One Catholic Writer's Take On Kate Kelly

[why me]

 

 

By the way, I don't believe the Catholic Church ever infallibly taught that infants were going to wind up in hell. Nothing was changed when the Church declared we should have hope that God will deal mercifully with unbaptized infants who die. 

I think that the perception was that babies would end up in limbo back when I was a boy. There were quite a few parents whose babies had died who suffered because of it. No one wanted their baby to be in limbo or in hell because they were born in original sin. Likewise for the last rites. No last rites with a priest, and there was a good chance of ending up in hell. So, families always called a priest to come to the home or hospital to administer the last rites when someone was dying, if possible.

 

Now times have changed. More mercy and compassion talk and less hell and brimstone these days. I do believe that many catholics today do not even believe in hell as a place where the devil resides. Times have changed.

[Bart Burk]

This entire conversation is forcing me to question our assumptions about authority. If the apostles did not bother to hand down their authority you have to believe they did not think it was important. At that point both the Catholics and the Mormons are wrong, and the Protestants have it right. Based on Sullivan's book there does not seem to be any evidence the apostles bothered to leave successors even though they had plenty of opportunity to do so. The Bible then becomes our only guide and all of rules-based religion falls apart. Then we just rely on John 3:16 and wind up using minimal guidelines like the 10 commandments and the Sermon on the Mount to plan our lives. If divorce happens you ask for forgiveness and try to do better. I recently read a study which shows the divorce rates foisted upon us are highly exaggerated. Divorce is actually very rare among committed Christians. I will keep studying, but am less and less inclined to bow down to those who claim some special authority beyond what every Christian receives as a result of accepting Christ as Lord.

[TOmNossor]

This entire conversation is forcing me to question our assumptions about authority. If the apostles did not bother to hand down their authority you have to believe they did not think it was important. At that point both the Catholics and the Mormons are wrong, and the Protestants have it right. Based on Sullivan's book there does not seem to be any evidence the apostles bothered to leave successors even though they had plenty of opportunity to do so. The Bible then becomes our only guide and all of rules-based religion falls apart. Then we just rely on John 3:16 and wind up using minimal guidelines like the 10 commandments and the Sermon on the Mount to plan our lives. If divorce happens you ask for forgiveness and try to do better. I recently read a study which shows the divorce rates foisted upon us are highly exaggerated. Divorce is actually very rare among committed Christians. I will keep studying, but am less and less inclined to bow down to those who claim some special authority beyond what every Christian receives as a result of accepting Christ as Lord.

Bart,

Sullivan's point is that the Apostle and the "co-workers" selected leaders, ordained leaders, and left them in charge.  Sullivan and Eno rely upon development to explain how we go from Apostles to here.

Newman's essay is a must IMO.

Also, I didn’t post my response to your murder analogy (which was remarkably similar to Rory's) because I want to encourage you to embrace your Catholic faith.  For whatever reason you have weighed the evidence for the Restoration differently than I have.  Please weigh the evidence for Catholicism like Saemo (or maybe Rory).

 

I could give you dozens of reasons to not be a LDS, not be a Catholic, not be a Protestant, not be an Atheist, not be a theist, ...., but I have encountered God.  Thus I must be a theist.  God lives and loves all of us.  I hope you believe this and always will.

Charity, TOm

[Bart Burk]

By definition, you are comparing repentant murderers with unrepentant adulterers. 

 

The reason they are not allowed Communion is because by definition of the permanence of the marriage bond until death, they are adulterers. If the murderer intends to continue murdering, he too, will be admonished to refrain from receiving Communion. Bill Clinton received Communion. Anybody at all can go up and receive the Host. I wouldn't want anybody getting the idea that a priest waits for these people and then refuses them Communion. It would be impossible. Everybody who comes forward can receive. I haven't heard one word from any source except the German bishops who think this is a necessary pastoral change. I don't know what divorced and remarried Catholics think about it. Do they go to Mass? They thought so little of the Church's teaching on this subject that they got remarried outside the Church. It seems kind of probable that they don't believe in the Church anymore? Maybe? I am just having a hard time picturing these souls who reject the Church with regards to one Sacrament, but are supposedly hungering earnestly for another Sacrament.

