Along the lines of Patrick M's recent musings on faith, what faith system coincides most with our own personal belief system this is a tricky one indeed. I would go so far as to say all the official faith systems of the world don't do it and fall short for a good many of us. Born and raised a Catholic, still am, theologically very in sync but there are problems. Just to choose four issues out of a hat:
Birth control: Tried understanding the Church's position on the matter time and again, damn I tried but I think what it all boils down to is this - Sex is a fairly animalistic act when you get right down to it and the Church is trying to ennoble it, pleasure for pleasure's sake even to express love become issues so have the act be open to the transmission of human life at all times even if it means winding up with ten kids if you're the sensual type...anyway don't recall the subject even popping up in the Bible per se so I'm very Sola Scriptura on this one you could say. It's a blue moon moment, me and the Rev. Pat Robertson see eye to eye on this one.
Confession: Probably my biggest difference right now as the oldtimers accept it without question but never got the logic here - Jesus or God won't forgive you and you'll wind up eternally damned even if you're sorry as hell unless you explain in morbid detail to the priest your most personal sins and then some. Makes me instinctively uncomfortable, is there some kind of prurient interest at work here and you have to question any person or institution that says thou shalt not use your mind, put reason away and obey blindly. The priest will point to the confessional, you'll feel like a million dollars afterwards, my thing is why do you need to know?
Transubstantiation: The doctrine that when the priest at Mass consecrates the bread and wine they literally turn into the Body and Blood of our Savior. Not buying it and it has cannibalistic overtones, why can't it just be symbolic? Literalism can get you in trouble but they insist so again it's not a perfect fit.
Priestly celibacy (and hell why don't we throw in nuns too?): Doesn't seem nat'chal to me at all, why can't a woman or man bring you closer to God? Of course you could be a layman and practice what I call involuntary celibacy but I don't want to get into that right now. Valentine's Day is hard for lots of folks but at least we have it as a goal, for them the goal is illegal.
So call me a cafeteria Catholic if you want, it seems to be the only way. Soapie HAS TO have some thoughts.
A couple of the problem issues you raise must be quite serious..people were burned at the stake, in particular over transubstantiation and priestly celebacy. Church history is quite violent..check out how the Saxons and Vikings were converted!
ReplyDeleteYou're right BB and as someone told me once every religion thinks they're the right one and that everyone else is going to Hell. Catholics behaved like this in the past at least pre-Vatican 2 and now the Muslims are all over this. It's where religion really sucks imo.
ReplyDeleteScrew the Muslims for today and have a great Valentines Day.
ReplyDeleteDitto Malcontent. While most other people from other religions have grown it'd be many Muslims who are still living in the theological Stone Age.
ReplyDeleteSex, Religion and Politics, the three big NO-NOs as they say but they are perfectly discussable here. Dunno, religion seems to be even more controversial than politics, what do you think? It tends to bring out our sanctimony and self-righteousness the most. The point of this very humble blog is simple: it'd be rare to find a Catholic let's say at least a younger one who agrees with every single item of Church teaching (if they're honest about it). Not hostile to religion but I have a problem with anything that is offensive to reason as soapie might put it.
The issue for me Z is that far too often faith sacrifices reason and logic at the altar. Take for example the subject of Birth Control. The Catholic Church abhors it. Where is the reason and logic in that? As strong as one’s faith may be, incessant prayer isn’t going to put food on the table when the mouths of children need to be fed. What virtue can be found in one’s view of life if that view is hell bound on bringing children into the world without care or concern as to their future and what sort of life they may have? While it is true that children can escape the poverty they are born into, is that a necessary course we would wish for them?
ReplyDeleteOn Confession…again, where’s the logic in confessing or confiding to your priest about marital issues? It’s like having a discussion about the book of Genesis with an Atheist. How can an unmarried priest have any concept of marriage and the troubles therein when they themselves are not allowed to marry?
To be certain, a certain amount of faith or belief is essential. But belief in what??.....
For me, it’s belief in freewill; of my own ability to perceive and process the realities of my surroundings and the complexity of the world we sometimes find ourselves in. From those perceptions and my own cognitive ability, I can thus make decisions accordingly.
