Religious Reform

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I'm all in favor of reforms in the Catholic Church, and I don't think they'll get away without making, at the very least, major organizational reforms in the U.S., giving lay parishioners more of a voice in the everyday functions of the church.

This morning, though, I experienced a pang of disapproval about opposition to actual Catholic teachings: since when does a church conform to what worshippers believe, as opposed to the other way around? Doesn't rejecting one bit of Vatican dogma necessarily mean rejecting the moral authority of the entire Church enterprise? Doesn't rejecting Catholic stances on things like divorce and the ordination of women just turn you into a Protestant with a shitload of extra sacraments? And is it fair for western Catholics to advance this capitalistic/democratic approach to religion -- "we pay the Vatican salaries, so they'd better give us the religion we want" -- when the rest of the world's Catholics are still comfortable with the old-model authoritarian approach?

The big question under all this is that transition, from (a) religion as a entity that tells you what to believe and how to live to (b) religion as a service that coordinates your observance of what you already believe in the first place. I like the idea of (b), but if you're willing to go that far, why not just throw out religion altogether? Aren't American Catholics basically saying that they couldn't care less about religion and theology, and see their Catholocism mainly as a tradition, a social, familial, and ethnic observance, a force of habit, and an appreciation for good church architecture? Is it really so wrong of the Pope to take a hard line, saying: "This is what this religion believes, and if you disagree with it you can fuck off and go to hell, you Lutheran?"

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Granted, with something like the ordination of women there's no Biblical source -- in fact, wasn't Aaron's wife "ordained?" -- so you can have legitimate differences of interpretation. But if that's the superstructure that e.g. Catholocism has placed on religion, how much of it can you disagree with before there's no point in being Catholic? Same with homosexuality: if you disagree that homosexuality is sinful, as stated in Leviticus, what textual-interpretation gymnastics can keep you agreeing with everything else? If God/Bible is/are wrong in Leviticus, why believe any of the Old Testament? Or the New?

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:32 (twenty-three years ago)

"Catholicism"

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes. I will try to post something more meaningful later, but I think I agree with what you are saying here.

DeRayMi, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Is it really so wrong of the Pope to take a hard line, saying: "This is what this religion believes, and if you disagree with it you can fuck off and go to hell, you Lutheran?"

Its just that this Pope is a wuss

Chupa-Cabras (vicc13), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:21 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes but the Popes keep changing what is supposed to be permanent truth anyway, making the foundations of Catholicism laughable. More laughable than the other major religions, I mean. But since I cannot take any of these lunatics seriously on a religious level, I would at least like them to stop behaving so loathsomely towards most of the world (women and gay people).

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:34 (twenty-three years ago)

The Mormons, now THERE's consistency for you. Heh.

dave q, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:48 (twenty-three years ago)

THEY HAVE HAD REFORM- THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

if the lay got off their asses and read it, change would come.

it is a shockingly readable text and is translated into at leat 21 langauges.

anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 18:43 (twenty-three years ago)

But Anthony, surely stuff like turning the altar the other way round pales in comparison to what people currently have in mind.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 18:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Didn't the Reformation spring from some of the same complaints? Overbearing Papal authority at the very least.

stevo (stevo), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 18:51 (twenty-three years ago)

(Yeah yeah but so at what point in "positive" reforms do Catholics just wind up becoming Protestants with cooler robes?)

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 19:03 (twenty-three years ago)

When they decide that the blood and body thing is figurative.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 19:36 (twenty-three years ago)

"Yes. I will try to post something more meaningful later"

Me too.

Kiwi, Thursday, 5 September 2002 03:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Time for the forum reglioous nut to respond.

Firstly while I consider myself Catholic I am not currently practicing.Im a pretty lame effort for a Catholic really! But I base my beliefs on reason and knowledge as well as faith. I certainly don’t like to think of myself as a fundie fanatic and I have many doubts about The Church. Still I believe. I don’t want to push my beliefs onto anyone else, but don’t mind at all defending my faith.

