understand, every other religion has some prophet or wise man who just basically expresses his or her understanding of Divine Truth and expects me either to assent to it because the other person believes it, or because *I* happen to think it's appealing.
The Catholic theologians that dissent openly from the Magisterium fall into the same philosophical black hole as far as I am concerned. They want me to believe, either because they are theologians or because I happen to prefer their thoughts on doctrine to what the Magisterium says, that they are right and the Magisterium is wrong. Why should I? To me, that is ultimately dissatisying -- the reason I moved into agnosticism from an Evangelical Protestant upbringing. Why should I take anyone's word for truths that are basically beyond the human grasp? Why should I simply consult my own personal prefernces? The quest for religious truth then becomes either purely subjective and personalist, or a matter of blindly assenting to someone else's ideas because "they are the experts" somehow.
The Catholic Church is the only faith that even has a solution to this dead-end, as far as I have ever seen in any religion. No other system of belief even gives an answer to this basic difficulty. The Church's claim to preserve and transmit "divine truths" does not come from a claim to superior intelligence, holiness, or some inside personal insight. Peter, who was uneducated, personally weak and inconsistent, and not especially acute psychologically, is the "rock" upon which Christ built His Church -- to demonstrate that it was Christ, not His Vicar, doing the preserving.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church does acknowledge that a Muslim or Jew or Protestant Christian may WELL be on the journey towards truth and that they may be partakers in divine truth -- however, NOT when their tenets conflict with the Church's tenets. If there is Truth, it cannot contradict itself. To me, rampant subjectivism in religion is unsatisying -- "oh, it's fine if you believe in Nirvana and I believe in the Dark Night of the Soul -- one's true for you, the other's true for me". But how can both be "right" where they contradict, unless faith is relegated to personal opinion like what brand of ice cream is more flavorful? To me, religion is not personal opinion -- it MATTERS, like gravity matters. It's to do with our ultimate calling and destiny. It matters more than any physical law. It's important to me not to get it "wrong"; at least, if I can avoid doing so.
Of course, there is a valid form of subjectivity and you already made that point well, Julie -- that everyone needs to make a personal assent to Truth, which involves knowing the truth and making a commitment to align oneself with it. And that everyone's journey is different -- my way of living out my faith will be very different from yours or St Thomas Aquinas's or anyone else's. But different within general principles, just like relationships are unique but need to follow general principles in order to be fully functional, or like gravity acts differently on me than on my 2 year old : )
So I guess the bottom line for me is that IF the Church is right that it has those "keys to the kingdom" -- that God entrusted it with a special role -- then I have to give credence to its teaching on even the thorny issues where I'd naturally be inclined to disagree. IF the Church is wrong about its unique role, how can I trust it on anything else? Why should I listen to it at all, really? Even the Bible is suspect at that point, because it was passed down and shaped by the Church.
But this dilemma is also a solution -- IF I can accept that the Church has a unique evangelium, that it is a trustworthy witness to Revelation, THEN I am free from not only my own personal subjectivism but ALSO from the "experts", the false prophets, everyone who claims that they are right, and I must listen to them. I'm freed from the limitations of my own brain and psychology.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen T
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 16 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 927
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2005 at 4:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
So I guess the bottom line for me is that IF the Church is right that it has those "keys to the kingdom" -- that God entrusted it with a special role -- then I have to give credence to its teaching on even the thorny issues where I'd naturally be inclined to disagree. IF the Church is wrong about its unique role, how can I trust it on anything else? Why should I listen to it at all, really? Even the Bible is suspect at that point, because it was passed down and shaped by the Church.
But this dilemma is also a solution -- IF I can accept that the Church has a unique evangelium, that it is a trustworthy witness to Revelation, THEN I am free from not only my own personal subjectivism but ALSO from the "experts", the false prophets, everyone who claims that they are right, and I must listen to them. I'm freed from the limitations of my own brain and psychology. |
|
|
Willa, you said what I was trying to say, so much more eloquently, as usual.
Karen T
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2005 at 6:12pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
Of course, the Church DOES also hold that it has a unique role in preserving and interpreting the deposit of faith. It maintains that it received this duty from what Jesus said to the Apostles particularly Peter as it was recorded in the Scriptures. |
|
|
When you say "interpreting" and "the Church," you are trusting that the representatives in the Church are making judgments about doctrine (interpretation) that are error-free because they come from God, correct?
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.
Additionally, the interpretation of who is saved has changed (Vatican II). It used to be prior that "Outside the Church, there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesia nulla salus) - now the Church affirms that there are truths that God has included in other cultures, while the Church posesses the whole truth... Karl Rahner has developed this position to what he calls "anonymous Christians."
