I have been reading Tom Bethell since the seventies, when he was writing political stuff for the American Spectator. He is meticulous in his research, and he goes wherever it leads him. I read this article in NOR a couple of weeks ago, and frankly, it represents for me the sum of all my fears regarding the resolve of Benedict. Why would a pope dedicated to reform appoint as head of the CDF a man dedicated to resisting it?
Why would men dedicated to reform allow things to have flowed as they have for the past forty years? Both Ratzinger and John Paul II, the two highest players in the Church for two decades, were pivotal in both the formulation and implementation of Vatican II. It is not as if they came onto the scene *after* an accident. They have instigated and tended to the reform. And they are Conservatives! So how did we get here? The entire situation seems to make no sense
Joe,
Are you an older man? If so, how many of the ardently-held beliefs of your youth do you hold today? How many of them have evolved, over time, into things quite different? It is possible to believe that Benedict today is a far different man from the young periti who applauded V2 liberalism in the 60's. Possible -- but the appointment of a McCarrick-style fixer like Levada does not make it any easier.
Even at 45, many of my ideas have changed... hence my Catholicism out of Evangelicalism! Levada does not seem a huge surprise in the sense that neither Benedict or John Paul come off as hyper-conservative in their writings. On the other hand, both speak as if they sense the Church;s health is in bad shape. That being the case, a staus quo player like Levada is hard to figure. I suspect that the Old Guard, pre-Vatican II, was extremely harsh as well as conservative.I recall Scott Hahn on a tape having a priest tell him, "You don't know what it was liike in the Old Days!!" If that is right, maybe we are just feeling the opposite reaction, and guys like Benedict hesitate trusting conservatives to demonstrate grace as well as hard truth. I do not know... I am simply praying that God is in these details, only hard to see, as he so often is in my own life.
Wow. Sounds like Leveda will be utterly disappointing, therefore looks like Benedict will be as well. Plus, look at who Benedict appointed to replace Leveda.
"Utterly disappointing" forgets grace that transforms even fallen nature.
Pope Benedict is what one might call a lattitudinarian when it comes to defining the boundaries of Catholicism. That's why we are likely to have a reconciliation with the SSPX and disappointing episcopal appointments to sees like San Francisco and Boston.
So we will see Catholics duke it out in the trenches. No matter what I think of the new mass vs the old if I lived in SF I would have to affliate with and contribute to a reconciled SSPX parish. I imagine the conflicts will get ugly. Two groups with valid claims to be Catholic presenting versions of the nobody outside the CDF will be able to reconcile.
Charles writes:
"So we will see Catholics duke it out in the trenches."
I think this is right, at least to a large extent. I see it as analagous to a game in which the referee (pope) has decided to enforce the rules very loosely. My biggest complaint against "conservatives" (although I hate these monikers) is that they keep approaching the game in a way that ensures they will be at a real disadvantage.
They approach the game as though the rules were still being called tightly, like the old days, while whining when liberals take full advantage of the current reality. "That's not fair! You can't DO THAT!"...while not really taking concrete action in response.
It seems the Benedict (and JPII before him) will continue to let us fight it out in the trenches to a large degree, calling "foul" and the end of each game somewhat rarely and see where the "sensus" of this battle leads...even perhaps in areas where they ought not.
But we can't whine at the referee and tie our hands when the other side whacks away freely without penalty, can we?
I'd just like to see some fortitude, some confidence to fight those who want to and work everyday to fight and tear at Christ's Bride. It's just disappointing that they can't step up to the plate. I mean no disrespect to any Cardinals or the Pope, but come on? Can't you preach the Truth? Why would anyone want it watered down? I guess some American Catholics don't want to be reminded that they are sinners. I'm just disappointed, and I understand people can change by the grace of God. Is there a patron saint of Catholic hierarchy? If not, the Church needs one.
I think that all bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, handle the abuse scandals in the same way as politicians. They go through the expected motions, with lots of spin. But when I see Cardinal Law appointed to such high position in Rome, I wonder is it even worse than that? Does Ratzinger still think the whole thing is a media conspiracy by anti-Catholic forces, and that he is making a counter-cultural stand in questioning received wisdom at every step.