Indeed a fair question. The establishment of Christian dogma began of course with Jesus, but I'm guessing he would be suprised at its subsequent development. Whether we agree theologically, we must admit to accretion, as each of the 'fathers' developed and added to belief and dogma..then battled to make it orthodox. As just a minor example, consider the Chaldean Catholics, having followed the heresies of Nestorius for centuries, reuniting with the mother church in 1553. (most, some still adhere to Nestorianism and use the neo-Aramaic liturgy. Or the Antiochine Rite folks, who trace their liturgy to that of St. James, brother of the Lord. These originals lingered in small groups while Augustine and Thomas Aquinas
ReplyDeletefurther developed and (dare I say) evolved orthodox belief. All very confusing, which IMO has led to literally hundreds of churches, who find various dogma to disagree and argue about. So, Z-man, while you and I finish off a few beers,
Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, ol Dobson, a few Archbishops and a token neo-Aramic dude can hash out
the differences. I'm still pondering that Christianity seems to agree that sex is bad, while most of those old pantheistic types sort of liked it?
I think the part that interests me most here is you feeling like you're 'theologically in sync' with the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteThese issues you've raised, especially and most foremost transubstantiation, are at the very heart of the Catholic doctrine. If you disagree with this primum movens of the Church's teachings, how can you feel at all in sync with all the teachings built therefrom?
Auricular confession is also another essential part of Catholic teaching; without it there's no getting to heaven. These issues, and celibacy besides, are the very ones that have been responsible for the huge rifts and schisms the church has endured.
A while back Patrick had a nice post about Catholicism and his feelings about religion in general. It's very interesting to me to see someone disagree with those very things that form the basis of the faith and yet continue to claim the faith. I would very much like to hear some more about this from both you and him.
I was raised Catholic and by the third grade I knew I couldn't honestly buy into the whole transubstantiation thing. More issues piled up over the years, but it started there. And the minute I could (about a week after I graduated from Catholic highschool) I announced I'd had it with the church. Of course everyone was horrified, but it was more important to me to be honest about it.
What people believe and why they believe it is to me one of the most fascinating things there is to study.
Well, I don’t know whether the new Vice President from Delaware understands, but everyone who isn’t aborted gets a brain. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, everyone gets a brain. So … it’s good if we begin to learn the facts; everyone get’s a brain. This doesn’t mean that everyone can use them with equal dexterity … but everyone get’s a brain. Unless you’re aborted … like Biden.
ReplyDeleteSaty many people who call themselves Catholic have the same disagreements I do yet they still consider themselves Catholic. I agree with the broadest outline of Catholic theology, the importance of the Blessed Mother for instance but get stuck on some of the more technical issues. My question on transubstantiation is this, WHO decided this is the doctrine that Catholics are to believe in? Was it revealed to the Church somehow and how was it revealed? Just asking questions...
ReplyDeleteBB hit the issue squarely on the head for me, it's the accretions to theology that came later for me that pose the problem and not the original theology of what Christ taught. I don't think transubstantiation is the whole of Catholic doctrine and so that's why Saty I still claim to be in sync with much of Catholic theology in the broader outlines. I think for the Church and most religions the sex act is problematic in and of itself and I'm not talking here of the usual social conservative concerns over promiscuity vs. monogamy. The sex act has always been a problem for the Church though in later years they have emphasized the pro-sex aspects more as in JP2's "theology of the body" writings but I think the problem still persists to this day and that's why you have the whole teachings on birth control - pleasure even conjugal pleasure for pleasure's sake poses an inherent problem.
ReplyDeleteMy question on transubstantiation is this, WHO decided this is the doctrine that Catholics are to believe in? Was it revealed to the Church somehow and how was it revealed? Just asking questions...
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting question and so I thought I'd try to find the answer.
There's a very long and detailed answer to be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm (sorry I don't know how to do the linky thing) which covers the whole shebang.
As far as actual transubstantiation, here's a quote: The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (d. about 1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this significant expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of faith of the Greek Emperor Michael Palæologus. The Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. iv; can. ii) not only accepted as an inheritance of faith the truth contained in the idea, but authoritatively confirmed the "aptitude of the term" to express most strikingly the legitimately developed doctrinal concept.
Nothing in the Church is new.. everything has a thousand-year history attached to it.
However, the Pope is free at any time to make pronunciations ex cathedra, which are considered infallible and depending on what the pronouncement is, may be something doctrinal regarding the faith, which is then required to be accepted by all Catholics. This doesn't happen very often in reality.
Also, the Inquisition is alive and well in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei), and continues to make decisions and pronouncements on what is and isn't heretical.
Another thought that occurs to me is this: simply because you claim Catholicism doesn't necessarily mean that they claim you. A stated disbelief in an Article of Faith would technically be heretical and might be enough, without reconciliation, to get you excommunicated. In the eyes of the Church my marriage is invalid; thus my husband and I have been fornicating for 18 years, and in the eyes of the Church any children we might have would be considered illegitimate. So despite the fact that you consider yourself Catholic, they may consider you as anathema.