WJFR wrote:
From what I understand, every other religion has some prophet or wise man who just basically expresses his or her understanding of Divine Truth and expects me either to assent to it because the other person believes it, or because *I* happen to think it's appealing. |
|
|
Sounds pretty similar to Christianity.
WJFR wrote:
| The quest for religious truth then becomes either purely subjective and personalist, or a matter of blindly assenting to someone else's ideas because "they are the experts" somehow. |
|
|
...which is what the Catholic Church asserts... that they are the experts because they have unique access to the things of God. This is what prophets everywhere assert so in that way, the RC is not unique.
WJFR wrote:
The Catholic Church is the only faith that even has a solution to this dead-end, as far as I have ever seen in any religion. No other system of belief even gives an answer to this basic difficulty. The Church's claim to preserve and transmit "divine truths" does not come from a claim to superior intelligence, holiness, or some inside personal insight. Peter, who was uneducated, personally weak and inconsistent, and not especially acute psychologically, is the "rock" upon which Christ built His Church -- to demonstrate that it was Christ, not His Vicar, doing the preserving. |
|
|
Jesus claims divine knowledge, though, and it requires a person's assent that Jesus is who he says he is, right? I'm not arguing that he isn't who he says he is, only that a person must choose to believe in Jesus as we've all understood him through our church traditions. If you are not a Catholic, for instance, the first step is to determine who Jesus is. You can't follow the teachings of the Catholic Church as authoritative if you don't accept that Jesus is God. How does one do that apart from a subjective, private judgment? The church can't be the one to tell you Jesus is divine because they derive their authority from the belief that Jesus is the authority over them.
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.
To bring them to an understanding of Jesus as God is as foreign to them as it is to us to consider Mohamed a prophet. It takes a huge amount of changed thinking and a rejection of culture, history and identity in order to even consider the possibility of Jesus' divinity. See what I mean?
I'm not trying to argue. My point is that there are presuppositions for all faiths and each one answers the question of 'T'ruth uniquely. Mohammed claims to have received direct revelation from God and that the Koran was written verbatim from God through him. He has miracles to verify this claim. Why don't you or I believe them? He says the miracles are of divine origin. The clerics in Islam then teach what they call "pure Islam" through practice and memorization of the VERY words of God. They see the Koran as answering all of life's problems and offering the clearest of truths for everyone on the planet. That's why they are so zealous to protect Islam from the invasion of the west.
I think we are used to our presuppositions so they feel right/true whereas if we are challenged to think the way another culture thinks, we automatically feel they are off base because they are so unfamiliar. That feeling goes both ways.
WJFR wrote:
Furthermore, the Catholic Church does acknowledge that a Muslim or Jew or Protestant Christian may WELL be on the journey towards truth and that they may be partakers in divine truth -- however, NOT when their tenets conflict with the Church's tenets. |
|
|
I understand this. That's one of the challenges every religion faces - allowing for some truth in the other culture while requiring that other faith system to change or submit.
Using Islam again as a measuring stick, we are not amenable to this same assertion - that our Christian truths are fine as long as they line up with the Koran, right?
WJFR wrote:
If there is Truth, it cannot contradict itself. |
|
|
This kind of truth presupposes propositions (which are often responsible for the worldwide conflicts over religions - whose is right? Let's fight). It may be that the "truth" that we seek is not propositional at all. It may have something to do with underlying values and aims and ideals. Mayhaps! Just exploring.
WJFR wrote:
To me, rampant subjectivism in religion is unsatisying -- "oh, it's fine if you believe in Nirvana and I believe in the Dark Night of the Soul -- one's true for you, the other's true for me".
|
|
|
Actually, in spite of being from California , that's not what I mean at all. I'm thinking more of the fact that we all are drawn to narratives that create meaning and add texture and mission to our lives. It isn't so much that Nirvana and Dark Nights are two names for the same thing. Rather, I believe they are radically different ways of understanding life.
But in both cases, those who understand them from the inside see them as true... and in a world where truth claims compete (rather than coexist), a lot of blood is shed.
It may be instead that there are varieties of experiences that point to God and that these don't need to compete... that's one of my questions.
WJFR wrote:
But how can both be "right" where they contradict, unless faith is relegated to personal opinion like what brand of ice cream is more flavorful? |
|
|
This is often how these issues get reduced. Really, though, the issue is far more complex than ice cream flavors. (I know you know that.)
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).
My interest is global. Can't help it. I was a missionary first.
So for me the question isn't "how can both be true?" but rather "why aren't either of them entirely and successfully true for all?"