On another aspect of the issue I still have not found J Levine's book Harmful to Minors, which also challenges received wisdom and has earned its author death threats from the American Taliban.
I hasten to add that I disassociate myself from the homophobic tenor of Bethell's writing.
If you want to disassociate yourself from nothing, go right ahead, Father.
Typical. Make a case against something one knows will garner support and then slip in something that is "off" in hopes it will also be accepted. How hard is it to find a book at Amazon.com? Some m.o.'s are harder to discern than others....
Here are a couple of telling reviews of Levine's book from those who PRAISE it:
“Harmful to Minors is a potent challenge to conventional wisdom about sex, sexuality, and sex education. Written with verve, humor, and wit, it is a trenchant look at America's failure to extol the erotic, and an insightful observation of our preoccupation with pedophilia, deviance, illness, and misconduct.” —The Progressive
Yeah, THAT's our problem, we don't EXTOL the erotic enough in America...
"Finally, in what is likely to be one of the most significant books of the season, journalist Judith Levine exposes the contradictions embedded within our attitude toward 'underage' intercourse, convincingly arguing that socially conservative beliefs and policies are largely to blame for the problems they purport to address." —San Francisco Examiner
"An astute analysis of what's gone wrong between adults and children in the U.S. Drawing on social science and history, Levine makes a strong case that the denial of sexuality is the true cause of harm to minors." —Village Voice
"...Do you know that studies of adults who had sex with adults when they were minors show that, for many, these sexual connections have not had devastatingly negative psychological consequences, especially among boys? That a surprising percentage of adults speak positively, even gratefully, of their early intergenerational sexual experiences?" The Spectator
Had enough "praise"?
Here are some other links of info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Har...rmful_to_Minors
http://
www.nationalcoalition.org...neresponse.html
When one speaks of "intergenerational intimacy" rather than predatory pedophilia, think "relocation camps" vs. Holocaust.
Tis somewhat of a statisical problem. With the number of priests shrinking, leadership quality and IQ also shrink resulting in fewer choices for leadership positions. Thereby the likes of Cardinal Law and Archbishop Levada are unfortunately given positions that they would not have been considered for twenty years ago.
And the solution? End of celibacy? Gender-free priesthood?
Make that a statistical problem.
I don't think that's the problem, Realist (# of priests shrinking). The total number of priests worldwide isn't really that different than 30 years ago.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/
1...ry_16491_1.html
I think the problem is in formation since Vatican II. Even liberal priests I know admit they did not receive a very good education in terms of theology, philosophy, etc. The same is true in lay education. CCD has been atrocious over the past 40 years...littered with text books chosen by those who want a feel-good "buddy Jesus" who demands nothing...more Protestant than the Protestants (and I say that as a former Protestant).
As for your solutions, the "gender free" just is not plausible (or even possible). Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was simply too clear for a pope to really think about reversing it: it has been declared part of the Deposit of Faith, i.e. irreformable.
But as for the married part, which IS possible, I have mixed feelings. While there are new problems that would be created, I think an argument can be made that they may be outweighed by the good done by an influx of men who are not quite so, shall we say, testosterone-challenged?
And while those who are married have two "families" to care for, perhaps if enough married men entered, we would have 2-4 priests at each parish again, mitigating some of those concerns.
Point of clarification: I do NOT intend to suggest all priests are "testoterone challenged" today, only that the proportion is much too high, generally speaking.
Augustine,
There is something wrong with your statistics on the number of priests. You might want to check UCCB information.
I am sure the Vatican theos can work out any problems with a gender-free priesthood. And with that situation we could have husband and wife priest teams.
And my favorite solution, make current deacons priests. Most are retired, have their own homes, income and health insurance. And most have educational credentials equivalent or better than most parish priests.
And my second favorite solution, install large screen HDTV's in all churches. Masses would then be beamed in on a time delay basis from Rome. One Pope, One Mass, One Choir- no other priests needed. I am sure the other sacraments could be beamed in to include a monthly general absolution by the Pope. The ultimate "out-sourcing"!!!!
