Posted on 06/20/2006 4:20:54 PM PDT by Gamecock
Yet the spokesmen for this conservative, dogmatic religion sound like pansies while the spokesmen of the "heretical" Fundamentalists speak with such authority. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
I see that you dismiss Biblical inerrancy as an issue. Are you into Graff-Wellhausen as well?
PS: The Catholic Church owes the existence of its "old testament" to Judaism. Follow the logic.
I agree.
I believe they're conservative because they came from the Wesleyan holiness movement ("come out from among them and be separate"). It's interesting that overall they have little or no problem with female preachers/evangelists, but feel strongly about issues that, arguably, aren't addressed as directly in the NT, e.g. "don't smoke/drink/chew/dance". I don't know of any Pentecostal/holiness denoms (e.g. AoG, CoG/Cleveland) with a female bishop, however.
There are several aspects of this, depending on the definition of "conservative", and depending on where you apply the label to the church: its doctrine, its leaders, or its members.
This is where the Catholic Church is liberal: if you look at self-identified Catholics and how they vote, you see a 50-50 split beween the GOP and the Dems. It used to be worse, as the Catholic blue collar ethnics were solidly Democrat when the Democrat party was about labor issues and poverty relief.
That might be traced doctrinally to the Catholic doctrine of necessity of works of caritas, love, -- which all too often is mixed up with government charity programs in people's minds.
However if you look at the picture today and take into account not merely self-identification as Catholic, but also frequency of church going, you see that the more devout the Catholic people are, the more conservative they are politically, and the trend is good, too. Church-going Catholics are, for example, largely credited as the group that shifted the balance for the GOP in 2004, despite the nominal Catholicity of Kerry.
Let us turn to doctrinal matters. Here we have a very mixed picture. The Catholic doctrine is extremely conservative in terms of cultural policy: it is uncompromising on contraception, abortion, euthanasia, re-marriage, and gender specificity and complementarity. It is not particularly conservative in economic policy as it sees unfettered capitalism problematic as much as socialism. It is also opposed to death penalty, although not in the same way as it is opposed to abortion. The former is seen as in need of careful justification but permissible in some theoretical circumstances, while abortion is seen as an absolute intrinsic evil. It is very nearly silent (dogmatically speaking) on evolution, where the Catholic dogma leaves a wide berth for nontraditional opinions.
The entire doctrinal edifice of Catholicism is not subject to change, democratically or from Rome (it is subject to refinement, as, for example, the whole set of "life" issues was a refinement of doctrine in response to modern challenges). The Church simply cannot change her mind on, for example, contraception, like the Protestant communities did. So, if you definition of conservatism is resistance to change, then the Church is extremely conservative. It is quite simply a Medieval institution that will stay Medieval till Kingdom come.
Thirdly, we have in the West the laity that pretty much spans the political spectrum, and we have bishops that are a reflection of the same fairly liberal culture, caught between the conservative dogma and the relatively liberal laity. We also have the lavender mafia, which awaits its Inquisition. Like I said, it helps to identify the devout conservative undercurrent not reflected by the statistics. There are some embarassingly liberal parishes, and some rigidly conservative ones. One thing you need to bear in mind: while the doctrinal teaching pretty much defines Protestant denominations, it is participation in the sacraments that defines Catholicity. Where a Protestant denomination splits over doctrine, the Catholic Church expects her members to know the doctrine, struggle to embrace it, repent of the failures, and persevere, but it would never turn a Catholic away. Well, nearly ever: it takes a scandalous public apostacy to be publicly ex-communicated. The Catholic Church is, in other words, catholic: for everyone. So she will never become, as a body of members, far from the nation as a whole. This incidentally, explains the lack of fire and brimstone preaching, as a priest is always careful not to alienate the sinner and push him into apostacy.
Lastly, the Church sees historical time differently than, for example, a Jew does. Our history is not linear from Creation to infinity, but rather it has a center at the Cross, with prior history leading to it and present history looking back to it. This means that on the deepest level what we conserve is the Cross, and not, for example, the Judaism of the Prophets that predated it.
Quite true. And well put.