 

If I took the position that the divorced and remarried take, I would find it much easier to think the Church was also wrong about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Which is easier to lose faith in? The Eucharist presents a much higher challenge to faith than Matrimony. How do you retain the Church's faith that the bread and wine become Jesus Christ, while rejecting what same the Church teaches about divorce and remarriage? I find it difficult to believe there are any large numbers of divorced and remarried Catholics out there, yearning for Holy Communion. It doesn't make sense.

Are you willing to pluck your eye out or cut off your hand if they cause you to sin? Divorce is a serious matter and everything sould be done to avoid it. That is the point of Christ's words on divorce, but we also must allow for the possibility that Christ often used hyperbole in some of his statements in the Sermon on the Mount. Divorce is seriously wrong, but to call someone in a faithful second marriage an adulterer may go a bit far.

[Bart Burk]

Bart,

Sullivan's point is that the Apostle and the "co-workers" selected leaders, ordained leaders, and left them in charge. Sullivan and Eno rely upon development to explain how we go from Apostles to here.

Newman's essay is a must IMO.

Also, I didn’t post my response to your murder analogy (which was remarkably similar to Rory's) because I want to encourage you to embrace your Catholic faith. For whatever reason you have weighed the evidence for the Restoration differently than I have. Please weigh the evidence for Catholicism like Saemo (or maybe Rory).

I could give you dozens of reasons to not be a LDS, not be a Catholic, not be a Protestant, not be an Atheist, not be a theist, ...., but I have encountered God. Thus I must be a theist. God lives and loves all of us. I hope you believe this and always will.

Charity, TOm

I could never abandon Christianity and haven't since responding to a Billy Graham sermon I heard on the radio as a teenager long before I joined the Mormon Church. This question of authority is a serious one. Apostles either ordained men as Bishops to succeed them or they didn't -- development of an episcopacy after the apostles were gone from the scene would leave an impossible gap to close. If the apostles did not hand it down directly it can only be because the episcopacy is unnecessary. Either Sullivan is wrong or the Protestants are right. I am inclined to believe Sullivan is wrong. Edited September 3, 2014 by Bart Burk

[3DOP]

Are you willing to pluck your eye out or cut off your hand if they cause you to sin? Divorce is a serious matter and everything sould be done to avoid it. That is the point of Christ's words on divorce, but we also must allow for the possibility that Christ often used hyperbole in some of his statements in the Sermon on the Mount. Divorce is seriously wrong, but to call someone in a faithful second marriage an adulterer may go a bit far.

 

I was being exact.

 

There is no such thing, according to Catholic teaching, as a second faithful marriage while a first spouse of a valid marriage lives. I am not unfeeling, especially about people who foolishly went away from the Church and would like to come back. We can't change Sacramental theology as it relates to Holy Matrimony. If the marriage cannot be annulled, then faithful marriage to another is no option. It would be adulterous. Why do you think the Church has prohibited divorced and remarried from receiving Communion to this point? Do people think the Church is unfeeling? No. It is because the Church can not allow that it is lawful to be validly married to two people at the same time. If an annulment is not possible, the Church cannot recognize the second marriage as valid. If the second marriage isn't valid, it probably seems like marriage to the couple. The state says you are married, your friends and family think you are married, but according to the teaching of the Church it is not a marriage if a first validly married spouse lives. 

[TOmNossor]

I could never abandon Christianity and haven't since responding to a Billy Graham sermon I heard on the radio as a teenager long before I joined the Mormon Church. This question of authority is a serious one. Apostles either ordained men as Bishops to succeed them or they didn't -- development of an episcopacy after the apostles were gone from the scene would leave an impossible gap to close. If the apostles did not hand it down directly it can only be because the episcopacy is unnecessary. Either Sullivan is wrong or the Protestants are right. I am inclined to believe Sullivan is wrong.