If you reread my first sentence above, you'll see that I was referring to the number of priests world-wide. That number has not changed all that much. America/Europe isn't reflective of the whole world on this issue.
While the West sent priests to the rest of the world, now the rest of the world is sending priests to the West.
And even in regard to the United States, I don't think your theory holds, at least by itself. The number of priests in the U.S. have declined from 58.1k in 1965 to 43.3k in 2005. While certainly significant, its not as if there aren't still plenty to choose from.
Now, the younger priests that I have met seem to be a promising sign. They actually seem to know and care about theology, philosophy, the doctrines of the Church, etc....at least as a whole. Again, bringing me back to Vatican II and our 40 years in the desert.
Have you actually READ Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the CDF clarification thereof (written by the present Pontiff)? If not, don't you want to before confidently assuring everyone that women priests can all just somehow be "worked out"? 
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPA...OC/
JP2ORDIN.HTM
http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/de...ew.asp?
ffID=139
The deacons idea is one that others have expressed. If the Vatican does decide to permit married priests, it would be interesting to see how many decide to finish their preparation in order to become priests.
The last idea would work fine...for a Protestant church.
Hey, how about this: a Catholic TAKE OUT service! :-/
http://www.firstthings.com/ftiss...icles/
last.html
http://www.geek.com/news/
geeknew...10611006289.htm
Augustine,
You noted: "Now, the younger priests that I have met seem to be a promising sign. They actually seem to know and care about theology, philosophy, the doctrines of the Church, etc....at least as a whole. "
I have the opposite opinion of young priests I have met in the Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Baltimore area. Their sermons are typically "beyond poor". They would be better off reading from one of the many books of "canned" homilies and/or using a pre-recorded homily shown on a large screen HDTV.
And just about anything can be changed using the proper "theo speaking rationale". I am waiting anxiously on the the deletion of limbo without the deletion of "original sin". The "theo buzz words" will be in full force on that one. Although limbo is not dogma or doctrine, it sure is an embarrassment to Catholics.
By the way, attending Mass via a HDTV is analogous to those attending Mass at one of the outdoor Papal Masses where there are over a million attendees viewing the proceedings on large screen TV's.
Considering that only one of three "Catholics" go to Sunday Mass, it might be time for some Catholic "Take Out Service". "Wine with your Bread?" "Latin or English?", "Gregorian or Rock?" "Organ or Guitar?" "Fire and brimstone, Contemporary or Deep Theology with that Homily? 
Realist,
Honestly, I'm not overly wound up about the issue of limbo. There's plenty to be embarrassed about, but I don't consider that in my "top 100."
Also, attending Mass via HDTV solely is not the same as attending a Papal Mass with big screens. Exactly how is one to receive Holy Communion from the TV? I think TV Mass is great for shut-ins, but it is not possible to substitute such Masses for the real thing. I'm actually a bit surprised that you would support that, honestly. You strike me as a tactile-reality sort.
Human beings need REALITY, they need touch, smell, taste. We are not disembodied spirits (unlike a certain Spirit floating around and posting on this blog).
This is precisely one of the reasons I found Confession so powerful. As a former Protestant, it was incredibly liberating and moving to actually HEAR the voice of God's appointed servant on earth SAY, "your sins are forgiven, go in peace" and to FEEL his hands placed on my head.
And while I agree with your apparent desire to get as many people to worship as possible, I think your means will only exacerbate the problem. The problem is not that getting to Mass is too difficult. It is that too many people don't REALLY see the need for God here in the West.
In our excessive wealth we have become deluded into believing we are self-made and secure. We have become morally fat and lazy (and physically as well). Such people see no need for God. And simply making Mass more "entertaining" will merely draw people to it like those who followed Jesus to see the miracles....ooooh, aaaaah! And then they will move on to the next bbd...the next bigger, better deal.
I believe it is the sense of sacred that needs to be restored. People do not fight to get into free concerts. They fight to pay big money for tickets that are seen as priceless. It's a bit of the "wine effect" as we see in marketing. You can put the same exact wine in two bottles: one fancy and expensive and the other plain and cheap. People almost exclusively find the former "far better tasting" than the latter...and they will pay for it, leaving the cheap bottle on the shelf.