You offer another interesting idea, that Catholics are defined more by their communion with the Church rather than with their doctrinal beliefs. This is similar to Judaism's definition of a Jew as the son of a Jewish mother rather than someone who believes a certain set of doctrines. Perhaps it is my own Bible-Belt upbringing, but I always thought that beliefs were pretty darn important and that a political unity in the place of doctrinal unity is a will-o'-the-wisp. However, I note that there are rightwing Catholics who insist that it is Catholicism that demands doctrinal correctness while Fundamentalist Protestantism is an emotional experience.
As to a lack of "fire and brimstone" preaching, I would advise that you should appeal to the culture you hope to reach (granted, no one really wants to reach Fundamentalist Protestants--white ones, at least--since they provide a convenient scapegoat to make all other religions look respectable to secularists). I might also suggest that Catholics don't want to hear about Hell because they can still go there. Calvinists can listen to sermons about Hell all day, since (in the words of Baptist preacher Charles Stanley) they "couldn't go there if they wanted to." But this raises an interesting question: isn't it the people who are in danger of going who should be hearing about it? And why do Calvinists have such an interest in the subject since they are "eternally secure" from ever going there?
That may be true, but Catholics can sure make a "redneck" convert feel like an orphan and an inferior because of differences in the cultures. Methinks that had I been a member of a more "politically correct" group my experience would have been very different.
Here we have somewhat of a paradox. The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant in spiritual matters, but it may contain imperfect historical accounts and allegorical language. We also believe that it needs to be read with the intention and the mindset of the ancient human writer. How do we know which is which? From the Church. Our critics would say that to us it is the Church that is really inerrant, and they would have a point. We believe that God revealed himself in a number of ways, but most centrally and importantly he revealed himself through the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the Word. Thus to us the Holy Scripture is not a What but it is a Who. Now Christ gave us the Church directly ("I will build my Church") and the scripture through the Church (who is also not a What but a Who, His bride). The scripture is a very important part of the Revelation, but it is not the entire Revelation. The dogmata of the Church, -- consisting of the Holy Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium of the bishops is another part of the Revelation. This can be endlessly debated as it contradicts the Protestant sola scriptura, but for our purposes here it is enough to simply state that this happens to be the Catholic belief.
Of course, scripture is discernible through reason to a great extent, but when in doubt it is the Church who interprets the scripture. In the Creation, we'd point out that some of the language in the Genesis is clearly metaphorical as it uses everyday words to describe cosmic events. It would therefore be without warrant to necessarily understand the six days as our conventional time measure, or to understand the making of man from mud in the literal sense of God shaping man as a clay sculpture and putting a soul in. You could interpret it that way, but you don't have to. The Church is simply silent on the chronological duration of the process of creation, or on physical mechanisms of the creation of life. You can hold the fundamentalist literal creationist view and be perfectly Catholic, or you can hold the view that the world was formed like the astrophysics teach, and be perfectly Catholic.
So, what parts of the biblical account of the Creation are dogmatic teaching? Off the top of my head:
This is about it.
there are rightwing Catholics who insist that it is Catholicism that demands doctrinal correctness
You don't have to be right wing: Catholicism does demand doctrinal obedience. A Catholic is supposed to strive to learn the doctrine, obey it, and work to embrace it. For example a Catholic is supposed to learn that contraception is a sin, and not use it, even in his heart he does not understand why. Next, he is supposed to seek better understanding till his obedience becomes a joyful choice. Sacramental life of the Church: confession and the Eucharist, as well as prayer and acts of penance, are to help the Catholic in this struggle.
Nevertheless, a wayward Catholic is still Catholic. This is for two reasons. First, anyone validly baptized is Catholic, including the Protestants and the Orthodox. Those who continue in obedience to the teachings of the Church remain Catholic even if they would not call themselves that. For example, the Orthodox, even if vehemently anti-Rome, are theologically speaking Catholic if they obey their Orthodox bishops. Given a greater culture of church life in some Orthodox lands, it is quite possible that there are more Catholics in Serbia than in France.
Second, we believe in progressive justification and reject the salvation theology that considers some men once and for all saved and the rest once and for all reprobate. When a Catholic fails short of some precept, but struggles to improve, he remains Catholic, and a rather typical Catholic at that. It takes first familiarity with, and then a defiance of, the Church teaching to make one non-Catholic. Even that can be restored with sacramental repentance.
isn't it the people who are in danger of going [to Hell] who should be hearing about it?
