Slow Talk

I’m glad people are trying to learn about their faith. I think it proves that no matter what time and place, everyone has a need to find God (something I’m sure we agree on!). I guess I don’t consider theology to be isolated to the academic world. When I looked the word up in the Catholic Encyclopedia, it seemed to be about the treasure of faith and how it came to be understood and expressed, not just “studying God”. You may be right about it not having been taught in the past but I think that’s changing. Whatever it is called - apologetics, catechesis, theology, or something else – what I am talking about is teaching the reasons behind our beliefs. And showing how our belief isn’t against reason for those doctrines which can’t be fully explained. I think the narrower definition of doing theology is limited but the study of the results is not.

And thanks for pushing me to do be more precise about the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. You are right that they are not the same doctrine. Sorry for being imprecise! I’m not sure where you found that transubstantiation is not a dogma but this is what I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia: In the mind of the Church, Transubstantiation has been so intimately bound up with the Real Presence, that both dogmas have been handed down together from generation to generation.

I also found good explanations on the EWTN website http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchmenu.htm
The articles are from Frank Sheed’s Book Theology for Beginners. I remember my priest at college recommended that book when I was asking questions and I found it very helpful. (Another source for all those “young people” who are trying to learn more about their faith!)

My statement on truth was in response to your statement from your Jan 25th post “So, what the church actually seems to have to be really saying, I think, is this: just don't speak against this accepted reasoning.” I rephrased it because it sounded patronizing to me although you may not have meant it that way. I should be more like Joer and quote things verbatim.

I do agree that there is “peer pressure to conformity” and not necessarily on ideas which are in accordance with the faith. I’m not sure it’s peer pressure actually; I think it has to do with catechesis (or lack thereof) as much as anything. I also think that, in general, our culture doesn’t think things through much but relies on pat statements, assumptions, and clever comebacks rather than using logic and reason. It does make it difficult to have a reasoned discussion or to use reason as a basis for belief.

OK, you lost me. How did I mix objective and subjective? (“I have no problem with mental representations, although you are certainly mixing the objective and subjective as though they were suddenly the same to you”) See, Joer, I put the quote in!

The motu proprio was just an example I threw out. I could also throw out others, such as continuing to allow pro-abortion politicians to receive communion; such as Divine Mercy; such as the document on adoration, reparation, and spiritual motherhood for priests. I am grateful for the internet because without it I don’t think I would ever hear about half of the topics and initiatives the pope has given to the Church.

I still see my model as family, maybe an older form where the eldest brother stands in the place of a father when the father is gone and decisions affecting the whole family have to be made. Or one could see the pope as the father instead of a brother (although that is how he addresses them); that is one of his titles, after all. Sort of like the father in the Prodigal Son, who wants the family to be united. I see the lack of cooperation as the elder brother who wouldn’t lay aside his own feelings to welcome his brother back. In general I think the relationship of the pope to the bishops is one that requires balance and therefore it’s hard, if not counterproductive, to strictly define how they interrelate in every circumstance. But there still needs to be a sense of deferring to the visible head of the Church. In other words, even though you don’t expect your grown children to obey you, do you expect them to try to help with actions which you believe will keep your family united even if they may not agree? I’m not saying this very well but I hope you understand what I mean.

As for the motu proprio in particular, yes, it changed who had the authority to allow the Mass. But it also brought together the two Uses in a way that gave validity to both. Looking back over the last 40 years, I think the Pope was able to see the path along which the Holy Spirit was and is leading the Church. It is an attempt to heal some real wounds and problems within the Church.

You asked for other references about the restrictions on the Motu Proprio. I wrote some out but decided to delete them. I would be willing to send them to you separately but I am uncomfortable giving the names of bishops and priests in this context. First, for one the same reasons you gave when starting this thread rather than staying on the first one we were on – it’s easily traced. Second and more importantly to me (especially after thinking about the parable), I’m not sure that giving proof in order to try to prove my point is worth it. Since the Pope wants this to be a means of reconciliation it seems to me that I would not honoring his desire, nor helping it. It would only lead to unproductive wrangling. At this point, those who are being denied the right to this Use of the Mass, have means of recourse, to Rome, if necessary. If an individual bishop or priest makes it difficult for them, it is another opportunity for them to exercise the virtues of patience, love, and forgiveness.

I’ll have to remember that the next time I’m accused of being judgmental – I’m just making an assessment! By the way, it is definitely a time issue that keeps me from participating more in the café.

Respecting my elders was part of my upbringing, so I defer to you. : ) By the way, in defense of the young ones (“it’s kinda hard to figure out why some younger people want so much for the old days when they seem to dislike those who are so much the product of it”) or at least as a possible explanation, I think many of them look at the results of the last 40 years and see a path that has brought about a sense of individualism and relativism which undermines belief in general and the Church in particular. The “problems with pre-V2” as you phrase it, aren’t apparent from this distance and so they don’t become part of the view. And being told about problems by those you may believe have only made a mess of things, means you probably don’t believe their view of the earlier situation. (That was a complicated sentence; I hope it makes sense.)

Glad you meant it as a compliment to Pope Benedict. I withdraw my objection! Peace to you, too.