Bart,

I am thankful to hear that you are quite solid in your love of Christ.  I reflect upon some of my most profound experiences with God regularly.  I think the advocation to "always remember" is inspired.  Billy Graham was/is responsible for many a conversion to Christ!!!

There are conservative Catholics who think Sullivan is wrong too.  Here is an excellent website for their point of view:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/06/the-bishops-of-history-and-the-catholic-faith-a-reply-to-brandon-addison/

I would say that among scholarly Catholic, Sullivan has quite a following, but those at CTC are quite scholarly Catholics and they offer a different perspective.

Also, it is the development of the doctrines conservative Protestants embrace dogmatically that points me to the need for authority.  Chris Smith before he became agnostic/secular rejected the authority and the development.  I found less inconsistent within his view than I did for conservative Protestants, but I wonder what influence his view had on his departure from theism.  Anyway, I think Sullivan and CtC folks have strengths to their Catholic position.

Charity, TOm

Edited September 4, 2014 by TOmNossor

[saemo]

Rory, Saemo, Whyme, and all,

Lots of thoughts:

I believe there is sufficient evidence for the restoration.

I believe there is sufficient evidence for the lack of Peterine succession in the very beginning. This includes an evaluation of development theories and the decision that they are complicating but not vindicating of the Catholic position.

In addition to Rory, I have 2 other friends I would call ultra-trads. One Rory knows from our time together in Portland. I cannot speak for him, but he is not happy with Pope Francis and sounds more Sedavacantist every time we talk. The other is a Sedavacantist and made the leap from SSPX long before Pope Francis.

Rory:

What is it about the Peterine succession evidence and the development of Christianity that keeps you Catholic? I understand well the Vatican II "pastoral council" argument. I understand well that the "charism of infallibility" does not guarantee the Pope will not teach heretical things in some situations. But from my perspective the "scale" tips more and more away from the idea that Francis or his successors are the Vicar of Christ.

And, since your "scale" is where it is, can you think of anything that would so rebalance the scales that you would need to look to the Reformation or the Restoration?

Saemo:

I read Jimmy Akin's blog and see a 1x per month or so topic dedicated to defending the Pope from some Ultra-Trad accusation. He just posted his weekly Francis, but has not specifically addressed the Matthew 16 comments Rory mentioned. I am not particularly exercised by the way divorced and re-married folks are treated within the CoJCoLDS, but I see three thing where the Catholic Church is being pushed.

1. The Fate of the Unbaptized Infant: A tectonic shift has occurred and Catholics are encouraged to have HOPE for the unbaptized infant who dies. I am not convinced there is any theory of development that allows for this. I know that Limbo was theological speculation, but at least it didn't CHANGE the universal teaching of the church that the unbaptized baby is in hell.

2. Eucharist for the divorced and remarried: It seems clear that there is a push by liberal Catholic folks to remove the restrictions on partaking of the Eucharist by those who are living as husband and wife, but did not receive an annulment from a previous marriage. There are smart Catholics who think this may change. I am not sure it can. (I could see an annulment simplification/acceleration).

3. Female Priests: This was declared impossible by JPII. Still there are intelligent Catholic woman who claim it must happen in the name of equality.

So, 1 has happened. 2 IMO might happen. 3 is a long way off.

First, do you see the concerns that Rory has for the state of the Catholic Church post Vatican II? Is he all wet or is there something to be concerned about. Benedict XVI IMO saw that there was something to be concerned about. What are your thoughts?

Second, as a committed and informed Catholic, it seems clear that you are aware of #1 and the other things Rory has spoken about on this thread. Is there a "tipping point" for your scale? What about #2? What about #3? Would you be a Vatican II rejector or Sedavacantist in the case of 2 or 3? Or what?

I will try to post on David's blog, but I thought I would add this in here first because I am following both.

Charity, TOm

I'm an orthodox Catholic who tries to avoid the cafeteria line.