We are talking about receiving God Almighty, Realist....not Boone's Farm's "wine". Let the packaging reflect the reality as closely as possible.
Augustine,
Communion by "FedEx or UPS" probably won't "fly" but again using the analogy of an outdoor Papal Mass, the Communions were probably concencrated off-site and delivered to the Mass site.
With respect to confession, (as noted by another blogger), "Those are my sins, Father it is your turn". The current scandal in our Church, really turned me away from confessing to a possible "significant sinner". A good act of contrition should actually suffice especially if preceded by general absolution from Jesus' "rep", the Pope. ( and as per yesterday's Gospel,http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb127.html ).
Binding and Loosing: (1a) Matt 16.19, (1b) Matt 18:18, (2) John 20:23 appears to have been an embellishment and has questionable authenticity. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/
jdb073.html
Limbo is tightly tied into "Origen and Augustine's theo-generated first sin". The place and the sin should be put on the myth pile. The baptized and unbaptized are not guilty of some mythical sin caused by a couple of "near-apes/chimps" or mythical "magic gardeners".
"Those are my sins, Father it is your turn".
So youve been invested by christ with the power to forgive sins, have you realist?
Perhaps it is you who needs to read Sundays gospel more closely, Priests go to confession too you know.
The baptized and unbaptized are not guilty of some mythical sin caused by a couple of "near-apes/chimps" or mythical "magic gardeners".
Yes they are, or else how can this sin be forgiven? Or is our tendency towards sin part of our natural, god given state? God created us with a tendency to disobey him? Really?
Realist,
The hosts are SUPPOSED to be consecrated at that very Mass (not that they always are). And attendance at the proximate site, along with one's brothers and sisters is very important on many different levels. If you make it optional, I can guarantee you that liberal, lazy, fat westerners will turn it into the rule. And people will become even more isolated from each other and their faith than they are now.
And again, you only cheapen the Mass in such ways....such gimmicks will not pull people in for long.
Regarding Confession, you confess to Christ, through the priest. And you can always confess through one of those "old fashioned" confessionals where you are separated from the priest, Realist. But that might be too traditional, rigid and retro for you, I suppose?
Delegation of the power to bind and loose with full authority goes back a very long way, Scripturally, at least to the 8th century....B.C. Read Isaiah 22. It does not strike me as odd in the least that Christ would delegate this authority and power. Why would He go through torture and death, teaching us personally, just to leave us no way of knowing what he taught for sure (i.e. like what we see in 25,000+ Protestant denominations)? Even in the Old Testament Israel had the Ephod, the Urim and the Thummim and prophets to surely interpret/apply the rules when necessary. Should we expect He would have left us with less in the New and better covenant (Jer 31)?
Delegating the power to forgive sins does not strike me at all as odd or unbelievable either, for very similar reasons. In fact, I would find it very odd had he not established this. God created us as spirit/body composites. He knows that the spirit,mind,body all interact. This is the whole point of the sacramental system. Jesus himself was the ultimate sacrament, in a sense.
And you claim that John 20:23 is an "embellishment and has questionable authenticity" based on the opinions of those who have NO authority. (And the link you provided wasn't to the correct Scipture passage, btw).
Finally, Original Sin stands just fine on its own, Realist. You have a distorted idea of original sin. It appears as though you treat eternal life and the grace necessary for it as a debt "owed" to man by God. This is not the case. Have you actually READ the Catechism on this?
Again, I may have relayed this to Grega, but in light of what we know about hereditary genetics, why is the idea of passing down imperfection so difficult to imagine? It seems like you jump around in your beliefs, embracing concepts when they suit you, rejecting them when they don't.
And your statement about "some mythical sin" is foolishly prideful (and I don't say that angrily, just factually). For someone admittedly creating his own belief system which in turn is based upon those who do not even CLAIM to be infallible, you ought to be a little more ginger when making such absolute pronouncements. Whether only
Continued:
Whether only in effect or not, it seems you have chosen your own pope.