Martin Im up for a fite :), seeing you consider yourself something of an expert on Papal decrees, and infallibility. Post a new thread and we can discuss Catholic doctrine and disciplines if your so sure of yourself.

For those who are interested Ill give a very very brief sketch of the Catholic Church from a Catholic perspective. For anyone interested in my reply(unlikely but possible) to Nabisco’s questions Ive started another thread.

In the NT we find that Jesus establishes a Church led by the apostles, and we have many verses that show the Church was supposed to continue after the apostles were gone. The Catholic Church is that Church, continued after the apostles. The Catholic Church determined (as guided by the Holy Spirit) which books make up the canon of the Bible. It is made up of sinners but it has never made a mistake in its definitions of faith and morals that are binding on believers.
The Protestant Reformation began when some intelligent and well-read Christians like Martin Luther and John Calvin saw corruption in the Church. They made the mistake that this meant you could break off from the very Church founded by Christ. Their idea was that we should follow the Bible alone (this is called sola scriptura). Unfortunately, the Bible nowhere teaches sola scriptura. Luther and Calvin began their reformation in the 1500's. The various Protestant denominations (Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.) have different interpretations of the Bible, but they are all based on the same idea: sola scriptura.

We Catholics believe that the idea of private judgment of the Bible leads to endless division in the Church( i think there is something like 30,000 preotestant churhes or sects each with there own version of the truth), and that the successors of the apostles were commissioned to resolve such disputes. The pope is the 262nd successor of St. Peter, the first leader of the Church, and the first bishop of Rome.

An important past of Church doctrine is The Catechism. The Catechism is based on the Bible and Church documents. The most important Church documents are of two categories: extraordinary magisterium (infallible), and ordinary magisterium (true, but more prone to deeper development in the future). The definitions of faith and morals in an ecumenical council, or a pope speaking ex cathedra, are infallible, and that's the extraordinary magisterium. The definitions of faith and morals in a papal encyclical, and certain other important church documents, are part of the ordinary magisterium, and require assent of the will and intellect, but with the awareness that a deeper understanding of the issues involved can occur in the future. The vast majority of the Catechism is from the inerrant Bible and from the infallible propositions of the extraordianry magisterium. Here and there throughout, often as explanation for other things, and to make things clearer, we have propositions from the ordinary magisterium. Many Catholics aren't called to go into all the theological details of this (though they are warmly encouraged to), and they know that if it's in the catechism, they have to follow it.

There are many lies and myths spread about the Catholic Church. Have a look yourself if youre interested and then make a decision. If anyone has any reasonable questions on aspects of Church teachings mail me and Ill try and help. Dear I say it... God Bless

kiwi, Thursday, 5 September 2002 05:26 (twenty-three years ago)

...seeing you consider yourself something of an expert on Papal decrees, and infallibility...

I occasionally slip and let myself get sucked in, but basically I decided years ago that my life would feature less frustration and annoyance if I didn't rise to this sort of shit. I decline to bother debating any of this with you.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 5 September 2002 10:05 (twenty-three years ago)

Actually thanks, Kiwi, you've completely answered my question for me! I didn't realize that the continuity of the Church was an important issue in Catholocism. So yeah, if you put a value on the continuity of "the one" church, Catholicism could become theologically identical to a Protestant sect and still be "better."

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:45 (twenty-three years ago)

Strange how that last post can still hit nerves I long thought dead, relics of my evangelical Protestant upbringing. John Calvin was/is my Dad's hero.

stevo (stevo), Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:57 (twenty-three years ago)

The altar turned arround made the church one of the lay and not one of the priests. The entirity of V2 and its thousands of documents, is based arround making the church lay centered. The langauge of the church is not latin, there is passing of the peace now, the doctorine of conciousness is codifed etc. etc. Even the new churches are based not on shadowed spaces but clear lines and much light.

It also made the concept of worker priests viable, told us of our social obligations, fought for transpearncy, i mean the changes that V2 caused were sesmic.

anthony easton (anthony), Thursday, 5 September 2002 16:56 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.