Posted on 03/02/2005 7:25:08 AM PST by franky
Duh, I wonder why?
"Finally, to claim that the Church is "a sign and instrument" of the "unity of the whole human race" does not deny Church teaching on any of the issues you list."
Sure - and there is no evidence whatsoever that homosexuals in the priesthhod are a significant cause of the sex abuse scandals!!!
However, I believe your complacency is misplaced as even Paul VI felt the need to address this problem on 24th December 1965:
"The Church with its demanding and precise attitude to dogma, impedes free conversation and harmony among men; it is a principle of DIVISION in the world rather than of union. How are division, disagreement and dispute compatible with its catholicity and its sanctity?"
He tries to address this problem by saying that Catholicism is a principle of DISTINCTION among men rather than DIVISION. And he does this by reducing distinction to the level of that "natural unity" which I discussed above. He says that distinction is "of the same sort as that involved in the case of language, culture, art or profession." He goes on:
"It is true that Christianity can be a cause of separation and contrast, deriving from the good it bestows upon humanity: the light shines in the darkness and thus diversifies the zones of human space. But it is not of its nature to struggle against men, if it struggles at all, it is for them."
This is what I would call a tortured exegesis to try and reconcile two opposing worldviews.
Gone are the Scriptural principles of Christ being a "sign of contradiction", a "stumbling stone", a "sword that brings division" and warfare between the Church and the world.
So, if the Church is indeed an "instrument of unity" for all humanity, perhaps you can explain how this is so without negating the doctrines of predestination, hell, opposition between the Church and the world etc.?
Maybe you will make a better job of it than Paul VI did.
There’s also a relationship between the phrase 'People of God' and another conciliar phrase, 'Sense of the Faithful' (sensus fidelium). Taken out of context, both terms can lend themselves to the utterly false notion of internal polls defining magisterial teaching. In the sense that the Council used them, both terms presuppose 'thinking with the Church.'
You're right. And I've noticed from many of these threads that there is a reflexive defense of treating the definition of magisterial teaching in such a way. No one ever calls it polling or would admit to such an influence, instead they call it Living, much as those who call our Constitution living, with the same, predictable results. I think that's what is most worrisome: traditional catholics who state that even if the Magisterium teaches against what it has always taught, right is right, and wrong is right. They pledge allegiance to both fallibility and infalliblity.
"The Church with its demanding and precise attitude to dogma, impedes free conversation and harmony among men; it is a principle of DIVISION in the world rather than of union. How are division, disagreement and dispute compatible with its catholicity and its sanctity?"
To me, he's saying elimination of division, disagreement and dispute make for sactity and catholicity. Talk about a path of least resistance!
He tries to address this problem by saying that Catholicism is a principle of DISTINCTION among men rather than DIVISION. And he does this by reducing distinction to the level of that "natural unity" which I discussed above. He says that distinction is "of the same sort as that involved in the case of language, culture, art or profession."
I recently read that Pope John Paul II wrote a thesis in which he tried to defend the construction of Catholicism based on a german philosopher who was big on the idea that cultural sentiment is the road to understanding different peoples, and using that sentiment to bring them into the fold. I don't fully know what to make of it. I can see the up side of it, but I'm not sure I see how from that point Christ will reign. Christ always seems to be in the background.
That whole Assisi thing puzzled and distrubed me the most because of the removal of the Crucifix and other symbols of Christ (if all of that is true). Why, in His own Church was He treated as an impediment to coming to it? To me, it is the most bizarre realty of the whole Assisi thing.
He goes on:
"It is true that Christianity can be a cause of separation and contrast, deriving from the good it bestows upon humanity: the light shines in the darkness and thus diversifies the zones of human space. But it is not of its nature to struggle against men, if it struggles at all, it is for them."
Where is the Incarnation in all of this?
For me, the worst part is that I don't think there was any intent to contravene it, just this kind of Man before God, to get Man to God, type of thinking that there is no cure for.
I've never been able to develop an affection for the philosophy of Humanism (it doesn't consider Christ at all!), and it is this philosophy that lead to Assisi with the predicatable results of Humanism leaving it's not so precious mark on Catholicism, but Catholicism leaving no mark at all on Humanism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.