Absolutely. I am not approving of the lack of serious preaching on the spiritual dangers, and in fact am a great admirer of fiery preaching style of fundamentalist Protestants so long as they call to repentance and steer clear of Calvinistic presumtions of election and reprobation. I was merely pointing out to the Catholic eccleseology of salvation that, unfortunately for the liberal West, at times leads to kumbaya homilies. Not all Catholic preachers are like that. In my church I hear the direct and strict instruction on Catholic way of life from Monsignior Kavanagh, who is famous for showing former CA governor Davis the door. On EWTN we hear the inimitable Fr Corapi. We are doing better than a casual observer might think.
I am very sorry. Finding an orthodox Catholic parish is an art form. This are what to look for:
- centrally located tabernacle and crucifix
- kneelers
- no drums
- statues of the Blessed Virgin and the patron saint
- Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Communion are male, and not more than necessary to serve Communion
- no altar girls
- few casually clad parishioners, none immodestly dressed.
- homily addressing the scripture readings or the feast day, not philosophical twaddle or psychobabble.
These are visible signs of course; the content may still disappoint.
Also, a confessional that you don't have to look for, and confessions availabe Sunday before Mass, and not only on Saturday afternoon.
bookmark for later reading
And which "ancient human writer" intended to allegorically communicate Darwinian evolution? Evolutionists invoking the "intent of the ancient human writer" is like them invoking "the Truth is One" in order to excuse double truth.
Of course, scripture is discernible through reason to a great extent, but when in doubt it is the Church who interprets the scripture. In the Creation, we'd point out that some of the language in the Genesis is clearly metaphorical as it uses everyday words to describe cosmic events. It would therefore be without warrant to necessarily understand the six days as our conventional time measure, or to understand the making of man from mud in the literal sense of God shaping man as a clay sculpture and putting a soul in. You could interpret it that way, but you don't have to. The Church is simply silent on the chronological duration of the process of creation, or on physical mechanisms of the creation of life. You can hold the fundamentalist literal creationist view and be perfectly Catholic, or you can hold the view that the world was formed like the astrophysics teach, and be perfectly Catholic.
Fundamentalist Protestant churches don't teach or believe anything. They are aggregations of people who believe certain things--things which the Catholic Church considers of no importance. I will never understand why this is so. And btw, there are Catholics who will invoke long-forgotten Papal declarations to insist that 100% literalism is an absolute requirement, and there are the far greater number of modern Catholics who will tell literalists like me to get out because believing that way "isn't Catholic."
So, what parts of the biblical account of the Creation are dogmatic teaching? Off the top of my head:
This is about it.
Why not assume that every letter written down my Moses at G-d's dictation is there for a purpose and is part of the message? Of course, if you deny this fact of Tradition and want to believe the Bible is the product of many generations of redaction of ancient near eastern mythology then you aren't going to accept this (though you have to ignore the statement that man is to live by "every word which proceeds from the mouth of G-d"). It sounds to me like Mr. Foley is correct that the modern Catholic proclivity for evolutionism and higher criticism is the result of of an anti-reformation tendency to view them as allies against sola scriptura and to regard Biblical inerrancy as inherently anti-magisterial and Protestant.
Second, we believe in progressive justification and reject the salvation theology that considers some men once and for all saved and the rest once and for all reprobate. When a Catholic fails short of some precept, but struggles to improve, he remains Catholic, and a rather typical Catholic at that. It takes first familiarity with, and then a defiance of, the Church teaching to make one non-Catholic. Even that can be restored with sacramental repentance.
In other words, Catholicism/Orthodoxy is saying that chr*stianity is merely another legal system presaged by the Torah rather than a "dispensation of grace." And indeed, "salvation" implies complete passivity. Therefore only Calvinists and universalists believe in true "salvation." But since historical chr*stianity is a legal system, what argument for superiority does it have over the legal system that predated it and came from G-d on Mt. Sinai (and forget for the moment your automatic assumption of the truth of chr*stianity)? That legal system had everything that the later chr*stian system does. What is the argument against it? I believe evolutionism and higher criticism are utilized by modern Catholics for this reason as well.
I'm going to say this again and probably be ignored or misunderstood again: Protestantism was born in the Pauline polemic against the Torah. The reformers merely applied the argument consistently (not merely to the "old testament" law and ritual but that of the Church as well). Catholicism's arguments against Protestantism sound awfully Jewish just as its arguments against Judaism sound awfully Protestant. Why preach Protestantism to the Jews and Judaism to the Protestants?