I don't read Jimmy Akin. I prefer to study things out on my own. I think getting a spoon feed, so to speak, smells like ark steadying. I am not a fan of that sort of thing. Nit saying anything us wrong with Jimmy Akin or those who enjoy his work, it's just not my thing. I'm more likely to read Traces Magazine.

The Catholic Church always exists in tensions. I'd say that is one defining thing about Catholicism, and I don't see that 3DOP is unaware of that. Limbo is an example of that tension between Sacramental grace and not baptized. I find several problems with the LDS idea of the non baptized children having an automatic entrance into heaven. Catholicism hasn't gone there.

I cannot see 2 or 3 ever happening. Divorce and remarrying is adultery, a teaching from Jesus and not a doctrine that developed over time. Someone who has committed a grave sin such as adultery and have not repented should not receive the Eucharist. The only Catholics I know who think otherwise are divorced and remarried.

I have found no compelling reason to ordain women.

Edited September 4, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

Regarding infant baptism... The Catholic Church teaches that a non Christian has the possibility of being judged by God to enter heaven. Well, if a non Christian has that possibility, why doesn't an unbaptized infant?

As a Catholic I believe the clarification that there is the possibility for unbaptized children to enter heaven, is the same possibility that an unbaptized adult has. Both are reliant on God''s Mercy and Grace, but a Catholic would never presume to know how any individual will be judged. So there is also the possibility that the unbaptized will be judged to hell. The Church does not view age as an excuse to not be baptized. So the Church always and still encourages baptism ASAP, and any Catholic would view withholding baptism from their own children with the same shock of withholding food or clothing. Spiritual necessities are important.

[saemo]

True, the pope never said such a thing that he supported gay marriage. But he also hasn't chided the media that they got it wrong. So, there is a little confusion out there just what the pope says about gay marriage. The pope seems vague on certain issues and this can lead to people having various interpretations about what he actually said. Even on this forum, the early threads about him were applauding his liberality on the social issues.

I've noticed the the weekly Angelus address, when given at the Vatican, are aimed squarely at the faithful who are there. I see it as an intimate moment, between Catholic faithful, who know what the Church teaches while the Pope is discussing a Gospel reading. I've also noticed that he almost always uses quotes straight out of the CCC. The media doesn't bother to do their job and check the CCC for themselves. It is much more sensational to say a Pope is for gay marriage and that he's also teaching Protestant doctrine.

In these intimate moments, non Catholics are listening in and then making public comments that to me, only show how uninformed they are, and/or, betray their agenda to paint the Pope in their own favorite color. The uninformed part could be a case of ignorance, on the part of, the secular media. When it's Catholic media, it's clear there is an agenda.

I haven't seen a media outlet yer, Catholic,or non Catholic, that isn't supporting an agenda. For Catholic media, it's usual along the lines of liberal and conservative. Both can be shameless.

Edited September 4, 2014 by saemo

[why me]

I've noticed the the weekly Angelus address, when given at the Vatican, are aimed squarely at the faithful who are there. I see it as an intimate moment, between Catholic faithful, who know what the Church teaches while the Pope is discussing a Gospel reading. I've also noticed that he almost always uses quotes straight out of the CCC. The media doesn't bother to do their job and check the CCC for themselves. It is much more sensational to say a Pope is for gay marriage and that he's also teaching Protestant doctrine.

In these intimate moments, non Catholics are listening in and then making public comments that to me, only show how uninformed they are, and/or, betray their agenda to paint the Pope in their own favorite color. The uninformed part could be a case of ignorance, on the part of, the secular media. When it's Catholic media, it's clear there is an agenda.

I haven't seen a media outlet yer, Catholic,or non Catholic, that isn't supporting an agenda. For Catholic media, it's usual along the lines of liberal and conservative. Both can be shameless.

I agree with what you are saying in this post. Unfortunately, uninformed catholics also misunderstand. The pope should be careful with his choice of words so there would be less confusion. My point is that since eternity is at stake in all this, it is important to be clear and concise and clear up any misunderstanding of dogma or doctrine. .