WJFR wrote:
| So I guess the bottom line for me is that IF the Church is right that it has those "keys to the kingdom" -- that God entrusted it with a special role -- then I have to give credence to its teaching on even the thorny issues where I'd naturally be inclined to disagree. |
|
|
I agree. It does make sense to me that if you see the Church as having the truth, you'd submit to it. I also see the value in living according to the Church's teachings in the lives of those I admire here. There is beauty in Catholicism. I've seen it and enjoy it!
WJFR wrote:
IF the Church is wrong about its unique role, how can I trust it on anything else? Why should I listen to it at all, really? Even the Bible is suspect at that point, because it was passed down and shaped by the Church. |
|
|
That's right.
WJFR wrote:
But this dilemma is also a solution -- IF I can accept that the Church has a unique evangelium, that it is a trustworthy witness to Revelation, THEN I am free from not only my own personal subjectivism but ALSO from the "experts", the false prophets, everyone who claims that they are right, and I must listen to them. I'm freed from the limitations of my own brain and psychology. |
|
|
Instead, you must opt for the subjectivity of men who are believed to hear clearly from God. I have doubts about the possibility of this. But I do understand that if you come to the conclusion that men do have this power and that they are successful in that endeavor, it makes sense to live life in light of it.
Peace,
Julie
P.S. I'll be scarce the next day or two so I don't mean to ignore follow up posts. Just won't be around very much online.
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2005 at 6:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
MaryM wrote:
the article also quotes some of John Paul II's teachings which encourage this scholarship "faith... has no fear of reason but seeks it out and has trust in it"
"by faith, reason is set free from the fragility and limitations deriving from the disobiendence of sin and finds the strength required to rise to the knowledge of the Triune God" (Fides et Ratio 43:2) Full document Fides et Ratio can be found here.
|
|
|
I'm late here and not nearly knowledgable enough to really offer any input, but I wanted to highlight this again. Willa touched on this as well in her post.
I believe with everything in me that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus instituted and that it does hold the fullness of the truth. Certainly truth is to be found in other places. Yet God chose to leave the Church as the keepers of the keys. We need to submit in humility to God's wisdom through his Church even when our limited reason can't make sense of it. We are all subject to "the fragility and limitations deriving from the disobiendence of sin".
I know that in a previous conversation it was suggested that you read some of Pope John Paul II's writings. Have you pursued that?
I became Catholic without understanding everything. I came to understand and believe in the truth of the Church. Based on that understanding I could accept in faith all else the Church taught. Honestly, I think you raise very good questions that reflect an honest search for truth. I can tell that what's been said here hasn't been said in a way that hits you yet. You are just not at the point where you can simply accept in faith all the things you do not understand.
It seems you are struggling because your intellect leans in a direction that doesn't match up with what the magisterium teaches. You seem to be attracted to something that is not completely Catholic.
I believe there is wisdom to be found within the Church that is quite capable of challenging your reason and providing the answers you seek without forcing you to look outside the fullness of the Church. I know that when I have read encyclicals and the cathechism I have been astounded by the wisdom there. I'm worried that you have not been exposed to that yet.
Can anyone recommend authentic church teachings that might be of help in addition to Fides et Ratio and the cathechism?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2005 at 7:17pm | 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)?
|
|
|
I had to note this quote that I just read from Pope Benedict XVI. He was quoted while talking to a group of priests about the suffering of divorced Catholics.
"The pope is not a prophet," he told the priests. "He is infallible in very rare circumstances, as we all know.""I share your questions. I, too, suffer."
Julie, you raise some very good questions about where we start from in our quest for Truth. I can see where you are coming from. What makes our Truth better than another religion's Truth. Is that right? I still think the Church is right  , but I think I understand your question and where it originates from.
I believe that the question you raise is a good one to work through. In order to respect those in a different place and to come to a fuller and richer understanding of the ground we stand on ourselves. It can be easy to believe without questioning and then judge harshly those who are not on the same page. I wish that I was always able to approach others as God would and with the kind of humility that Pope Benedict showed in his comments. We're just human and we're all trying to figure things out. We all suffer with questions together.
I think believing without question is a gift that should not be taken away from anyone. Yet, I also think a mind that questions while turning in pleading to God for the answers can be a gift. I hope that your questions also turn out to be a gift to us and make us stronger for the struggle.
I'll be watching the responses and I'll be doing a little digging myself. I've already got my dh's curiousity piqued, so we'll see if we turn up anything. God Bless you, Julie!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MaryM
Board Moderator
Joined: Feb 11 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13104
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2005 at 7:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
Of course, the Church DOES also hold that it has a unique role in preserving and interpreting the deposit of faith. It maintains that it received this duty from what Jesus said to the Apostles particularly Peter as it was recorded in the Scriptures.