Never said that transubstantiation wasn’t a doctrine of the Church; in fact, said it was, b7m8. What I said was that belief in the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ IS actually belief in the doctrine of the Real Presence, and that transubstantiation is a closely linked but separate doctrine. And that is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, out-of-date and basically somewhat illegitimate though it may be. I figured awhile back that for some post-ers it was subjectively legitimate BECAUSE it did precede V2, not in spite of that unpleasant fact. Plus it has enough nihils and imprimaturs to make any catholic sigh in peace and safety. Unfortunately, you would seem to be either one who skims for a sentence you like or responds selectively, still not sure about the level of intent in your work. Let me demonstrate why what I said is reflective of the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1914. I said, “It’s a separate topic, and one that does not have to be held to as it stands, but with some caveats attached to not holding to it, so my statement that you are just not supposed to speak against it is right on. Again, you want to throw in some statement about TRUTH in the middle, but you are in a different place than the church on that.” So, let’s just quote the Catholic Encyclopedia: after a discussion that “energy” might take the place of matter/form in a different philosophy yet to be fully developed but occurring in line with science (Sylvester, are you still here?), “For the rest it may be said, that it is far from the Church’s intention to restrict the Catholic’s investigation regarding the doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament to any particular view of natural philosophy or even to require him to establish its truth on the principles of medieval physics; all that the Church demands is, that those theories of material substances be rejected which not only contradict the teaching of the church, but also are repugnant to experience and sound reason, as Pantheism, Hylozoism, Monism, Absolute Idealism, Cartesianism, etc.” There was NOTHING patronizing about what I said; it was a paraphrase of what was said in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I’m not saying that I would blame anyone for not wanting to go through the 18 pages of discussion on the topic; I’m saying that I would feel a bit cheesy telling people what the TRUTH is when I haven’t read that much of even the Old Catholic Encyclopedia entry that I’m citing. I really think you need to look at this issue. I think I would feel easier with your thinking if it didn’t wrap itself in TRUTH when there’s something to be talked about and learned about just to find out what the church teaches to begin with.

Same with the gloss-over on apologetics and theology. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1914, after all, apologetics was seen as the “vestibule” to the “temple” of theology. Not the same thing. And no, theology isn’t being taught more these days; it’s more apologetics that has been put on the internet that you are applauding—that which has already been accepted. They are so not the same thing, but I don’t really think you are interested in finding the distinction. Theologians do what academics do—they put ideas out there in journals to be read and studied and responded to. That’s the same ingredient that all higher education and science relies—open discussion. That doesn’t mean that they don’t get stuck in ways of thinking for long stretches of time; it just suggests that someone can later challenge and change the direction or dimension of the ideas. That’s the open part of academics that our hierarchy is trying to keep out of the media or at least assert its present position into. It’s the privilege that B16 still allows himself in his own academic circle—his kitchen cabinet of students and followers that he meets with every year. He just is trying hard to control what is now in the media that was once tucked into journals that the public didn’t read because so many Catholics get shook up over it. It will never work at the level of control he seeks, but I guess it’s a valiant effort in some minds. In reality, they use theology to later flesh out apologetics in new ways. Just the nature of the work. I’m sorry that you can’t see it, but there it is.

I was horrified that you might have started naming priests and bishops whom folks on the internet state have supposedly restricted the latest motu proprio. I can’t believe that you would even think I was asking that, and please don’t tell me any of it if that’s where you’re at. I certainly agree that B16 would not want you to do such a thing, and I seriously doubt he would want you spending much of your time focusing on it! He’s fixed it so he can move on, after all… one real benefit I can see already is the greater expectation of due process for complaints, and that is a fascinating precedent to be putting out there. But surely you can see that all will be solved on the side at some point since the Vatican already has the precedent of leaving bishop’s authority intact. There may be a bit more smoke-and-mirrors to this than it seems.

Divine Mercy what? I think that you have expectations of the church that will always frustrate you, but what did you want of Divine Mercy? You surely have the devotion available to you and surely aren’t suggesting that every catholic suddenly has to be into others’ private religious experiences are you? Anyhow, I could go on, but this long. You might want to look at the issue of assessment vs. judgment. I hardly think Jesus didn’t want you to assess people and things around you, do you? Would put any person—let alone any parent or anyone in a position of responsibility—in an untenable position, for sure.

For a quickie response on the subjective use of words as representation of ideas, your use of family as a metaphor to try to explain the whole church is a subjective use of words. You’ve put your own interpretation on the Prodigal Son in relation to the hierarchical relationship—that’s subjective. In answer to what I expect of my grown children, I talk to them is what I do. I don’t assume or give directives at all! Their first responsibility is to their own committed relationships and their own children or to-be. So I don’t assume. We talk. I think that you are not at that age yet and so think it will feel the same as now, but it won’t. It will change and stretch around or it won’t be healthy and won’t be what a family is that makes people want to remain a strong part of it. So, just leave a bit of space to see things differently in your metaphor. I think maybe it would help if you went to Paul’s use of Body—it’s a closer metaphor so you won’t have to force the metaphor in ways most people won’t accept. And the church hierarchy is all men, do remember. Men’s relationships with each other are hardly like mine to my daughters or son. All these men together in a room will not feel like a match to family, but may feel like a match to Body.

More there, but then you started putting in all kinds of things! Later--

You’re right; you did say it was a doctrine. Don’t know how I missed that but I did. (My bad, as the kids say! a phrase I generally don’t like but seems to fit here.)

No, I don’t skim for sentences I like, and I try not to respond selectively. That’s one of the reasons it takes me so long to get back to you sometimes. And since I often get interrupted doing research and generally don’t get to this until late at night, there are times when I miss things or forget things.

I don’t know if I need to respond to this part, but I will, since by the length of your response it’s important to you. I accept that you weren’t being patronizing (it’s hard to tell tone from the written word sometimes) but my rephrasing is in line with the Catholic Encyclopedia as well. “Just don't speak against this accepted reasoning” (your statement) and “Don’t teach things that are contrary to the faith as true. Or teach them as part of the faith.” (my statement). To quote your quote from the Encyclopedia, “all that the Church demands is, that those theories of material substances be rejected which not only contradict the teaching of the church, but also are repugnant to experience and sound reason.” Sounds like we all agree on the idea.