I'm just sayin. There are certain articles of faith, especially the ones that divide Catholics from Protestants, that are non-negotiable in the eyes of the Church.
Gaufred (1188)
ReplyDeleteGee, there were several Gaufreds around at that time, Guafred de St. Omer, Gaufred, Abbot of Tavistock, Gaufred Abbot of Dumfernline, Gaufred of Malaterra, Gaufred de Vinsauf. One was a cofounder of the Knights Templar, one is referenced in Chaucer's Tales, one was a Bishop who led the Cathar Crusade, most were theologians.
I with the Catholic Encyclopedia would flesh out their references for us curious....
Not only do I accept the importance of the Blessed Mother I also accept the doctrine of Purgatory and have had heated discussions with Protestant friends about it. Since the vast majority of us die in the imperfect state (an understatement) Purgatory is just more logical. Everything in the Profession of Faith we say at Mass I accept ("Begotten not made one in being with the Father...") and take great issue and offense at being called non-Catholic. I've decided to strike a blow for Civility and when I resume blogging sometime in the future will be much more engaged in moderation than I have in the past where I was pretty laissez-faire. I will not hesitate to delete unfair and personal characterizations on such sensitive issues as one's personal belief system. All the contributions here are good and really I only have a problem with the more technical aspects of Catholicism as when theologians started and developed various dogmas down through the ages. They're still human and being human are infallible and Saty is perfectly right when she says that infallible statements from the Pope regarding dogma are rare indeed.
ReplyDeleteThen there's the very Catholic doctrine of "no salvation outside the church" which gets interpreted either strictly or more flexibly but nevertheless remains a teaching. Pope Benedict meets with Jews and people from other faiths all the time. Are they saved? personally I would say yes but to be strictly Catholic about it how would you answer the question? If I believe as I do that even nonCatholics are saved am I being unCatholic? This teaching of the church was never really abandoned, least I never got the memo that it was and when the Pope was simply Cardinal Ratzinger he seemed a little all over the map on this one imho.
ReplyDeleteAre they saved? personally I would say yes but to be strictly Catholic about it how would you answer the question?
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting question and one that has been a hotbutton for more than decades.
Really I think the answer to this would depend on whether or not you accept Vatican II as legit. (I even bring up the possibility that it might be considered non-legit because there is a faction of Catholicism that doesn't accept Vatican II nor any of the popes since then.)
Prior to Vatican II there was absolutely no salvation outside the church, period.
Things eased up a little afterwards; here is the quote I found:
Vatican Council II addressed this point in its "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)," "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation" (no. 16). In short, those who are truly unaware of what God requires of them are not held responsible; rather they are judged by what they did with the truth they had.
So basically, even this concession leaves all of the Protestant world burning in the ninth circle of hell.. with the qualifications they've put on it, it would really only strictly apply to never-before-discovered tribes in the rainforest who live a primitive lifestyle and don't know that there are other humans besides themselves.
Know what I mean?
It's a concession, but not really all that much of one once it's been boiled.
I'm hoping you didn't find anything I said offensive.. it wasn't meant to be.
ReplyDeleteReligion fascinates me. Catholicism I know a lot about because I was raised that way. My family are still Catholic.
I've tried to go to the source and go with what the Church says so that it would be accurate.. there's a lot of misinformation, especially outside the Catholic church, about what Catholics believe.
Anyway, if anything I said was offensive, I'm sorry.
A clarification Saty. Nothing you posted was offensive to me, what was by another commenter has already been deleted.
ReplyDelete& I should add a couple years back my brother and wife chose me to be the godparent of their new son and so they must have thought I was Catholic enough.
ReplyDelete"Those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church but who..."
but there's the rub! As you just noted unless you've been living in a cave everyone on the planet knows what Christianity is and those who aren't Christian have obviously concluded that faith system is not for them and so even under the more liberal rules of Vatican 2 they're still going to Hell is my reading.
knows what Christianity is and those who aren't Christian
ReplyDeleteThis brought a tidbit of information to mind that a lot of Catholics don't know:
did you know that there is a portion of the Protestant world that considers Catholicism to not only be NON Christian, but to be a cult?
When I first found that out I was like totally horrified. It had never occurred to me that anyone would ever think such a thing.
Interesting though.
