Posted on 09/09/2016 2:43:21 PM PDT by RBStealth
Over the last thirty days my own criticism of Pope Francis has been more pronounced than usual. Given last week’s extensive criticism of the Pope’s suggestion regarding the works of mercy by both myself and Phil Lawler, it may seem that CatholicCulture.org is in the midst of a crescendo of criticism. I know from feedback that our readers tend to reflect seriously about the wisdom of criticizing the successors of Peter, and I want to emphasize that our writers do as well, pretty much all the time.
This does not mean that we always strike the perfect balance when it seems important to explain and evaluate something the Holy Father has said or done. That would be humanly impossible. But it does mean that there is a proper balance to be struck. It is my purpose in Part 1 of this essay to consider the overall considerations which lead to the decision to criticize. In Part 2, I will explore the many different ways in which criticism can be offered, including some of the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Not a new problem with this Pope
This is not an entirely new problem, of course, at least not for me. During the pontificate of Paul VI, I lamented his administrative weakness in the face of the neo-Modernist revolution (that is, the rapid rise of theological secularism) in the Church. He himself said that all he had been able to do for the Church was to suffer: There was, almost self-evidently, little doubt about his sanctity. But in the context of Paul VI’s common inability to successfully pursue his own ends, his courageous promulgation of Humanae Vitae in 1968—a brilliant exposition of the nature of marriage and the consequent immorality of deliberately impeding conception in the marital act—could only be received as a signal demonstration of the Holy Spirit’s protection of the Magisterium.
...(cont'd)...
Sorry for you and for all of us who have been so thoroughly scandalized and misled.
“For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places”. (Eph 6:12)
The soul is a battleground.
“Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil”. (Eph 6:11)
“Spiritual Combat” - Dom Lorenzo Scupoli
http://www.quies.org/Spiritual-Combat_Scupoli.pdf
The blind leading the blind. I missed this thread, but your post reminds me of another:
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
I have never had a FRoman Catholic even try to answer the following:
If “The Church” interprets Scripture, then who interprets the church’s teaching? At some point it breaks down and individual interpretation does enter the picture. It Rome there just are more layers between Scripture and the believer.
There is no need to "interpret" the Church's teaching. The Church's teaching is distilled into the Catechism which is full of clear statements of what the Church believes to be the truth. Some of those statements are difficult to fully comprehend like those regarding the Holy Trinity (e.g. Three Persons in one God, etc.) but there is no interpretation necessary.
The Church believes their positions to be the truth because they are based in Holy Scripture, the interpretations of the Doctors of the church, the result of thoughtful discussion and prayer at various councils of wise and holy men, and because of the claim that Jesus stated the Church would be the one true Church.
The Doctors of the Church are considered by most all Christians (even Protestants) as being good guides to what Holy Scriptures says. Of course, even back then there was some dissension which unfortunately led to the Great Schism, but the differences that Rome has with the Eastern Churches pale in comparison to those between Rome and the Protestant sects.
Vatican II appears to be the beginning of a new schism. A cynic might claim this is proof that the Church's claims to the truth are suspect. However, it has been quite some time since the Reformation which was the last major schism, and since that time those that broke off claiming to have the truth have since shattered into thousands of sects.
You mean the latest Catechism, and that this was an infallible document from its first issuing, and is not subject to change? Yet I would agree that there is no need to "interpret" the Church's teaching is RCs are to heed such statements as those of Pope Pius X:
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
..in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council
Thus in one century a Catholic ruler must obey the pope in exterminating all the heretics from his land, (Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215) and consider all such as have not "remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church," and are not "subject to the Roman Pontiff" to be damned according to conciliar and infallible papal statements.
But in another century he is to affirm SS type baptized Prots as born again brethren.
The problem is that this "follow the Pastors as docile flock" is contrary to how the NT church began, which was actually in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead the common people followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and stablished His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
The Church believes their positions to be the truth because they are based in Holy Scripture, the interpretations of the Doctors of the church, the result of thoughtful discussion and prayer at various councils of wise and holy men, and because of the claim that Jesus stated the Church would be the one true Church.
Not quite. Rome believes and presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Thus reproofs that show that her distinctive claims are not warranted by Holy Scripture are dismissed since according to her intrerpretation, only here interpretation can be correct in any conflict, regardless of the evidence otherwise, or lack thereof.
Read here by the grace of God if you will, before replying.
The Doctors of the Church are considered by most all Christians (even Protestants) as being good guides to what Holy Scriptures says. Really? Consistent with what I said above about autocratic Rome, is this from "Doctor" Liguori:
St. Ignatius once said that should the Pope command him to undertake a voyage by sea in a ship without a mast, without oars or sails, he would blindly obey the precept. And when he was told that it would be imprudent to expose his life to danger, he answered that. "prudence is necessary in Superiors; but in subjects the perfection of prudence is to obey without prudence. This doctrine is conformable to Holy Scripture: Behold, says the Lord, as clay is in the potter s hands.' Religious must leave themselves in the hands of the Superior to be moulded as she wills." St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p. 68 http://wallmell.webs.com/LiguoriTrueSpouseChristVol1.pdf
Obey blindly; that is, without asking reasons. Be careful, then, never to examine the directions of your confessor....that in obeying your confessor, you obey God; force yourself, then, to obey him in spite of all your fears. And be persuaded that if you are not obedient to him, it will be impossible for you to go on well; but if you obey, you are always secure. But, you say, if I am damned in consequence of obeying my confessor, who will rescue me from hell? What you say is impossible." " St. Alphonsus De Liguori, The complete works of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori: the ascetical works: Volumes 10-11 (True Spouse of Christ) Google book search
Vatican II appears to be the beginning of a new schism. A cynic might claim this is proof that the Church's claims to the truth are suspect. However, it has been quite some time since the Reformation which was the last major schism, and since that time those that broke off claiming to have the truth have since shattered into thousands of sects.