As far as using the word Truth is concerned, I’m sorry if I have come across as a know-it-all. I believe the Truth resides in the Church and I rejoice in it (like the Israelites in Dt 4:6-8). I have tried to learn more about my faith in the process of this discussion and to express what I’ve learned. I have never made any claim to be a scholar and I have often apologized when I was wrong. I’m not sure if it’s the fact that I believe there is an objective Truth, that upsets you or if there are other factors at work. My point has always been that the deposit of the faith, held by the Church, is true. My ability to know or express that is limited but that doesn’t lessen that Truth. Incidently, I am grateful for all the thinking and studying this site has made me do.

As far as “glossing over” the differences on apologetics and theology, that wasn’t my point. My point is that people are learning more about their faith and about God, no matter what the overall grouping is. Unfortunately, the url for theology isn’t coming up right now so I can’t find exactly where I was. Here’s another site (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) which is more specific but does describe what I was talking about. But I do think that all of the areas I listed (apologetics, catechesis, theology) are being taught more and more (yes, even theology in the narrow sense of just the study of God). The Catechism is in part responsible for that, I think. As people are able to read a summary of the Church’s faith, they want to know more and are finding sources to study. Maybe we aren’t coming up with new theological insights but we are trying to learn what the Church has taught and still teaches about God. As I am thinking about this, maybe our difference lies in the fact that I’m not limiting “teaching” to only courses offered by the parish but including classes which are available on CD, DVD, on-line courses, or in study books. But even in our parish setting, the desire to be fed “real food” is evident and the Lord is providing it.

If one defines theology only as the exploration of new ways to think about God, then you are right: it is not something that is generally taught. I think it is fine to leave those discussions in a limited venue. There is so much to know and understand about the history and background of theology before getting to the point of being able to understand and discuss new ideas. (For example, Sylvester’s writing takes a lot of work to even understand the words he uses!) I think it is important to balance the value of widespread discussion with the possible confusion and loss of faith which might result. Please note I didn’t say it shouldn’t ever happen, just that there should be some concern for how such discussion affects us regular people. I am speaking from some experience here, as I have recently been part of a small group in which we were discussing the Trinitarian doctrine. We haven’t become theologians but we have deepened our appreciation of this mystery.

You know, I always thought the interpretation of the parables was open to a certain amount of subjectivity. It’s one of the aspects that makes them so fruitful for meditation. I’m still not sure why I am being chided for subjectivity when using the family as a metaphor. Is it any less subjective to use the metaphor of the military? And why is it bad in the first place? That’s what I didn’t get from your first comment.

By the way, I don’t think my metaphor is forced but I also don’t expect you to embrace it. I would hope, though, that it would help you understand how I can see it as family.

I certainly hope that aspects of my relationship to my children will change! But I also hope that if my husband or I ask them to do something to help maintain family unity as adults, they will, even if they aren’t thrilled about the idea.

Of course I assess, and I think it is our responsibility to assess. But assessing is often called judging. Once again, that was just a half-joking comment, not meant to call forth a reaction. But on a serious note, I wonder then when does the assessment become judgment? And when should an assessment that something is wrong lead to making decisions which would be considered judgmental? (For example, say I have a husband who smokes. If I take steps to make sure his smoking impacts our children as little as possible by insisting he not smoke in the house, haven’t I gone beyond assessing and moved into judging?)

Annie, I have a question for you. Do you want to stop the discussion? It seems that everything I say lately brings a negative reaction. A slight exaggeration perhaps, but looking back over the last month or so, not much of one from my perspective. If you want to stop, I’d rather you just said so. As it is, I’m getting reluctant to even open your posts because I feel that I’m going to be belittled and dismissed as hopelessly pre-Vatican II, a state which makes it a waste of time to talk to me. This is not how I felt at the beginning when we disagreed but you seemed much kinder. When we talked about things I thought we presented our own sides and accepted, if not agreed with, the other’s view. Right now I feel as if you have decided what type of person I am and therefore you believe you know what I am going to say before I say it and how I think and believe, and have dismissed the idea that anything I say could possibly be of value. I feel no generosity of thought or attitude toward me. I hope I’m wrong (again!) but that’s how I’m feeling. (On the bright side, I’ve gotten to practice my spiritual works of mercy!) I don’t mean this to be self-pitying but I don’t have time to make it sound better, so please accept it as a request for an open assessment on whether to continue this conversation.

May the Mercy of God and the peace of Christ be with us all.

b7m8, let me begin at the end. No, I don’t want to stop the discussion. This is the second time you’ve asked, so perhaps the question is: do you want to stop the discussion? I am sorry that you see my responses as belittling in any way, or suggesting that you are ‘hopelessly pre-V2.’ I actually think we have had a very interesting and worthwhile discussion, and I think you are happily wrong (again!) :-) about how I feel about you or this discussion. I think we have actually just come to the heart of our differences, and perhaps that is why it doesn’t feel so great right now. You will remember that you were the one who began by challenging the right for me to say what was being said and call myself a catholic, as I remember! That didn’t feel very good to me at the time, but I do think we have worked somehow past that over the past year. We come from very different places and no one suggested that this would be easy, but it seems that not only us, but others, have been involved and are still involved in the discussion. It is true that I am not as careful or soothing in my words as some of the people you are dialoging with, but I also don’t think that you have challenged them in the same ways at all, even from the beginning. I think that is just the nature of “us.” What perhaps I need to say—or say again—is that you are the only one on here that represents a more “Roman” Catholicism (since you aren’t so sure about conservative, traditionalist, and other such labels, so perhaps that will represent you better) who also can dialog with me and others. Most flee from this site, or at least from responding, and a few stay around but rarely can be said to dialogue much at all. So my compliments are actually large for you—HATS OFF! I may not be as squishy as you’d like, but I do enjoy the challenge of what we are doing here. I’m not trying to be negative toward you, at all. But I am going to say what I think and feel if we are going to continue—that’s really just me. I’m actually not concerned about “your bads” or “my bads” or how they stack up on either side. (It’s a cute phrase, by the way!). You can tell me also if you wish to quit, but I still hope you don’t. I actually think maybe we just need to move onto something else. We do seem done here.

