Couple questions about Christianity

[Peter666]

"You are trying to turn a statement regarding "hope", which is intended to psychologically comfort, into a doctrinal pronouncement which it clearly isn't because of both the other stament about entrusting to God's mercy, and also because of the wording, "allow us to hope". Thus you are in fact reading more into those words."

Even if it is just meant to psychologically comfort, the statement does not make sense. We are comforted by the fact that we can entrust the unbaptized into God's mercy. No problem with this whatsoever. But then we are also allowed to hope in the lie that they are saved?

To put it another way:

The Church teaches with infallible authority: 2+2=4 and anyone who says otherwise can go to hell.

Then the New Catholic Catechism says: 2+2=4, and we can trust those who died unbaptized into God's math. And thank to God's math, we are allowed to hope that 2+2=5.

That is meant to comfort?


Again you bring up the SSPX which is another issue altogether, but to briefly touch upon it: "Thus any accusations of heterodox views are versus the entire church" No, not against the Church, just versus whoever holds an erroneous opinion, because an erroneous opinion is never part of the Church. If you do not believe this, than you will believe that St. Athanasius (who was excommunicated by both a synod of bishops AND Pope Liberius) was really a heretic. There were only 5 bishops who maintained the Catholic Faith along with St. Athanasius during the Arian crisis. You would have defended the Arians back then too like you defend the neo-modernists.

Also the sedevacantist view you mention concerning the new rite of ordination is simply not taught by the SSPX.

Finally, you failed to answer my question in the last post: Where does the Church state anywhere that accusing the Pope of heresy makes one a heretic?

[RJT]

Here is basically what it is MG,

Btw, I really would not have gotten involved in the topic had I realized Peter was as militant as he is. Hadn’t really paid all that much attention to his details before. Nor did I really know quite where he was coming from.

Peter is a descent guy, basically. He must be to an extent, he says he is Christian afterall. Sometimes his fascism gets in the way is all. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] He definitely can’t see the forest for the trees in my opinion (as well as Bluff’s I would guess). He is basically a very conservative Catholic. A bit of background:

Back in the early 1960’s, then Pope John XXIII wanted "… to throw open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people can see in." He convened an Ecumenical Council commonly known as Vatican II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

This Council more or less did some updating in way things go in our Church. This is not uncommon in our Church. We are a living Church. Just as science updates itself with its own new knowledge, so does our Church. We don’t change the basics of what we believe, we simply interpret things in light of new awareness. We evolve so to speak.

Matters such as things discussed here have history going back to Jesus. These details that David S.’s jests about are of course not very meaningful to the non believer. But, these discussion are like different doctors discussing a patient who has yet to be ultimately diagnosed. (Not the best analogy.)

The study of our Religion (I would think most Religions) can be as involved as one wants to get. Folk get Ph.D.s in different branches of theology. Theologians are always discussing thousand year old texts and the meanings.

To many like myself, Catholicism is not static. Peter basically believes it is, imo. He, also, lives pre-Vatican II. Pre/post Vatican II mindset is probably where most debates arise between Pete and others regarding details of Catholicism.

Hope that puts things in perspective for you.

RJT

Pete, If I wrote anything that might be erroneous, it is not meant to be libelous. I apologize and am willing to stand corrected. Just trying to edify the poster.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really disagree with what is said in the quotation you provide (although there have been a lot more infallible statements made by Popes since the 1870's than the priest mentions, including one by JP II). What do you assume my stance is on the infallibility of an ecumenical council? Do you assume that what was taught under Trent in its Canons was not infallible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you don’t take into consideration the context of the times it was written.

edited for clarity

Hiya RJT,

Thanks for the link. It is obviously a much finer debate than I envisaged. After a first quick reading, I was particularly interested in "Dignitatis Humanae" which addresses some of my issues with catholics and seems to be inspired by a spirit of tolerance even towards atheists. In fact that it seems to me that it could be summarised and obviously grossly simplified by the notion of staying in your lane. I will read further on this, but rest assured that if this is the case I would barrack for/support your position over Peter. However, and not judging church dogmas by its adherents behaviour or notions, it seems to me that from a logical perspective, regardless of desirability of content, I would still have to give Peter the upper hand as things stand in this particular debate.

A contention of mine is that self-contradiction is inherent in christian doctrines or religions and may, indeed be both their strength (in terms of attracting adherents) and its weakness when confronted by a very logical secular world.

Anyway, thanks again for your link, and your admirable discipline and open-mindedness in bothering to reply. I appreciate it and it helps me put a different coloring on to the Christian typing I may hold.

Kind regards,

MidGe

[RJT]

MG,

The reason you might lean more towards Peter in the debate probably lays in my inability (as will as disinterest) to accurately explain the details of the debate - it gets involved. It would indeed appear he has the upper hand. I assure you he does not. Again, for no other reason than David’s theory: those smarter/more knowledgeable than I, in this case Pope John Paul II - the Pope who just died.

RJT

p.s. If Bluff chooses to continue the discussion (not asking him to) , he certainly will carry the ball with no problem.

[BluffTHIS!]

I didn't say that accusing a pope of heresy by itself is sufficient to label the accuser a heretic. I said that accusing the pope who is supported by the magisterium is such an act of heresy. And that is the crucial difference with the Arian heresy, because the see of Rome never succumbed. A pope supported by a minority of the college of bishops stands yet on firm ground supported by the Holy Spirit. And a pope supported by the vast majority of such bishops cannot be validly accused of heresy.

And you tell me what the position of SSPX will be when a pope who was ordained under the new rite is elected? Will they consider him to possess valid orders? If so then why tell their members not to go to indult Trid Masses celebrated by such priests?

[Peter666]

Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the value/semantic of what catholics are lead to believe by the church changes over time?!

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the value/semantic of what catholics are lead to believe by the church changes over time?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is our study of DNA and such things finished? Does one ever read a great novel again without new understanding/ awarenesses? Read Soren K. in our book club and see how one man's understanding of the same short story changes over time.

RJT