Peter, who was uneducated, personally weak and inconsistent, and not especially acute psychologically, is the "rock" upon which Christ built His Church -- to demonstrate that it was Christ, not His Vicar, doing the preserving. |
|
|
This discussion has been forefront in my mind all this weekend so it was so striking to me today that the readings at Mass are Jesus' scriptural words establishing the Church and giving Peter the keys to the kingdom, instituting the papal office. And the Old Testament reading (Today's readings)from Isaiah foreshadowed this giving of the keys - passing on the authority.
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:17-19)
In order to carry out its mission of helping all to reach heaven, the Church needed to be certain that what it told people to believe and to practice was what God wanted them to believe and to practice. Christ promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). When he established his Church he promised it will never fall away from his teachings (even if individual Catholics might). "In making Peter the head of the Apostolic College, the foundation-stone of his Church, the guarantor of its stability in the symbol of the keys and the promise that all his decisions would be ratified in heaven, Christ gave him the power of freedom from error when officially teaching the universal Church." (from Catholic Culture's website regarding today's readings)
I find it very comforting to read the other passages that show us that the authentic teaching authority of the Church was conferred on the apostles by Christ Himself, having its origin in the Father.
“As the Father has sent Me, so I send you.” (Jn. 20:21)
“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me, rejects Him Who sent Me.” (Lk. 10:16)
“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.” (Mt. 28:18-20)
WJFR wrote:
| If there is Truth, it cannot contradict itself. |
|
|
Exactly - that's something I was thining but not able to articultate. This is where that personal interpretation without the guidance of an established authority shows it's weakness. We know the Church’s teaching is arrived at through the special guidance of the Holy Spirit because Jesus told us it would be. So if someone believed that he was guided by that same Spirit to interpret a scripture in a way that rejected a teaching of the Church or whose conscience was "formed" so as to reject a teaching of the Church can that really be of the Holy Spirit? - that would be Truth contradicting itself because the Holy Spirit is the speaker of the Truth. And like Willa said, Truth can't contradict itself.
WJFR wrote:
| Of course, there is a valid form of subjectivity and you already made that point well, Julie -- that everyone needs to make a personal assent to Truth, which involves knowing the truth and making a commitment to align oneself with it. |
|
|
That was a particularly thought-provoking statement for me too, Julie. I appreciate you voicing it that way. I understand it that, we have the free will to either accept or reject the Truth once it has been revealed to us.
__________________
Mary M. in Denver
Our Domestic Church
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Robin
Forum Pro
Joined: March 06 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Aug 21 2005 at 10:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Julie made a comment about Mohammad and I just wanted to say that Mohammad never claimed to be God, he never raised the dead, and he himself died and was buried. Jesus said that he was God, the same God who spoke to Abraham, and for Him and through Him all things were made... He holds all creation in being... He also rose from the dead and this is an historical fact that has never been disproved.
You ladies are doing such a beautiful job of explaining why you believe the Church with all your heart... I wish I could do the same...
Julie, your questioning causes me no little suffering because I would like to show you what I KNOW, but it's impossible for me as long as I'm in this "prison" of flesh...
If you would step out in faith and go and question in the presence of the Eucharist, and persevere in this for a while, I have no doubt that you would get the answer to ALL of your questions in a way you never expected... in a MOST BEAUTIFUL way...
And I will continue to pray for you that the seed that was planted in your heart in Baptism may sprout and grow and flourish in a living faith...
__________________
Robin Dupre
"If we become what God intended for us to become, we will set the world on fire." ~ St. Catherine of Siena
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momwise
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 28 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
| Posted: Aug 22 2005 at 9:00am | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
| Additionally, the interpretation of who is saved has changed (Vatican II). It used to be prior that "Outside the Church, there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesia nulla salus) - now the Church affirms that there are truths that God has included in other cultures, while the Church posesses the whole truth... Karl Rahner has developed this position to what he calls "anonymous Christians." |
|
|
There is only one truth and it is eternal. Therefore, either that truth was expressed more fully through Vatican II or the Church was wrong for 1900 years and then learned the correct position.
If Jesus promised to guide the Church into all truth, through the Holy Spirit then the latter cannot be possible.
