Could the RCC get itself out of a doctrinal corner by becoming a UK-style constitutional monarchy?

13»

Comments

  • Russ wrote: »
    IIRC, Jesus got very upset when the Jews of his time turned the house of prayer into a marketplace.

    In our own day, seems like the argument is between those who've turned it into a museum and those who want to turn it into a community centre.

    And now you want to turn it into a voting booth...

    The comparison is specious. Democracy in a church context is a means of accessing a collective understanding of the will of God, not an end in itself.
  • QuestorQuestor Shipmate
    Pilate asked the ultimate imponderable question "what is truth?" and unlike in Peter Pan 'do you believe in fairies?' truth does not depend on the enthusiasm of the populous.
  • Questor wrote: »
    Pilate asked the ultimate imponderable question "what is truth?" and unlike in Peter Pan 'do you believe in fairies?' truth does not depend on the enthusiasm of the populous.

    Neither does it depend on the ulterior motives and/or prejudices of a self-interested hierarchy.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    ‘ Fraid not
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    While that is udoubtedly true,are you quite ready to say that the pope,the bishops and all who hold (Dei et Apostolicae Sedis gratia) authority in the Church have ulterior motives and are completely self centred ? Is there no room for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church ,neither in that part which is visibly linked to the Apostolic See of Rome or in any other part of the Holy Catholic church including the Scottish Episcopal Church ?
  • QuestorQuestor Shipmate

    Questor wrote: »
    Pilate asked the ultimate imponderable question "what is truth?" and unlike in Peter Pan 'do you believe in fairies?' truth does not depend on the enthusiasm of the populous.

    Neither does it depend on the ulterior motives and/or prejudices of a self-interested hierarchy.

    So?
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Forthview, one hopes not but this Antipodean has reservations
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Glad to read you mentioning hope. Faith,Hope AND Charity are or should be important to all Christians,even those with reservations.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    That goes without saying
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    So glad !
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    While that is udoubtedly true,are you quite ready to say that the pope,the bishops and all who hold (Dei et Apostolicae Sedis gratia) authority in the Church have ulterior motives and are completely self centred ? Is there no room for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church ,neither in that part which is visibly linked to the Apostolic See of Rome or in any other part of the Holy Catholic church including the Scottish Episcopal Church ?

    I'm not really sure where this sits in the discussion. I mean, everything is a fractured reflection of the Divine.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Through a glass darkly?
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    I agree with both simon toad and with sojourner that much of what we see is but a fractured reflection of the Divine and that we see mostly through a glass darkly. However we must have some belief or Faith in Jesus Christ,we must have some Hope that in the end all will be well and we must try at least to be charitable to others around us. That includes being charitable to a possibly 'self centresd,etremely reactionary'hierarchy with possible ulterior motives. If we have no belief that the'self centred,extremely reactionary ' hierarchy have a particular role to play in the Church then we are out on our own and not members of the community of the Church
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    IIRC, Jesus got very upset when the Jews of his time turned the house of prayer into a marketplace.

    In our own day, seems like the argument is between those who've turned it into a museum and those who want to turn it into a community centre.

    And now you want to turn it into a voting booth...

    Quite commonly, a church hall here will be used as a polling place. We often vote at what is now* the Presbyterian church hall, conveniently under 5 minutes walk from our usual Saturday morning café.

    *It used be the Methodist church hall until the Uniting Church was formed. What was the Presbyterian church and hall went to the new church in the grand division of property. The continuing Presbyterians were given the former Methodist premises and it would be hard to imagine more dour and spartan church and hall interiors.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    While that is udoubtedly true,are you quite ready to say that the pope,the bishops and all who hold (Dei et Apostolicae Sedis gratia) authority in the Church have ulterior motives and are completely self centred ? Is there no room for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church ,neither in that part which is visibly linked to the Apostolic See of Rome or in any other part of the Holy Catholic church including the Scottish Episcopal Church ?

