Replies

The RCC has MORE inconsistencies . . . contradictions . . . factions . . . cliques . . . political blocks . . . doctrinal groups . . . diversities . . .

I’ve been shocked at the degree of such differences.

Even the primary documents are incredibly convoluted and diverse in perspectives.

And what RC’s have told us hereon is THE TRUEST TRULY TRUE RCC TRUTH

has often been contradicted by other RC’s hereon.

The maze of RCC dogma

as presented

and

as lived out on FR has been one of my greater shocks that RC’s on FR have repeatedly shoved in my face.

I’d have never guessed that was the reality before FR. I’d had hints of such from some of my RC friends before. Maybe I didn’t dig deeply enough in those conversations. I just never had a very significant inkling that the realities within the organization were THAT diverse. The first 50 years of my life, I just assumed it was greatly more homogeneous than it obviously is.

What’s also mystifying to many Proddys is that RC’s on FR seem to virtually all be quite blind to that or in denial of that. Mad Dawg is often an exception but even he seems to overmuch, imho, fairly glibly slide over that rather startlingly significant fact.

I think you raise a good point which we need to address more betterly. I've taken it sufficiently seriously that I've been mulling it over for days— not so much the problem but how best to get a handle on it.

With any luck I'll have something useful to say before 5/21. On the other hand, why should I work so hard on it? We're going to know one way or another by 5/22. I should be running up my credit card bill! (Of course, that didn't work so well with the whole Y2K thing ...)

I was telling a friend about the problem and thinking that trying to express this is like trying to explain what it is to be married to a couple who are just living together. To some extent it has to be experienced.

Also, I can only talk about MY experience, and it's not clear how helpful or relevant that is.

The main thing about a marriage is not the legal structures which support it. Neither is dogma the main thing about being Catholic. In both cases the main thing is more about relationship, disclosure, conversation, cooperation, mutual self-giving, and all the rest.

You don't need to be a hotshot theologian to be a Catholic.

What it's about is Jesus, and the Holy Trinity disclosed through Him, and encountered in many, many ways, but “in a special way” (Catholic weasel words) in the sacraments. Jesus may have vanished when he broke the bread in Emmaus, but He did not go away. The bread may be eaten, the wine drunk, but Jesus is still here.

This is a truth, and HE is the Truth, both too large for the kind of precise speech one could use for the infield fly rule (my fave example of recondite,intricate, and difficult stuff.) And it seems not too many folks get that comparatively easy thing straight.

Your vision, and that of many non-Catholics,seems like this: There is a huge body somewhere of official dogmata and a huge team — an army! — of bureaucrats who, when poked, deliver absolutely unquestionable opinions even the wording of which cannot be challenged. And when he's not busy siring bastards or diddling little boys, the Pope will sometimes rear back and unburden himself on an infallible truth.

We've KIND OF tried to address this,especially concerning papal infallibility, which turns out to be far more like a judicial than a legislative function.

So before the pronouncements, there was no problem with being on either side of the Marian dogma. (It would have been a problem if someone NOT the pope had gone around saying it's this way or that way and that's final.) So there's LOTS of diversity of opinion even among obedient and theologically schooled theologians —and lots of room for diversity.

And a lot of Catholics (and more non-Catholics?) will take this or that book which is within (even if only barely) the wide range of acceptable opinions and consider it the official statement.

You remember my Eucharistic theology challenge? IIRC the “authorities” launched against me were some Jesuit writing in the Catholic Encyclopedia or some web site,and some Sunday School teachers. These were presented as “official”.

So it's not astonishing that different opinions would be held and spoken, even by obedient Catholics.

As for disobedient Catholics, well, the Holy Office is understaffed and our ninja nuns just aren't as capable as they used to be. So we take a LONG LONG time to rear back and smack somebody down. But you will not that the current Pope just axed a couple of bishops. So there are smackdowns, sometimes.

Part of this is because we believe that people grow in holiness and wisdom and that God prefers not the death of a sinner but that he turn from his wickedness and live. So if we have, say, deacon, as we did in my former parish who is teaching an opinion on ethics specifically singled out by J2P2 for derogation, we're going to tolerate him, try to get the other opinion putout there, suggest that he revisit the relevant documents and questions.

If he starts the “Fundamental Option Quarterly” and start proclaiming this as official Catholic truth, well, he might get smacked down and his bishop make a pronouncement.

If all over the world suddenly a samizdat array of periodicals teaching this POV arose, THEN maybe the Vatican would act.

I would say “Fundamental Option” is NOT Catholic teaching because J2P2 denounced it in Veritatis Splendor. But that would be debatable because there hasn't been an infallible declaration. However, J2P2’s denunciation SHOULD control (in the legal sense.) But Catholics are ornery, so it won't, probably.

And,in the meantime, the deacon has not started his own denomination. He says he's Catholic, he thinks so, he worships weekly, and all the rest. He acknowledges the unity of the Church while he at the same time traduces it. As most Catholics do as we grow.

I hope that's not completely obfuscatory.