Follow me here as this discussion is totally out of my realm but I'm taking a stab at it anyway: Salvation is still only possible through the Church but the Church has articulated better that some can be saved "through" here but not "within" her. In other words, the graces available through the Mass and the Church are making it possible for some who are not her members to be saved (those who through no fault of their own have not received the Gospel of Christ or His Church, CCC#847). This is not a "new" truth but one that has been better developed and communicated to the world (remember you said you desire a more global and better communicated message? There you have a good example of it).
juliecinci wrote:
| I think we are used to our presuppositions so they feel right/true whereas if we are challenged to think the way another culture thinks, we automatically feel they are off base because they are so unfamiliar. |
|
|
CCC#845
To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world."
It is a suffering cross to many people, not the least of them the leaders of the Church, that many people will not accept the truths of the faith but Jesus said as much in the Gospels.
juliecinci wrote:
| 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). |
|
|
Many saints have shared your frustration, believe me. You might be interested in reading the writings of St. Francis Xavier.
CCC#854:
It [missionary endeavor]must involve a process of inculturation if the Gospel is the take flesh in each people's culture. There will be times of defeat.
juliecinci wrote:
| Instead, you must opt for the subjectivity of men who are believed to hear clearly from God. I have doubts about the possibility of this. |
|
|
CCC# 768:
So that she can fulfill her mission, the Holy Spirit "bestows upon the Church varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and this way directs her.
The Catechism has almost 700 pages of this stuff. It's fabulous. And if you want to follow Scriptural references, they're all there. Hey! Fr. McBrien should pick one of these up
__________________
Gwen...wife for 30 years, mom of 7, grandma of 3.....
"If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." JPII
|
| 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 9:19am | IP Logged
|
|
|
momwise wrote:
juliecinci wrote:
| Additionally, the interpretation of who is saved has changed (Vatican II). It used to be prior that "Outside the Church, there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesia nulla salus) - now the Church affirms that there are truths that God has included in other cultures, while the Church posesses the whole truth... Karl Rahner has developed this position to what he calls "anonymous Christians." |
|
|
Follow me here as this discussion is totally out of my realm but I'm taking a stab at it anyway: Salvation is still only possible through the Church but the Church has articulated better that some can be saved "through" here but not "within" her. In other words, the graces available through the Mass and the Church are making it possible for some who are not her members to be saved (those who through no fault of their own have not received the Gospel of Christ or His Church, CCC#847). This is not a "new" truth but one that has been better developed and communicated to the world (remember you said you desire a more global and better communicated message? There you have a good example of it).
|
|
|
Good point Gwen, and well-presented.  As with many, many church doctrines, especially those which were more clearly defined (not changed) by Vatican II, this has been horribly misinterpreted and misrepresented by people who wish that the church had changed. It has not.
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Aug 22 2005 at 10:28am | IP Logged
|
|
|
momwise wrote:
The Catechism has almost 700 pages of this stuff. It's fabulous. And if you want to follow Scriptural references, they're all there. Hey! Fr. McBrien should pick one of these up |
|
|
I do have a cathechism so I'll do that, Gwen. Thanks.
Gotta run. Thanks for being charitable toward me. Not wanting to rock any boats unnecessarily here. 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
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| 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 10:36am | 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.
|
|
|
This passage in italics, which I Googled and discovered comes from a Pittsburgh Tribune article, is misleading and incorrect, and typical of the secular anti-Catholic press. Galileo was not excommunicated for his ideas, he was excommunicated for refusing to submit to the Church's request that he wait on their time schedule on the matter. Galileo proved Copernicus correct by using math and observation, and the Church needed time to evaluate the ideas. They asked him to wait, and not publish. He not only refused, but distributed a thinly veiled mock dialogue, his "Dialogue on two Chief World Systems," between himself and the Church, wherein he made himself look wonderful, and the Church look idiotic.
For a great overview of the whole Galileo affair, see Mary Daly's Galileo booklet. It is a thoroughly researched paper, and a more reliable source of information than a one-liner in a secular newspaper.
The exoneration of Galileo is a display of the Church's magnanimity, and perhaps folks wiser than I am can jump in here to give comment, though I would speculate that JPII wanted to quell the argument that the church is anti-science, and this was a fine, dramatic way to do so (along with beatifying Neils Steno, bishop and geologist/biologist!).
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Aug 22 2005 at 11:13am | IP Logged
|
|
|
MacBeth wrote:
This passage in italics, which I Googled and discovered comes from a Pittsburgh Tribune article, is misleading and incorrect, and typical of the secular anti-Catholic press. Galileo was not excommunicated for his ideas, he was excommunicated for refusing to submit to the Church's request that he wait on their time schedule on the matter. |
|
|
Thanks for this! Very helpful.
That's why I ask...
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Domestic Church
Topic: Catholicism by Richard P. McBrien