Misleading, as Rome's limited unity is largely on paper, while those who esteem Scripture the strongest are far more conservative and unified in core beliefs and values that those whom Rome counts and treats as members. It seems you can be a Ted Kennedy Catholic more easily than a real conservative one.
Which explains all the disagreements among the Catholic sectlets.
Exactly.
Which STILL needs to be interpreted.
For that matter, EVERYTHING you read you interpret from your worldview, which is different from everyone else on the planet.
One of the obvious things is that the printed word do3es not carry tone of voice and inflection and you have to decide what it is for the situation.
So is it *Are you kidding???*
Or *Are you kidding!*
Or *Are you kidding?!?!?!*
Is it sarcastic?
Incredulous?
Tired, as in *Not again?*
All that for three words.
And no, the CCC is not clear at all about a lot of things. If it is, then perhaps you could tell us whether there is salvation outside the Catholic church.
Well, there used to not be Salvation outside Rome. Until there was. Even for Muslims.
Clear as mud.
I believe that to be the biggest difference between the conservative Catholics and the ultraconservative Catholics.
All Catholics believe that there is "no salvation outside of the Church" but one group believes that this means that for most people they have to be Catholic in order to be saved, while the other group believes that the existence of the Church and the graces that flow from God through it will allow even non-Catholics to be saved.
And with regard to the Catechism, it does not merely state "no salvation outside of the Church" and leave it to individuals to decide how to interpret it. What is meant is clearly defined. This definition appears to have changed especially since Vatican II and is a cause of much dissension.
Of course The Church has always meant Rome. Not the Orthodox. Certainly not we Protestants.
Some today still hold to that. Others are more gracious. I guess it depends on one’s interpretation.
I don't believe that there is anything in the Catechism that corresponds to a sentence that has different meanings based on inflection.
Read Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. You will see that the official teaching is clearly laid out, the justifications for it (including many citations from the Bible), the objections to the teaching with counterarguments, and the heresies that denied the teaching and why they were in error.
The vast majority of teachings in this book can be accepted by all Christians, especially those at the beginning dealing with the nature of God, Creation, Christ, Man, the Soul, etc.
Where there is open debate (e.g. alternate takes on the relationship between Free Will and God's Foreknowledge) the different possible alternatives are discussed along with their strengths and weaknesses.
There is no ambiguity and no need to interpret any moreso than there might be different interpretations of 2 + 2 = 4.
It's not a matter of being nice, but of being honest. There are Protestants who honestly believe that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the antichrist.
If they truly believe that and try their best to convert Catholics away from Catholicism then they aren't going to be seen as gracious, but they will be doing what they honestly feel called to do.
We can use words like 'Christian' to be more inclusive, but some of the ultraconservatives in the Catholic Church wouldn't refer to Protestants as Christians, and there are lots of conservative Protestants who consider Catholics to be more pagan than anything else.
I'm concerned that if the US fails as a going concern, that the different groups of self-professed Christians will not join together to create a new Christ-centered community, but will instead become more divisive and separated.
I can already hear the arguments now. The Protestants will accuse the Catholics of being too socialist, undemocratic, and tyrannical. The Catholics will accuse the Protestants of being too individualistic, prideful, and anarchist.
Let’s stay on topic, shall we?
We were discussing the wide variety of interpreations of Catholic teaching among Catholics.
There are hundreds (or maybe thousands) of different variations of Protestantism.
It will be easier and more likely for Catholics to identify the one true faith.
So which is the ONE TRUE version?
Besides, you are wrong.
THE RITES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH -- There are many!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2460378/posts
There are hundreds (or maybe thousands) of different variations of Protestantism.
Maybe. Or maybe not. Different names above the door do not necessarily mean different interpretations of Scripture.
And in many of the non-Catholic churches, there are far less significant differences than exists between say, the Roman church and the EO, just for one example.
The only real divisions among the "orthodox" Catholics have arisen regarding whether the documents of Vatican II are impossible to reconcile with the pre-conciliar Church or not.
There are some that say they can, and some that say they can't. Those that say they can't are further subdivided into those who believe the popes who promulgated and supported Vatican II are antipopes, incompetent popes, or well-meaning popes who need to reign in the theologians.
All of the "orthodox" Catholics agree on 99% of dogma. But the other 1% is still very important as it relates to questions of authority and salvation.
Liberalism has infected the Church just as it has all other structures of Western society. Protestant sects succumbed to it first, but it has been running roughshod through the Catholic Church for decades, if not a century or so.
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.