My point in what I said is actually that we can take about anything the church teaches and come up with a lot of things differently, including the church saying, ‘it’s okay to think differently.’ What would we find much more orthodox or ‘catholic’ than transubstantiation? and yet, look where we come to…b7m8, I don’t care that you aren’t a scholar, which you keep telling me, and I keep telling you that I’m not either. You stayed with the philosophy with joer and Sylvester, not me, although eventually perhaps I’ll go that way on here. It IS the use of words that you have which are soothing to you but sound like they are meant to challenge the trustworthiness of others—the TRUTH words. I have always said that I believe that the church teaches the truth, but have disagreed that there is only one way to express it, and that is the place where you want to disagree. I’m not sure that it comes across as a ‘know-it-all’ to me. It comes across more as a security blanket to me. I’m not trying to object to that, but it can be off-putting for someone else, particularly when the theology is actually complicated and difficult. I think that objective TRUTH can be masqueraded by one-way-“itis”.

Of course the meaning of the parables is open to ‘subjectivity’ or interpretation. That is the point, and without question why they are so fruitful for meditation. You weren’t being ‘chided’ about using subjective approaches by using the ‘family’ as your metaphor; I was suggesting that there is a point where a metaphor can be too strained by the reality to be the most useful; that’s why I was suggesting that Paul had one (Body) that fit better the church, especially with its male emphasis. You are welcome to use your own in peace. (And yes, ‘military’ can also be a metaphor; that was the point also).

You are forgetting that I love subjective language and think it more the language of God and certainly the preference of the Christ and obviously closer to the Spirit. I find more TRUTH in it because it opens to people and their experience more readily, asking less that people fit themselves to the objective, which still holds the subjective but tries to hide it. I think there is more TRUTH in the subjective, in other words…in relationship. But that is exactly where people get cornered sometimes in their words. If I say that ‘Jesus is the Ultimate Metaphor” I can assure you that the traditionalist sky will fall on my head! There would be complaint that I was too loosey-goosey or not an acceptable theologian or a blasphemer or, oh my gosh, a liberal(!)--and my writings would be censored or I would lose my license to teach theology in a catholic university, or the priest would pass the host to the next person or I would be scorned by other catholics...

Anyhow, I don’t mean to stop before assessment/judgment, but too much already, and might as well see if you want to keep going. We can go there first, which would seem safe and interesting ground for us, perhaps?

Christ is risen! Alleluia!

I’m happy to continue the discussion and I’ll try not to be too sensitive or read things into your comments. Although I certainly don’t want you to be squishy (what an image!), it is easier for me to get at the issues if I’m not loaded down with negative emotion and feeling attacked (which I accept you aren’t doing but my reaction is often based on my feelings, not your intent). Knowing how you see the discussion will help me get over that, so thanks for telling me. Maybe that’s why you see me as less challenging with other people on here – I don’t feel as challenged personally by their comments. So, I’m not asking you to refrain from saying what you think and feel, just to maybe think about the effect on me when you say it. (And I promise to try to consider the same for you!)

If I have to be labeled I prefer orthodox but I can live with Roman Catholic! Thank you for the compliment (it helps me to know I am appreciated!) but I think people like Here Today, do attempt to engage in dialogue, at least the postings I’ve read. (Then again, I may think that because it’s nice not to feel completely alone!) I know he (?) has contributed to our discussion with some references and explanations. I think your wisdom in slowing down the discussion is a great advantage to dialogue. It is hard to respond thoughtfully if one is feeling rushed. By the way, did you hear or read Fr. Cantalamessa’s homily at the Pope’s Good Friday services? I thought his statements about dialogue and unity were very timely to our discussion.

I understand now what you are saying about the word “truth”. I do find comfort in knowing that I can trust the Church when she declares something to be true but it isn’t a security blanket. To me it is a reliable guide for making choices in my life. It’s one of those “consider the source” things. When I evaluate news or other information, I try to see what the point of view is of the person or organization giving the information. It’s sometimes next to impossible, of course, but with the teaching of the Church, I consider the source to be the Holy Spirit. (And I know not all statements by Church officials are inspired, so there is a layer of evaluation to be made even in the Church statements.)

One of the things that has become more clear in my mind over the last year is the importance of having moral Truth by which to decide right and wrong. Technology is moving so fast and new moral dilemmas are being brought forward almost monthly, it seems. Having basic principles by which to judge (assess?!) what is right and wrong is essential if one isn’t to be overwhelmed by everything. I think the Church is currently making decisions on these issues using basic principles (such as the dignity of the person). I think there is a great need for people who understand the science and the faith to be thinking and praying in order to discern the mind of God on these topics.

I’m glad we agree that the Church teaches the Truth. I don’t object to “different means of expression” unless there is an irreconcilable contradiction in those expressions. At the point a decision has to be made, I trust the Church to make the right one.