Realist,
What led you to your belief system? And what exactly is it? I asked several questions to nail things down a bit but you never answered. You know where I, Dr. Blosser and other orthodox Catholics stand on these issues, it is a matter of simply picking up a Catechism and any official teachings of the Church.
In the way you use it, saying you are "Catholic" does not mean much. It clarifies very little. As such, there is nothing by which we can judge your statements in order to determine internal coherence, consistency, congruity with Catholic teaching, etc. in the way you can with us. For the sake of fairness, you should be clear and open about these things. Then we'll be on equal footing.
I have no problem telling you my own side of this, btw, including how and why I became Catholic.
Augustine,
As previously noted with some additions:
I took early retirement at age 55 and began to read about miracles, etc. and the historic Jesus in order to answer my lurking questions about Christianity. It turns out there are a large number of contemporary biblical scholars and philosophers who have addressed my issues. http://www.earlychristianwriting...m/
theories.html. To date, I have read many of the books of J.D.Crossan, E. Schillebeeckx, J. Somerville, Raymond Brown, Karen Armstrong, J.P. Meier, Marcus Borg, Bruce Chilton, Luke Johnson, Burton Mack, and Robert Funk. And yes, I am quite aware of what conservatives think about some of these authors but if you read their books, you will note that they have done their homework. For example, see Crossan’s list of references at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan1.rtf .
For specific NT passages and what contemporary scholars have noted about them, (I typically agree with/believe their analyses), I go to a listing such as http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan2.rtf . Using Find on the Edit menu, I locate the passage of interest and then get a more detailed analysis at http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/.../JDB/
intro.html
An example: The Physical Resurrection of Jesus; Crossan's references and "file #" 17±. Resurrection of Jesus: (1) 1 Cor 15:4b; (2) Gos. Pet. 9:35-10:40; (3) Barn.15:9; (4a) Ign. Mag. 11:1c; (4b) Ign. Trall. 9:2a; (4c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2b. +/- means the historic Jesus did not physically rise from the dead but the story has strong theological importance.
For added commentary and analyses: http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/
jdb017.html
With respect to the OT, I believe that most of the document passages are embellishments or myths as there is little in the way of text or archeological evidence of the characters or events. http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequit...tur/
index.phtml for today and http://www.answersingenesis.org/...2/
0401torah.asp
With respect to OT and NT prophets, (as noted in other replies), since even God does not know the future, as per Schillebeeckx, there can be no prophets.
Picking and choosing mythical OT passages to prove NT "history" or to solidify our Catholic doctrine is akin to using Greek mythology to prove historical events or religious beliefs.
Jesus, IMHO, rose spiritually to Heaven as do all good global citizens. St. Paul through his Epistles helped tremendously in spreading the Word as did Constantine's conversion.
Okay, thank you. That's a start. Here are a few things I THINK I understand about your belief system (by all means, correct me if I am wrong).
What you DO NOT believe:
1) That Jesus performed the healings/miracles attributed to him in the Gospels
2) That Jesus rose physically from the dead
3)The Sacred Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and inerrant.
4) We will be given glorified bodies after the second coming of Christ.
5) That Jesus Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity
6)Original Sin
7)Baptism is a Sacrament that removes sin, both original and actual.
8 ) When we receive Holy Communion, we receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
9) That the Gospels faithfully and without error hand on what Jesus really said and did on earth.
Correct, incorrect?
Now, could you let me know your beliefs on the following (believe/disbelieve, etc):
1) The Trinity
2) Heaven
3) Eternal Punishment in Hell
4) Apostolic Succession, does it matter?
5) How are sins forgiven?
That's a lot, really, but whatever you can give would really be helpful.
Augustine,
As I said, my current beliefs rely on a good analyses of the historic Jesus. Follow the directions noted in my last reply to get the answers to your list of questions. If you are interested in a deeper analysis, then read Crossan's The Historical Jesus followed by Karen Armstrong's A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
One added note: Surprisingly, the analyses of the NT by the most of the referenced scholors agrees quite well with what a good friend and theology teacher at a major Catholic university believes and teaches. That put the final touches/conclusions to my reviews of the historic Jesus.