A thought on the whole sex thing.. and this is just a random thought that popped up in my head, so I'm posing it as a question:
ReplyDeleteCould it be possible that the general negativity on sex be a reaction to the surrounding world at the time of the Church's formation? I'm thinking of Roman (and Greek) hedonism et al.. in other words, taking a somewhat anti-sex outlook in order to distance themselves as completely as possible from the status quo, and to set themselves apart from the mass of people??
I have absolutely no way of knowing the answer to this, but it does seem to have a bit of merit.
On the other hand, a lot of religions have a limited view of sex. I know even in eastern religions this is often due to the identification of the body with the material, which is ultimately something to be transcended.. so sex being pretty much the summum bonum of identifying with the body, it becomes something that is necessary for procreation, but in the long term is just another attachment to the material that has to be conquered. Somehow, though, in eastern religions, it doesn't get that particularly Catholic guilt trip attached to it. Oh how I remember that! :) LOL
Anyway, just a thought.
Your two points. First not only are there some Protestants who view Catholicism as an anti-Christian cult but you might wanna throw in some really traditional pre-Vatican 2 types as well who view all the popes starting with John XXIII as being Antichrist not upholding authentic Catholic doctrine. In point of fact they'll insist though they haven't actually read it that Our Lady's words in the Third Secret of Fatima pertains to their point when it really has to do with the
ReplyDeleteEnd Times as then Cardinal Ratzinger clearly stated in an interview once. Second re your point about the Church and sex I think your theory has some merit. I know speaking personally when the environment around me tends to be extremely liberal re sex I shoot all the way in the other direction, it's probably a turnoff thing. Then when things get too puritanical I'm like God made it so enjoy it. It's the surrounding culture that's a factor, food for thought.
Gosh you know there are so many dogmas of Catholicism that I've accepted a long long time ago. It's not that I've never thought about them but I've accepted them. The Immaculate Conception of Mary - accepted. Her Assumption into Heaven - accepted. Her perpetual virginity - accepted. It's the accretions to use BB's phrase here that become problem areas, birth control for instance. Actually I don't take to task those Catholics who go to Confession and get something out of it, rather I'm splitting a theological hair here to wit if you are sincerely sorry for your sins but don't confess them to a priest when you die why would God condemn you to an eternity in Hell? isn't it enough that you turned your life around so this is where soapie's reason rears its head for me. Now you can make the case that the use of Confession is salutary but does it decide your eternal fate? I say it does not.
ReplyDeleteJust food for thought: in her book
ReplyDelete'Adam, Eve and the Serpent' Dr. Pagels opined,
"The disgust felt by early Christians for the flesh was a radical departure from both pagan and Jewish sexual attitudes. In fact, as Princeton professor Pagels (The Gnostic Gospels) demonstrates, the ascetic movement in Christianity met with great resistance in the first four centuries A.D. Sex became fully tainted, inextricably linked to sin under the teachings of Augustine. This troubled sinner invoked Adam and Eve to justify his idiosyncratic view of humanity as permanently scarred by the Fall. Instead of being dismissed as marginal, Augustine's grim outlook took hold, according to Pagels, because it was politically expedient. Now that Christianity had become the imperial religion, Rome wanted its imperfect subjects to obey a strong Christian state. This highly provocative history links the religious roots of Western sexual attitudes to women's inferior status through the centuries." Reay Tannahill
in 'Sex in History', is more succinct,
"What the modern world still understands by "sin" stems not from the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, or from the tablets handed down from Sinai, but from the early sexual vicissitudes of a handful of men who lived in the twilight days of imperial Rome"
It seems we should understand these developments (accretions?)
in the context of their times, for
"Tertullian was so repulsed by sex he publicly renounced his own sexual relationship with his wife and taught that sexual intercourse drives out the Holy Spirit. Women, he declared, are "the devil's door: through them Satan creeps into men's hearts and minds and works his wiles for their spiritual destruction."[14] Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century showed little improvement in attitude, saying that "Woman is defective and accidental . . . a male gone awry.
..Holy Mysogynism!!
Since soapie brought up Immanuel Kant the other day he believed that humans are ends in themselves, that gives them their special dignity and that to see humans as means to something is to manipulate them in some way, to denigrate their dignity but isn't that what sex is anyway when you get right down to it? using another person (the means) for your pleasure (the ends) even if to express love? Saw a program on Kant the other night, a Harvard show with Professor Michael Sandel who taught the class and while I find Kant to be quite deep I'm having trouble here. Soapie help me out here, if you apply Kant to its logical ends you'd have to be against sex no?
ReplyDelete