In the area of Truth, I do think there is one-way-itis, as you call it. I’m not sure that is bad, though. For example, establishing basic right or wrong and then considering exceptions and extenuating circumstances seems a rational and reasonable way of deciding morality. Like the 10 Commandments: stealing is objectively wrong but stealing to feed your family is not as serious as stealing because you want a new TV. But at least one starts with the idea that stealing is wrong.

But my main difficulty, as I have said before (sorry if I become tedious), is that so often the idea that there is an objective truth, which we can know and are responsible for seeking, is rejected. Since I’ve been on here, I’ve come to understand why some people reject the idea. Still, I believe there is an objective Truth and we can know it, at least in part, through reason and revelation.

I’m going to stop here. I had hoped to get this posted before the Triduum, but obviously did not succeed.

May your Easter be blessed! (And sorry it took so long for me to respond.)

Will only make a short reply due to time, but will return, unless you want to say where you want to head next. Otherwise, I'll come back to 'judge and assess' as the topic and see what we think and maybe what others think as well. Glad you are still up and running with this--it's been fun. You ARE actually the only one of the more Romans who dialogues for real--again HATS OFF. HT has his strong suits but that is not one that I think he (yes, he says he is "he") claims, although I could be wrong, or could be misunderstanding when he doesn't respond.

You will always frame your reference as "objective Truth" and so be it. That is your philosophical stance, which has been the Church's once it got used to the idea over a couple of centuries. I am glad that the Church stated its willingness to reconsider a century ago, so maybe interesting change in someone else's future!

Let's try 'judge and assess' and see where it goes. We probably agree in theory on this but may differ in what it means when it comes to practical situations.

Ya know, b7m8, I'm not really sure where to begin with 'judge and assess' now that we agreed to go there! It seems like it started with the idea that perhaps I was judging young people as not having as strong or mature a spiritual place as I see myself (which is generally quite true). I'm not sure how they could, and when I said that, I think you said you were kinda joking, so I'm not sure if there is an issue exactly. I wasn't suggesting they weren't on a journey, and it isn't likely that they'd be as far along as someone several decades older would be, so I'm not sure what to say. Do you want to start this part, or is this just not the right subject now? We do have some threads we left hanging as well. Let me know.

I did laugh at something I was reading about the Jesuits that made me think of this conversation and expectations regarding obedience. One of the Jesuits said basically this: 'we will obey, but we are not the Swiss Guard'. I love it. Very man.

Have you been listening to the Pope's addresses and sermon? I'd be interested in hearing your reaction. (I think mine is probably predictable!)

b7m8, I'm not sure that I ever kept up with more than the highlights, but I generally like B16's positive, pastoral approach these days. Why don't you tell me more about them? I've waited to see if you would post more, but you are not, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about them.

Another thought I've been having I thought I would run by you. I think we are in a lull, which may be a good break anyhow. What do you say if we just break until Labor Day-ish? I'll still check back in case you break into the break :-), but I think you might want a break from me and this difficult conversation we are coming out of. One thing we put aside that I remember clearly was the issue of charity and social justice, and I would like to poke around in your thoughts and feelings more on that. Should we re-convene for the next council after Labor Day? Let me know what you think...

Actually summer is generally better for me as I have fewer commitments. I don't mind waiting a week or so between postings, though. I would like to explore Benedict's talks, etc. For my own benefit to start, and I'd like another perspective. And maybe if we don't have different perspectives, it would show that the Spirit of God is at work unifying the Church as Jesus prayed at the Last Supper: "... so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me." (Jn 17: 21) Because it seems to me that that unity is ever more urgent in our world. We cannot effectively preach Christ as Savior until we have overcome our disunity.

Okay, I'll go there with you in June!

I haven't had much time yet, b7m8, although I've tried to stay up with the highlights. I am extremely pleased that B16 met with abuse survivors and has made such a dramatic change in his understanding of the crisis from his earlier position of distance and more denial. I am hoping that he keeps with this subject with the bishops, and takes a stronger hand with a few of the recalcitrant ones. We can sure come back to this as the dust settles a bit.

I'm also pleased he reached out to the victims. I pray that the bishops who cover up and priests who abuse will recognize their sin and repent. (That may sound old fashioned, but it needs to happen.)

I didn't answer this originally because I thought you'd be coming back with more but I guess after two weeks you're waiting for me. I'm not sure which topic you'd like to pursue. I'd still like to hear your thoughts on some of the pope's sermons and talks but if you have another topic, that's fine. I'm very overwhelmed by end of year events right now so I haven't given much thought to an alternative topic.

May the Spirit of God grace your Pentecost with his gifts!

I guess we still grace each other's thoughts! Don't know if you will soon see my note above, but I think they got posted both today. I will read what I can find of B16's talks, but will need some time into next month anyhow probably. Let me know what you think of timeline, since we still are posting here to each other and seems like we want to continue...

...and Happy Pentecost to you as well!

Yes, I am a 'he' and Annie is right, dialogue is not one of my strong suits, though I try. (sometimes though I wonder if it is ever meaningful, and Annie is a reminder that there are people who will listen). I think that many of the disagreements on this site are based in unexamined philosophical differences, even over such underlying principles as 'truth'.

I know that I tend to be a bit hard, but I am trying to get some of the others as entrenched in their positions as I am to recognize and examine this divide.

++++++
What I'm Pondering...

BTW, I really appreciate the conversation that you two are having, that's why I try not to disturb it by posting, but I have followed it from the beginning.

Thank you for the kind words, Joer! It’s been a while, and I hope you’re still out there. Life got overwhelming and I had to take a break.