Realist,
You write: "my current beliefs rely on a good analyses of the historic Jesus."
So, you have personal faith that Crossan's analysis is "good" and that there is a difference between the "historic Jesus" and the Jesus of the Gospels.
You continue: "Surprisingly, the analyses of the NT by the most of the referenced scholors agrees quite well with what a good friend and theology teacher at a major Catholic university believes and teaches. That put the final touches/conclusions to my reviews of the historic Jesus."
Okay. But, honestly, I don't find it surprising at all. There is so much cross-pollination in these liberal academic circles. I would find it surprising if they DID come to very different conclusions.
But, getting back to your beliefs, based upon what you have written and your disbelief of central doctrines of Catholicism, I don't see how you can object if I say that you are not Roman Catholic in belief. If definitions, doctrines, dogmas, etc mean anything at all, then you are not truly Catholic. You may have elements in your belief system that are Catholic, but you are not truly Catholic (again, at least by belief).
Every organization has the right to define what membership entails, true? And for something like a religion, BELIEFS are logically a key element to defining that, yes? Well, the Catholic Church is very clear about what those beliefs are. We have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we have the Nicene Creed,e tc. And your beliefs differ very significantly with either one.
By this, I am not suggesting I can personally excommunicate you (or that I am even trying to). But I am only excercising logic, Realist. If you want to call yourself a Catholic, if you were validly Baptized, then in that sense you certainly are Catholic. However, you cannot similarly insist that your BELIEFS are Catholic. They are clearly and demonstrably NOT Catholic. As such, this means that you are a heretical Catholic. I cannot determine, of course, whether you are a formal or material heretic. Yet you clearly hold heretical ideas and an orthodox Catholic does have the right and responsibility to point that out and resist it, both for your sake and for the sake of others who may mistake your beliefs for authentic Catholic ones and hence accidentally espouse them as well.
While I understand that you will probably greatly dislike that, understand that I have at least as great a reaction to that which can mislead innocent souls into danger by such a lack of "truth in advertising". And, again, according to the Catholic faith, while I do not even attempt to judge your culpability before God, I can judge your error and the danger of it...warning both you and others. What you choose to do with that, is your choice. But at least know that I am not making up my own beliefs , practices and rules. I am endeavoring to follow those of the Catholic faith in doing this.
Augustine,
I guess I will just have to go to Purgatory with my professor friend, many of her Catholic professor colleagues, the current biblical scholars and other "realists". I am sure you will save me a place in Heaven with all the other good global spirits/souls of religious and non-religious persuasion.
Realist,
As with my own, I will leave your eternal disposition where it belongs: in God's Hands. And as I don't know these others you speak for, I won't judge their beliefs in relation to Catholicism. But I do know enough about yours (and the Jesus Seminar) to know that they are not Catholic. Any dolt with a Catechism can see that.
You know that I sincerely hope and pray for your salvation. If we meet in heaven, little would make me happier.
Realist:
Not such a realist that you'd consider other possible results besides Heaven and Purgatory, are you? You know, the place where backward prelates taught (ALL taught for TWO THOUSAND YEARS) that those who embrace false teaching and spurn the Apostolic kind go?
I know, nowadays we're not supposed to mention that. "Of-FEN-sive! Grrr! Ridiculous!! :-D Ha, ha; titter, titter!! Scorn! Sneer! PssshhhhAW!! In this day and age-REALly! FundaMENTalist...[sigh; head shake]"
Too bad! Tough cookies. All other things being equal, that's where you'll go, if you don't repent. It's not hard; one gets down on one's knees and head size is magically reduced. At least you can't claim nobody warned you....
Have a nice day!
Augustine,
If only the CC were written by Jesus and not some unmarried, male "AARPies" stuck in the Dark Ages. There then would be no needed interpretations of the Word.
The CCC was written by those entrusted by god with the Church he founded. By the way, the 'historical' Jesus didnt write a book, he founded a Church. If its all the same, i'll stick with that rather than psudo-'catholic' academics and heresy.
Jeff,
Ahh, another member of the Inquisition strikes again. Or are you just another member of the "better than thou" Pharisees?
