Catholics Deciding Doctrine?

[Gabriela]

12 hours ago, Era Might said:

I was listening to a YouTube lecture today by Peter Brown, the scholar of Christian antiquity, and he was discussing the different models of monasticism that emerged among the followers of Mani, among the Syrians, and in Egypt. In the Q&A he was asked about division in the church today vs. way back then, and he said humorously that he doesn't know if Christianty would have survived except for the remarkable ability of its members to fight each other. Otherwise it might have gone the way of Buddhism in Japan and faded out, but somehow Christians had a unique gift to dig their heels in and fight eachother. 

This is really interesting.

 

5 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

It's all fun and games until we start talking about jeans.

 

 

 

 

just kidding, carry on

[Papist]

I see it as misguided zeal mixed with some pride.  I feel bad for those people who are perpetually discontent. It's very sad. I know such people on both ends of the spectrum.  Many get their butthurt on when fellow Catholics practice their Catholicism in a different manner. Many people see this different way of living the faith as a commentary of how they live their faith.   Me choosing to receive on the tongue is not me saying you receiving in the hand is wrong....and vice versa.  This mindset was a big hurdle for my with when choosing to veil. She ultimately choose to veil despite other peoples' judging.  This is a big shame. You would not believe how many people roll their eyes at me when I tell them I will not condemn what the Church does not condemn.  

[Era Might]

3 hours ago, Gabriela said:

This is really interesting.

Yeah, here's the video. It's actually pretty relevant to this thread, even though it's not directly about division. His focus is on the historical development of Christian approaches to work. The Manichaeans saw their monks as ethereal and separate from the evil material world, but laypeople would support them with gifts as a way of sort of transforming the material through an act of alms. The Syrians became more like wandering monks, but still begging and depending on alms. But in Egypt it was different, the approach taken by Antony and his followers was, if you don't work you don't eat, and work for them was their continued connection to the human lot, rather than becoming a monkish class that others support, they supported themselves as a sort of act of solidarity with those still in the world. It seems arcane but it's a pretty major question that Christians were asking, what means to be in the world and not of the world. For the monks it was a question of work, but the same question, I think, can be seen in whether women should wear pantaloons, etc. It's a question of what it means to be in this world, and there will always be different camps who come to different conclusions, from the very-worldly to the other-worldly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hu0Ttv7Khc

Edited December 2, 2015 by Era Might

[Basilisa Marie]

Since someone brought up Pharisee-ism, I just want to point out that it's totally possible for liberals to suffer from it, too. We just don't see it very often or hear about it. 

22 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

So the question becomes: Why do some people act like this? Is it in response to the rampant heresy in the Church that they try to over-correct the issue? Or is it because they believe if this or that Saint says something, it must be true?

Both, probably. There are a bunch of factions in the Church, some of them are really into individualism and conscience and tend to focus on service. Others tend to focus on authoritarianism and obedience and truth. A lot of people really, truly do take the foundation of their faith from the logical idea that the Church is not only true but right and correct. I mean, sure, that all sounds like the same thing but it really isn't. The truth of our faith is actually founded in deep mysterious realities that we can only partially penetrate, even if we have a few amesome saints that have come up with really great ways of describing them.

To use a wonderfully controversial example, "transubstantiation" isn't actually what's important. That refers to a particular kind of change based in a particular kind of philosophical framework. What's actually important is the Real Presence, in it's complete and total reality. To understand transubstantiation you have to understand substance and accidents. But substance and accidents aren't intrinsic parts of our faith. They're just really, really great ways of describing what's going on. So what that means is we aren't actually married to the word "transubstantiation," and it could go out of fashion and that wouldn't be a problem. What would be a problem is denying the Real Presence.  

And you run into people all the time that metaphorically make "transubstantiation" more important than the Real Presence, but you also run into people who, in tossing out "transubstantiation" also toss out parts of the Real Presence. So people who like "transubstantiation" want to make that word required because it prevents people from falling away from the Real Presence. But then those people who love the Real Presence but don't like "transubstantiation" get caught in the crossfire. 

You could swap out any non-dogma thing for "transubstantiation" and any true mystery or idea of our faith for "Real Presence" and have the same thing. It's totally understandable why people hold too tightly to things that aren't actually meant to be held tightly. And when people who hold to those things too tightly get introduced to the idea of not holding them tightly, they understandably freak out because they think you're tossing out the truth. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

4 hours ago, Papist said:

I see it as misguided zeal mixed with some pride.  I feel bad for those people who are perpetually discontent. It's very sad. I know such people on both ends of the spectrum.  Many get their butthurt on when fellow Catholics practice their Catholicism in a different manner. Many people see this different way of living the faith as a commentary of how they live their faith.   Me choosing to receive on the tongue is not me saying you receiving in the hand is wrong....and vice versa.  This mindset was a big hurdle for my with when choosing to veil. She ultimately choose to veil despite other peoples' judging.  This is a big shame. You would not believe how many people roll their eyes at me when I tell them I will not condemn what the Church does not condemn.  

Do you think its possible to see one thing as ideal while not condemning others as worse Catholics? I mean the Church says this too, certain things are good to do

[Papist]

14 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Do you think its possible to see one thing as ideal while not condemning others as worse Catholics? I mean the Church says this too, certain things are good to do

Yes. Such as my family members that don't believe it a mortal sin to intentionally miss Sunday mass. However, I would steer clear of using the "worse Catholics" language.  But if you are talking about non-obligations that the Church says is a good thing to do, then I would be very careful to view people that do not do such non-obligations as "worse Catholics". Not doing what Church says is good, does not equal being a bad Catholic. A person may miss out on the benefits and grace that may come with doing such things, but does not necessarily makes one a bad Catholic.

[Gabriela]

Who's really a "good Catholic"? My advisor is the most loving, kind, charitable, self-sacrificing person I know. She's Catholic. She practically never goes to Mass. She divorced and remarried without an annulment. When she does go to Mass, she receives Communion.

I still consider her a better Catholic than me, because I'm hateful, mean, uncharitable, and selfish.

"Good Catholic"? "Bad Catholic"? It depends on what you consider most important.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Gabriela

[MarysLittleFlower]

On ‎03‎/‎12‎/‎2015‎ ‎6‎:‎45‎:‎43‎, Papist said:

Yes. Such as my family members that don't believe it a mortal sin to intentionally miss Sunday mass. However, I would steer clear of using the "worse Catholics" language.  But if you are talking about non-obligations that the Church says is a good thing to do, then I would be very careful to view people that do not do such non-obligations as "worse Catholics". Not doing what Church says is good, does not equal being a bad Catholic. A person may miss out on the benefits and grace that may come with doing such things, but does not necessarily makes one a bad Catholic.

I didn't mean calling them worse Catholics. (I meant regarding non obligatory things). I meant seeing certain practices are better than others after all, the Church does encourage some practices more than others even if one is not forbidden currently

[Papist]

23 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I didn't mean calling them worse Catholics. (I meant regarding non obligatory things). I meant seeing certain practices are better than others after all, the Church does encourage some practices more than others even if one is not forbidden currently

I apologize. I didn't intend you personally, but you (the reader) in general, which includes me. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

31 minutes ago, Papist said:

I apologize. I didn't intend you personally, but you (the reader) in general, which includes me. 

ok no worries!