You’re right that individuals do have a responsibility to listen to the Holy Spirit when deciding right and wrong. I don’t say that the Church can know God in all his completeness but I do know that the Church will not be allowed to teach error about God. I go further to say that the Church will also not be allowed to teach error in the matter of morals. Since one of the ways the Holy Spirit speaks to us is through the Church, disregarding her teaching or making it secondary to one’s own personal beliefs or reasoning means one is not taking advantage of God’s gift when deciding what to believe.

I’m glad we agree about Truth. I do want to say, though, that I have been very careful NOT to say that the Church knows all things or has a complete grasp of who God is. But not knowing everything doesn’t mean knowing nothing or that what one does know is wrong. In other words, the Church may not understand everything about God (I’m not sure that is even possible), but she can be sure of things that have been revealed to her. Knowing the Truth, based on God’s revelation, is not equivalent to knowing it as well as God knows it. So I freely concede that the Church’s understanding is not infinite. But does that mean that she can’t state anything with certainty? Of course not. So it comes down to a question of when is she able to speak with authority. I think I see that for you that revelation to the Church isn’t as certain as it is for me. I believe that the Truth has been revealed to her and that, even if my understanding is less than perfect, I can place my faith in that, because I place my faith in God’s promise to protect her.

If the process is ongoing, as you believe, then it would be probable that the Church would be in error at some point. If the Church could be in error, then I would be a fool to trust what she says without evaluating each issue. That basically puts me back in a position of deciding on my own what is right and what is wrong. That belief is how we ended up with Christians being divided instead of unified, although Jesus prayed that we would be one.

So how does one know God’s Laws or God’s Truth? It can’t just be by listening to the Holy Spirit. If that were sufficient, all Christians would be of one heart and mind. And I think this discussion has shown that sincere Christians can hear opposite things. How then do we determine which is correct? I think Jesus left us a way of knowing Truth, and right and wrong, and that is his Church. She holds the deposit of the faith, revealed Truth, which enables us to judge whether our personal choices are in line with God’s will.

I’m not sure which of the Church’s laws you think are not in line with God’s laws. (I am assuming you are talking about moral teaching and doctrine, not just discipline.)

I do see your nuances and I agree that the Truth is something that everyone must seek. I even think that we agree that God can reveal Truth to those outside the Church and that the Truth the Church holds is God’s. But I believe that if anyone claims to have a Truth from God but that “Truth” is not in line with what has been revealed to the Church, then there is a discrepancy and what that person believes is the Truth, can’t be.

I’m glad you like the posts; I missed the discussion while I was away. God bless your Advent with peace.

It was so nice finding your post b7m8. i had look any times and was patiently waiting. It was a joy to find it.

“Life got overwhelming and I had to take a break.”

I know what you mean B7M8 about doing our other work. Away from the internet and the boards. 

“I go further to say that the Church will also not be allowed to teach error in the matter of morals.”

There are several ways I can see this as truth. One as I said before these truths that you mention are refined over time by the theologians of the church. Then They have councils or gatherings and they decide which changes in understanding these truths will be incorporated into Church Dogma and Doctrine. So if you mean the church is not allowed to teach error OVER TIME because the truth is continually reevaluated for understanding by the greatest minds of the church. I agree. If you say we (the church) understand these truths today the exact same way we did almost 2000 years ago. I would have to disagree because you be ignoring the historical development of these truths over time. The Truth doesn’t Change. Our capacity to understand the Truth changes. And the church must adapt the way they present the Absolute Truth of God to meet our current understandings of reality. So that’s a bit more about what I meant when I said about this about these Church Discussions:

“They do have use in that they eventuate into the promise of God to keep the church from error. They (the discussions) do this by what you call “the development of our understanding of a truth”. Our understanding is continually enhanced by this “confrontation, discussion, councils, etc”.

“Since one of the ways the Holy Spirit speaks to us is through the Church, disregarding her teaching or making it secondary to one’s own personal beliefs or reasoning means one is not taking advantage of God’s gift when deciding what to believe.”

I see a slight error here. We all decide PERSONALLY what to believe. (Free Will) So the only way we CAN take advantage of God’s gift is by the personal choice to accept it. You’re absolutely right about the importance of receiving God’s Gift from the Holy Spirit through the Church. BUT you must not forget that Jesus gave us the Spirit of Truth to guide each and every one of us. We already discussed seeking this grace. Now I’m not against the teachings of the church per se. BUT IMHO some of the Church’s teaching have been in error for a short period of time until trough the Grace of God to guide the Church from error eliminates those temporary errors in presenting the living percepts of faith to the faithful. I mean there are highly educated religious persons whose sole endeavor is to keep clarifying the understanding of the faithful of the application of doctrine and canonical law to issues of the day. And all of those interpretations are unique. Encyclicals, letters of the Church including Some speeches and communications by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith . like these.
 S.E. Mons. William Joseph Levada (from May 2005)
 Card. Joseph Ratzinger (from November 1981 to April 2005)

Perhaps our only difference is this as you mentioned on a prior post
:
“I want to reiterate that the development of our understanding of a truth is not the same as change. Doctrine develops; it does not change, meaning it can’t become something which contradicts earlier declarations. Examples: the Trinity, the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, Christ is true God and true Man. All these were developed by confrontation, discussion, councils, etc. But once the Truth was recognized and stated clearly, the discussions against it ceased to have much use.”

Perhaps where I see “contradictions of earlier declarations” you see “the development of our understanding of a truth”.

You mentioned the Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as an unchanging truth. One of my first posts here dealt with the understaning of that presence and transubstantiation. And touch on some history of the development of understanding. Here Today as "Chris" joined me in discussion.