"Pell subject of complaint to Vatican
http://www.smh.com.au/news/
natio...0283949225.html
By Linda Morris Religious Affairs Writer
February 20, 2006"
"They wrote in November to an American archbishop, William Levada, recently appointed by the Pope as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
==
Realist,
One problem is that even if the CCC were written by Jesus, Crossan would still redact it based upon what he felt Jesus "really" wrote.
Your faith is in men like Crossan. My faith is in the historical Church Christ established.
You may dislike or disagree with the teachings of the Church, but you cannot reasonably say they are not quite clear, especially on the fundamental points I outlined earlier. I hope you aren't suggesting it is pharisaical to insist that language and definitions mean what they plainly say.
If words have meaning, then your beliefs in the fundamental areas I covered are not Catholic. Is it your argument that your beliefs are in harmony with the fundamental points of Catholic doctrine I outlined above? If so, how?
I'm trying to figure out what, if any, objection you have to my statement about the Catholicity (or lack thereof) of your beliefs.
Do you agree that your beliefs in these areas do not coincide with the express beliefs of the Catholic Church?
I'm just curious on this, by the way, but have you really read through and studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Do you own one even now?
Augustine,
For sure I own a CC. Don't all good Catholics? Rapid access is also available on the net but unfortunately items discussing the historic Jesus, healings vs. miracles, foundations of infallibility, Inquisitions, Catholic inspired anti-Semitism and the myths of A&E and Noah and the probable myths of Abraham and the first five books of the OT are not.
Excellent, timely article by Bishop Vasa -- on heresy (Catholic
Sentinel)
http://sentinel.org/articles/200...06-7/
14481.html
Realist,
You write that the CCC has nothing to offer about the "historic Jesus, healings vs. miracles, foundations of infallibility, Inquisitions, Catholic inspired anti-Semitism and the myths of A&E and Noah and the probable myths of Abraham and the first five books of the OT are not."
Really? Gee, I found quite a bit:
The "Historical Jesus"? There is more on his life, death and resurrection in the CCC than anything else. The problem is that you choose to believe Crossan rather than the Church, not that there is nothing about the historical Jesus in the CCC. Topics range from his ACTUAL bodily resurrection (under, fittingly, "the HISTORICAL and Transcendent Event"), CCC 639-655, to his Divinity, CCC 465-466.
As for "healings vs. miracles", I don't know what you mean. Are you pitting them against each other (i.e. they were EITHER healings OR Miracles, but not both)? Try CCC 517 and 1507.
Adam and Eve? The CCC has something to say on that, too, try 355-412.
Noah? Abraham? You might try the Scriptures the CCC refers to on them, too.
Foundations for infallibility? Try the Scriptures the CCC and Vatican II describe as, HISTORICAL, recording what Jesus REALLY and TRULY did and said while he was on earth, in particular: Matt 16:18-20.
The Inquisition? Well, that's not a matter of doctrine and dogma, directly at least. But I find it interesting that compared to the secular courts at the time, it was considered fair and decent...there are historical records of people actually asking for their cases to be transferred to the Inquisition, for instance.
And finally, Catholicism as an inspiration for Anti-Semitism? I hope you are not going to start with the kind of nonsense "Spirit" did,too.
How about that! What? Oh. I see. That wasn't the information you WANTED! Oh, well, that's different than saying you can't find anything, right? Well, yes, the Catholic Church is not in the business of changing doctrines and dogmas to fit the whims of men. She has this bizarre notion that God put Her in place in order to save men who conform themselves to HER, not the other way around. Silly, I know.
Augustine,
Ahh, the guiltless Catholics are we!!
The CC is a bit dated with respect to contemporary theology, biblical history and archeology. Give the "CCers" sometime to catch up. They typically are a hundred years behind.
Guiltless? How do you figure? After all, you're the one who doesn't believe in Original Sin or the need for Confession.
I am sinful and Catholic.
You're sinless and unCatholic.
Ah, yes, just give the Church enough TIME and She will reject her core beliefs...coming around to see MY wisdom! Gee, THAT'S a new one....not!
