Replies

Here's a difference which might or might not be relevant: It is Protestants who think of the RC Church as looking for excuses to excommunicate, anathematize, torture, etc its members. The reality is that the RC Church expects that a great portion of the laity will not agree with the Church's teaching, and smaller portion of priests and deacons will be frankly disobedient (The only deacon I ever talked theology with was a heretic, fer shur), even some bishops will be kinda out there. Popes themselves are not inerrant if they're not speaking iex cathedra. Benedict XIV himself recently put something out about which he made it very clear that this was more in the nature of what you might call private thought than anything official.

Protestants seem to make faith a work which must be done properly, so that the Fides quae creditur must be correct if salvation is to be assured. I could be wrong about this, but that's what it looks like to me. But the RC Church places a lot of confidence in the mercy of Christ and while it tries to be clear about what orthodoxy is, it doesn't necessarily get the vapors if Mrs. MacIllicuddy has some pretty weird ideas about things. We trust God to straighten things out and are happy to entrust Mrs. MacIllicuddy to His forgiving and gentle care.

Yes, I know you don't believe me. But the point is that the belief of people in the pew and even of some clergy is not necessarily identical with the teaching of the Church.

How do you come to know what the attitude of "practically all the clergy" is? I know only a few priests. You know practically all of them around the world?

First of all, thank you for your very detailed response to me and for your patience in the face of my own emotionalism on these issues.

Here's a difference which might or might not be relevant: It is Protestants who think of the RC Church as looking for excuses to excommunicate, anathematize, torture, etc its members.

Since when? Where do you folks come up with this stuff? You actually think that most Fundamentalist Protestants think you're not liberal enough?

The reality is that the RC Church expects that a great portion of the laity will not agree with the Church's teaching, and smaller portion of priests and deacons will be frankly disobedient (The only deacon I ever talked theology with was a heretic, fer shur), even some bishops will be kinda out there. Popes themselves are not inerrant if they're not speaking iex cathedra. Benedict XIV himself recently put something out about which he made it very clear that this was more in the nature of what you might call private thought than anything official.

I cannot help but wonder why the Catholic Church is so reticent about plainly stating its unpopular but still "official" teachings? Is it because such vociferousness has come to be associated (like Biblical inerrancy itself) with "sectarianism?" As I understand it there was once a time when the Popes were fire-breathers. I suppose those Popes were sectarians? Why can't today's clergy speak with the same voice as their predecessors in this church whose teachings are "unaltered?"

Protestants seem to make faith a work which must be done properly, so that the Fides quae creditur must be correct if salvation is to be assured.

Protestant faith is fiduciary and does not refer to the belief in Biblical inerrancy or in any other intellectual belief of Protestantism. It is Catholic faith that is intellectual and based on an acceptance of teachings.

I could be wrong about this, but that's what it looks like to me. But the RC Church places a lot of confidence in the mercy of Christ

Again, the idea of faith as "confidence in the promises of chr*st" is a Protestant idea (specifically Lutheran). The Catholic Church at one time condemned "confidence in the promises" (defining it as "presumption") and insisted that one is not saved for good and all until after life is over (till then the individual Catholic walks a tightrope over Hell, which could explain why many "saved" folks aren't in the least tempted by it, for all its historicity).

and while it tries to be clear about what orthodoxy is,

The Catholic Church hasn't been clear about what orthodoxy is for a very long time.

it doesn't necessarily get the vapors if Mrs. MacIllicuddy has some pretty weird ideas about things. We trust God to straighten things out and are happy to entrust Mrs. MacIllicuddy to His forgiving and gentle care.

It's too darn bad that the Church can't have the same attitude towards people trapped in the "error" of Biblical literalism. I notice that the bishops don't have the forbearance for Biblical Fundamentalism that they do for homosexuals, Communists, evolutionists, higher critics, etc. In fact I believe the American bishops issued a pastoral letter condemning "Biblical literalism." Now you can go to any diocesan web page and find a link to a ministry for "homosexual persons." Why does G-d love "homosexual persons" so much more than "literalist persons" that the former are greeted with honey and the latter with a fly swatter? And why does the Catholic Church worry so much about literalists offending intellectuals and scientists but could care less if literalists are offended? There are web sites out there that crow with pride that "the Catholic Church is fighting the fundamentalists." Why can't it fight homosexuals, or Communists, or higher critics? Why can't it even require its priests to at least believe in the real presence? The only thing in the world the Catholic Church feels comfortable condemning is Biblical Fundamentalism!

Would you believe the official newspaper of my own diocese ran an article once saying that the Catholic Church would concentrate on converting intellectuals and leave simple people for the fundamentalist churches (so much for being "the church of all mankind!") and ran another article lamenting that higher Biblical criticism couldn't be taught to children in public schools????

Yes, I know you don't believe me. But the point is that the belief of people in the pew and even of some clergy is not necessarily identical with the teaching of the Church.

Wouldn't you agree that books with the imprimatur should be orthodox? Yet everything from Marxism to new age to German higher criticism has been published with the imprimatur that is supposed to indicate that the book contains orthodox Catholic teaching!

Even "conservative" Catholic apologists like the late Frank Sheed were evolutionists and higher critics. What does that tell you?

How do you come to know what the attitude of "practically all the clergy" is? I know only a few priests. You know practically all of them around the world?

Because I once joined your "unchanging" church and did a great deal of reading--and I mean a great deal of reading and learned that the Catholic Church had no use for people like me.

The "one true church" will never convert the "rednecks." Never. But then, it doesn't really want to, does it? Who else would serve as the scapegoat for for the crimes of the chr*stian middle ages? After all, Catholics are too liberal and too intellectual to be implicated in such things. Must have been a bunch of Southern Baptists in a time machine!