This week’s Gospel answers the Bread of Life Question. - John 6:60-69
http://ncrcafe.org/node/400

The Bread of Life
http://ncrcafe.org/node/377

God Bless and continue to be your guide b7m8. Amen/Awomen :-)

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

Thanks for understanding, Joer. Many blessings on you in the new year!

I think we are close on the idea of truth. One distinction I would make is on the idea of teaching over time. You said, “So if you mean the church is not allowed to teach error OVER TIME because the truth is continually reevaluated for understanding by the greatest minds of the church. I agree.” I believe that the Church may not teach falsehood, ever, not even over time, which then gets corrected. (This does not mean that individual members of the Church can’t teach something that is wrong; they can and do. Which is why even statements from Cardinal Ratzinger are not to be taken as doctrine without being measured against the Deposit of the Faith.) That is not to say that our understanding of doctrines remains static; it doesn’t. We can always go deeper into the mysteries of our faith.

As you point out, the development of a doctrine or understanding takes time. There will be true and false understandings put forward and discussed during that time. Sometimes even saints, who may get many things right, don’t have all the right answers. That is what the Magisterium is for: to define the Truth when it has been called into question. I also think that the sensus fidei is part of the process. That is why looking at what the Church has traditionally believed or held to be true is important.

Admittedly I am no historian, but from what I have read, the pattern seems to be that a question on a certain topic gets raised, maybe because someone begins to make statements contrary to what has been believed up until then. (Arius on the divinity of Christ, comes to mind, or the challenge on the true nature of the Eucharist in the second millenium) There follows much discussion, argumentation, and possibly even political maneuvering. The Church decides the topic is one that must be defined so the faithful can know what is true and what is not. So then there is a time in which she looks at all the arguments, considers what the faithful have always believed, prays and meditates about it (for example, in the Councils), and only then defines what the Truth is. But the final doctrine, even though it is clearer and more reasoned, never goes against what the Church always believed. For example, Christians believed in Jesus’ presence in the Bread and Wine from the very beginning. The definitions, terminology, hows, whys, etc. were left for later generations to figure out, but the basic Truth of the Eucharist is not changed.

I looked up the posts you mentioned. I found your comments but not Chris’. Don’t know what I did wrong. But as usual, you summarized his comments so I think I know the gist of what he said. I think maybe John’s use of the word “flesh” is not clear. My understanding is that the “flesh” that is useless is the equivalent of “the world”, which John uses in contrast to the “spirit”. In other words, when Jesus speaks of his “flesh is real food”, that is not the same as the corrupted “flesh” of the world. I believe that the bread and wine do truly become the Body and Blood of my Lord. He redeems me physically as well as spiritually because we can’t separate our bodies from our souls except in death.

As far as our personal responsibility to exercise our free will, I agree completely. It is essential. I do wonder, though, if the Spirit is guiding all of us, how can we come to different conclusions about what is right and wrong? And if the Truth is relative to each of us and not objectively True, then it really isn’t Truth at all. As you say, there are many sincere and holy people who can disagree about teaching. The only way I see that the Spirit of Truth being guaranteed is through the teaching office of the Church.

B7M8 Thank you again for your courteous and understanding post. Many blessings on you in the New Year! And may your biggest blessing of all, your LOVING HEART continue in God's Grace. The kingdom of God IS within you and I do enjoy seeing it and sharing in it.

You wrote: "I think we are close on the idea of truth."

Your right B7M8 we are very close in our understandings and beliefs about the Church and God. We have some differences but I believe we have some very important agreement on major points. We both believe in the REAL presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I hear what you are saying B7M8 in the rest of your post. It is very well put. Again I can see perhaps if I use different wording I can remain true to both our positions. Instead of "Falsehood" I could say
"That is not to say that our understanding of doctrines remains static; it doesn't’t. We can always go deeper into the mysteries of our faith.

As you point out, the development of a doctrine or understanding takes time. There will be true and false understandings put forward and discussed during that time. Sometimes even saints, who may get many things right, don’t have all the right answers."

I can agree with that statement.

And use the understanding and words gleaned from that statement to give a perspective to this following statement that I can also agree with.

"That is what the Magisterium is for: to define the Truth when it has been called into question. I also think that the sensus fidei is part of the process. That is why looking at what the Church has traditionally believed or held to be true is important."

That is not to say that our understanding of Magisterium and sensus fedei remains static; it doesn’t. We can always go deeper into the mysteries of our faith in regards to the Historical inception and continued deepening of our understanding of those doctrines of faith.

As you point out, the development of a doctrine or understanding takes time. There will be true and false understandings put forward and discussed during that time. Sometimes even saints, who may get many things right, don’t have all the right answers. This with be as true with the Magisterium as with any other doctrine of the Church.

You write:

"Admittedly I am no historian, but from what I have read, the pattern seems to be that a question on a certain topic gets raised, maybe because someone begins to make statements contrary to what has been believed up until then. (Arius on the divinity of Christ, comes to mind, or the challenge on the true nature of the Eucharist in the second millenium) There follows much discussion, argumentation, and possibly even political maneuvering. The Church decides the topic is one that must be defined so the faithful can know what is true and what is not. So then there is a time in which she looks at all the arguments, considers what the faithful have always believed, prays and meditates about it (for example, in the Councils), and only then defines what the Truth is."

I agree with this example. The thing is that it is ongoing. After the questions are raised, the arguments presented and careful and diligent attention applied to the definition of the Truth contained therin and it is incorporated into Church Doctrine than the process repeats itself as needed at a future date. It could 500 years later a thousand years later or as I believe will soon be noticed as this process repeats itself and as the accumulation of knowledge accelerates the Time periods between reevaluation of the mysteries of faith will become increasingly more frequent to keep up with our changing understanding of the world, the universe and the processes dictated by God and His magnificent creation and being discovered by human kind at an ever increasing rate.