Augustine,
"Original sin" has nothing to do with our personal sins. Again we are not to blame for others faults no matter how you might want to "theo" talk your way into inheritance of imperfections.
I don't believe in confessing my sins to some other sinner. Confessing to God/Jesus with His absolution is sufficient biblically and rationally.
"Realist" sounds suspiciously like someone calling himself "BHM -- Reformed" a troll whom Al Kimel rightly banned at Pontifications, just as he did the pseudo-Catholic "Spirit of Vatican II." This is my first visit to this blog, which I rather like, but is it really the best use of your time to debate with sucg trolls?
I explained my name change some months ago on this and other blogs.
Father Kimmel got upset with my continued references to the works of Crossan, Schillebeeckx, Somerville etc. Also one of his "backers" typed what I considered some rude remarks so in a very unChristian moment, I "fired back at him". After that I got "fired" from additional commentary.
I don't agree with the "Spirit of VII"'s take on homosexuality but his posts are very well written so I feel privileged to join him in our banishment from "pontifying".
Dr. Blosser and also Amy Welborn are not as thin-skinned as Father Kimmel and I thank them for that.
Jimmy Aikin also is not thrilled with my commentary on the historical Jesus so I just lurk over there making an occasional comment about chili
And I thank Augustine for his attempts to convert me back to neo-Catholicism. To do that, however, would take a Vatican point by point critique of the current historic Jesus thinking. database.http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
theories.html
Realist,
On the contrary, Original Sin has quite A LOT to do with our personal sins. Original Sin was what caused our continuing propensity to choose wrongly, to commit actual sin. Original Sin is an imperfection we inherit from our parents. That is not "theo-talk". And I think the comparison to genetics/heredity is sufficiently apt as you will see by the CCC quotes below. It should come as no surprise that principles in the physical find echoes in the spiritual, psychological, etc.
CCC 389: "The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation, and that salvation is offered to all through Chirst. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ."
Now, Realist (and Crossan, et al), you wouldn't be trying to undermine the mystery of Christ would you? Hmmm.....
Continuing: CCC 400: "The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.....After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin....St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners."
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as the one body of one man...We do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin AFFECTED THE HUMAN NATURE THAT THEY WOULD THEN TRANSMIT IN A FALLEN STATE." (404)
Gee, that sounds A LOT like heredity to me, Realist.
As for Confession and the idea that we are a priestly people not in need of mere human, functional priests to interact and be reconciled with God...you sound a bit like another person, in the Old Testament. His name was Korah. You might want to read what happened to him and his followers. Ah, yes, yes....just a myth. I can see why you would cling to that....it's not a very comforting story for one in your position.
As a last note, I continue to find your absolute statements on things theological quite strange and ironic as you admit your ideas here are simply your own fallible thoughts or those of a bunch of men with colored beads, who likewise claim no special knowledge or divine assistance. As such, don't you think you're getting a little dogmatic there, Realist?
Everyone has their dogmas, their Pope....
And neo-Catholic? What does that mean to you? As it is used on common parlance today, I am not a neo-Catholic.
The only important distinction is simple: Orthodox Catholic vs. Heterodox Catholic. One may b
Continued:
One may be more "liberal" while holding firmly to all the Church teaches or more "conservative". But the doctrines and dogmas delineate what we believe. You don't believe, you're heterodox (i.e. you hold heretical ideas). It's that simple. Your ideas on Original Sin sound an awful lot like the Pelagians. St. Augustine and the Church dealt with them at length...about 1500 years ago.
You, Crossan and others like him do not conceive of the Church as Mother, but apparently more like a whore designed for your pleasure and manipulation. A good son may certainly question his mother on occasion, even try to humbly and lovingly influence her once in a while, but he has the humility, love and respect to understand his limits and place...and spends far, far more time listening and learning than trying to teach Her.
Augustine,
"NeoCatholic" was not a well chosen word. It should have been "convert me back to the orthodox side and away from the attestations of Crossanism".
Looks like this thread has been exhausted with respect to dogma and doctrine. Later and again thanks for the discussion.
Commenting by HaloScan