Anyway, thank you for your insights, though I've heard them all before.
Down here one doesn't pick and choose Catholic churches; one goes to the nearest one available, which is often one distance away. There isn't a single Catholic church or mission in my county. And the priest of the nearest one was just shuffled off after allegations of abuse were made. Even here. Sigh.
These are visible signs of course; the content may still disappoint.
Why can't a monolithic Church assure orthodoxy when a multitude of sects can?
"...as the Princeton theologian J. Gresham Machen observed in his classic book Christianity and Liberalism. “The fundamental fault of the modern Church,” he argued, “is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task-she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance.”
***KNOCK IT OFF!***
RM:Yes sir/Ma'am
Sorry Campion. I took a cheap shot.
That, BTW, is a great book. Machen was prophetic, so to speak, in what he wrote.
None, of course, if by Darwinian you mean atheistic, or if you mean that Moses was aware of theistic evolution but chose to communicate it allegorically. If you mean that God, possibly, set up the evolutionary mechanisms, then it is a possible allegorical meaning of man made of mud and of the order of creation from lower animals to higher. Moses got the essential spiritual truths right but did not intend to write a manual of genetics. Mind you that I personally don't hold the evolutionist views, so don't expect much zeal from me defending them.
Fundamentalist Protestant churches don't teach or believe anything. They are aggregations of people who believe certain things--things which the Catholic Church considers of no importance. I will never understand why this is so
True, that is one difference with Catholicism where the Church very much has the mind of her own. As to what things you say are of no importance and why, -- which are they?
there are Catholics who will invoke [X] and there are [...] modern Catholics who will tell [Y]
True. Yet, X and Y are both allowable views. Generally, Catholics are living people with brains and opinions, and serious Catohlics are keen on deciding for themselves what is and what is not truly Catholic. Whic abutts your other question, why is there a number of opinions in a top-down hierarchical church. Well, it is because not everything is a part of the deposit of faith that the Church is called to preserve.
Why not assume that every letter written down my Moses at G-d's dictation is there for a purpose and is part of the message?
That is the assumption, yes. But this leaves open the question of the interpretation of the message and the purpose. For example, the literalist interpretation of "six days" or "mud" or "Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air" is also an interpretation, one among many.
the modern Catholic proclivity for evolutionism and higher criticism is the result of of an anti-reformation tendency to view them as allies against sola scriptura and to regard Biblical inerrancy as inherently anti-magisterial and Protestant.
That could be, at least in the West. But it is noteworthy that the Orthodox reject the sola scriptura even more forcefully than the West, and they never had to deal with Protestantism. The view on the inerrancy of the Bible -- which is not rejected, only literalism is rejected, -- has its historical roots in the fact that the Church, long before the Eastern Schism, had an intimate knowledge of the interaction between tradition and scripture as it produced the New Testament books. Also, it is incorrect to identify the Catholic method with high criticism; in fact it is the patristic method of scriptural analysis based on examination of all the revealed truths -- other scripture, lingusitic and historical facts, memory of the Church, etc, -- in order to get to the meaning of a particular passage.
In other words, Catholicism/Orthodoxy is saying that chr*stianity is merely another legal system presaged by the Torah rather than a "dispensation of grace."
I don't see how it follows. Progressive justification in the lap of the Church is only possible because of the Divine Grace, and is predicated on mercy rather than law. Moreover, Catholicism most emphatically does not see the Old Testament law as binding on Christians as written. It is only binding insofar as it is re-affirmed by Christ or is natural law discernible through reason.
since historical chr*stianity is a legal system, what argument for superiority does it have over the legal system that predated it and came from G-d on Mt. Sinai
Like I said, your premise is incorrect -- Christianity is not a legal system. Whatever laws it contains are merely accessories to strengthen the faith in Christ True God and True Man; these laws do not determine the salvation of the soul. The superiority of Christianity as the Way is that it is, quite simply, taught by the living God. The laws of Moses are given for a specific and historical purpose to a specific nation of people, and that purpose has been fulfilled on the Cross.
Why preach Protestantism to the Jews and Judaism to the Protestants?
Because, I repeat myself, the Christian timeline is not linear, it centers in the person of Christ. Before the Cross, He is the revolutionary upsetting the tables in the Temple; after the Cross He is the conservative preserving the sacred deposit of faith.
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.