You continue with:

"But the final doctrine, even though it is clearer and more reasoned, never goes against what the Church always believed. For example, Christians believed in Jesus’ presence in the Bread and Wine from the very beginning. The definitions, terminology, hows, whys, etc. were left for later generations to figure out, but the basic Truth of the Eucharist is not changed."

I agree our newer and increase understandings into the mysteries of faith will ALWAYS be based on the TRUTHS that came before.

YOU write:

"I looked up the posts you mentioned. I found your comments but not Chris’. Don’t know what I did wrong. But as usual, you summarized his comments so I think I know the gist of what he said. I think maybe John’s use of the word “flesh” is not clear. My understanding is that the “flesh” that is useless is the equivalent of “the world”, which John uses in contrast to the “spirit”. In other words, when Jesus speaks of his “flesh is real food”, that is not the same as the corrupted “flesh” of the world. I believe that the bread and wine do truly become the Body and Blood of my Lord. He redeems me physically as well as spiritually because we can’t separate our bodies from our souls except in death."

You did nothing wrong. the majority of the thread and posts and references are gone. I don't what happened to them. Perhaps lost in a cyber attack before our current guidelines were put in place. Maybe Cut or archived. But it was an excellent experience. Chris (Here Today) pushed me to find support of my position in Catholic References by his challenges. I am eternally grateful. Because the position I share with you today was developed by the process we entered into back then.

You continue with:

"As far as our personal responsibility to exercise our free will, I agree completely. It is essential. I do wonder, though, if the Spirit is guiding all of us, how can we come to different conclusions about what is right and wrong?"

Because we are not perfect, only God is perfect. We make mistakes. But the Spirit of God is continually and constantly there to help us lift ourselves up from our error and continue on the Path of ever advancing understanding of Truth. "To err is human. To forgive Divine"

Finally you conclude with:

"And if the Truth is relative to each of us and not objectively True, then it really isn’t Truth at all. As you say, there are many sincere and holy people who can disagree about teaching. The only way I see that the Spirit of Truth being guaranteed is through the teaching office of the Church."

God is the ONLY Knower of Absolute Truth for God is The Absolute Truth. We are limited in our capacity to know the truth by our limitation in knowing God. I believe the Hope of many of us is to one day know the Truth so well that we are indeed "One with God". I believe we have moments when we are so involved with doing the Will of God that we get close to "BEING the Truth" in our being and in unison with God's Presence in us.

The CHURCH will be forever and tirelessly devoted to helping every child of God on the surface of this earth and beyond to achieve that end.

In this I believe we are in agreement. :-)

Bless You B7M8 and Here Today and ALL on this site. Amen/Awomen.

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

Amen! To be transformed into Christ (the Truth) and thereby be united to the Trinity is the goal of our Christian life. As you say, “The CHURCH will be forever and tirelessly devoted to helping every child of God on the surface of this earth and beyond to achieve that end.”

Still, I think we have different views of the Church and her being. You answered my question about how people, all being guided by the Holy Spirit, can come to different conclusions about right and wrong with, “We make mistakes.” Agreed. That is why, in his love, God has given us the certainty that, although the Church’s understanding of the Truth grows, nothing that comes from her teaching authority will ever be False. But the Church, by a special grace of God, has been given the gift of knowing and proclaiming the Truth. That gift is guaranteed by her founder, Jesus Christ. If the Church claims to proclaim the Truth, but she does not have a guarantee from God, then she is either an arrogant liar or pitifully deluded. Neither is worthy of the Bride of Christ.

You are quite correct that we have limits in our capacity to know the Truth. On the other hand, not knowing the whole Truth in its infinitude doesn’t preclude knowing the Truth at all. So although “knowing the whole Truth” in all its glory and wonder may have to wait until we reach heaven, at least what the Church does know right now is true and not false.

B7m8, I've enjoyed this discussion and discovery of the truth of God very much. God Bless you for your patience and tolerance to entertain others ideas without sacrificing the integrity of your own.

You wrote:
"Amen! To be transformed into Christ (the Truth) and thereby be united to the Trinity is the goal of our Christian life."

Amen indeed. Let it be so! :-)

You also wrote:
"You are quite correct that we have limits in our capacity to know the Truth. On the other hand, not knowing the whole Truth in its infinitude doesn’t preclude knowing the Truth at all. So although “knowing the whole Truth” in all its glory and wonder may have to wait until we reach heaven, at least what the Church does know right now is true and not false."

I would say, "at least the Church is dedicated to helping us understand and learn the ever expanding and deepening Truth of Our Most Loving God in ALL God's Completeness.

Embracing Truth

Jesus had an unerring ability for the recognition of truth, and truth he never hesitated to embrace, no matter from what source it appeared to emanate.

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

Thank you, Joer. And thank you for your patience and tolerance as well. God bless you!

"I believe we have moments when we are so involved with doing the Will of God that we get close to "BEING the Truth" in our being and in unison with God's Presence in us."

I love this line Joer. Truth is supposed to be lived as a verb, and as action, it does not lend itself easily to a form of static definition. Defining the talk isn't the real issue, walking the talk is the issue.

Thank You Col! :-)

You're exactly right Col. And I am inspired by you, B7m8 and so many of the people at this site who strive and desire to "Live the Truth" as God and Jesus taught us and as the Spirit guides us.

It gives me Hope in my fellow Human beings and in the Promise of Jesus when speaking of God within our hearts, "Thy Kingdom Come". :-)

Thank You Col and All here for blessing me with the wonderful Spirit of God that you carry in your hearts for all humankind to "SEE". :-)

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will