    Are you able to say that none of the above have any ulterior motives? Even if the vast majority are pure and blameless, it only takes a few to be selfish to divert the whole body. In fact, if most are pure, it would be easier for the impure to gull the others, And I would expect that it is as easy to ignore the promptings of the Holy Spirit as too many churches found it easy to ignore the cries of hundreds and thousands of abuse victims.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    As to democracy providing answers to anything - Trump, Johnson and Brexit.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    RpM I am certainly not able to say that there are no imperfect people within the Church and I didn't attempt earlier to say that all were perfect.
    We live in an imperfect world but the ideals expressed by Jesus (evn through the mediation of the Church) can give us a picture of what to aim for. We may not be able to achieve perfection but as Christians we can try to see Christ in our neighbour and serve Christ in that neighbour.
    If the Church (whatever church that might be) gives us no vision for the future there is no point in belonging to it. Similarly if we have no belief at all in the power of the Holy Spirit
    there is no point in pretending that we are members of the Church.
  • Russ wrote: »
    IIRC, Jesus got very upset when the Jews of his time turned the house of prayer into a marketplace.

    In our own day, seems like the argument is between those who've turned it into a museum and those who want to turn it into a community centre.

    And now you want to turn it into a voting booth...

    The point isn't so much majority rule, elections, or even democracy - it's trying to find a way that the highest levels of authority can be exercised by women and married people, lay people, and lay religious without changing doctrine.

    And how is the Church any more separate from politics and corruptive secular influences in the way it is currently governed?

    On an unrelated note, I know a Rabbi who in conversion classes to Judaism, rightly or wrongly, defends the moneychangers in the temple, saying they were providing a needed service to pilgrims from many countries to allow for the practice of temple offerings and sacrifices in accordance with Jewish law. I have read from a different source that coins with the emperor's image or other deities would need to be exchanged for other coins because they could not be used in the temple itself to pay for birds, goats, etc., to offer. The rabbi I know added that competition likely prevented any of the moneychangers from being too exploitative in the rates they charged. He said that the practice wasn't any worse than having a gift shop in your church. I didn't really agree with his argument but it did open my mind to realize that in the modern day not everyone even agrees that the expelling of the moneychangers from the temple was a good thing.
  • Questor wrote: »
    Pilate asked the ultimate imponderable question "what is truth?" and unlike in Peter Pan 'do you believe in fairies?' truth does not depend on the enthusiasm of the populous.

    Pilate's question "what is truth?" is a kind of cop out, at least that's how I've been lead to understand it. When confronted with Jesus and with the moral dilemma of judging Him he basically throws his (Pilate's) hands up and says "it's all relative."

    As for Church teaching (which is what I think you mean by truth), that isn't up to majority rule any more than it is up to the whims of any one person. Even when the Pope defines doctrine infallibly ex cathedra (which almost never happens), he is doing so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As other people have said here, the Holy Spirit works through the Church to interpret Scripture and Tradition and teach matters of faith and morals authoritatively. And the Pope and hierarchy are the guardians of that truth and are guided by the Holy Spirit so that "the gates of Hell shall not overcome" the Church. But that doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit always acts as some invisible dove whispering into the ear of the hierarchy. Indeed, the voices of the faithful are very useful in helping the hierarchy to discern the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    I don't see any conflict with believing in all of that and having it become the norm (but not the law or the teaching of the Church) that elected representatives advise the pope and hierarchy and that it's a pretty big crisis when they don't follow that advice. The hierarchy would still be guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Church's various organs of infallibility would work through them, not through the elected representatives (who, as I said, would have no authority over them in church teaching or law).

    Also, as I have said, the elections and decision-making of these representatives can and possibly should be quite different than those of electoral democratic governments and more geared towards generating consensus than just following the will of the plurality or majority.

    But the de facto authority that those representatives would have would allow women especially to be in positions of the church where no man would (ordinarily) overrule them (even if technically and theologically they are able to). I find it very hard to be part of any organization where that could not be possible and I think that this is how it could be possible in the RCC. (Granted, I don't think I could be part of any other religious group or not be part of any religious group.) I don't want this thread to get kicked over to Epiphanies so I'll leave it at that.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    RpM I am certainly not able to say that there are no imperfect people within the Church and I didn't attempt earlier to say that all were perfect.
    We live in an imperfect world but the ideals expressed by Jesus (evn through the mediation of the Church) can give us a picture of what to aim for. We may not be able to achieve perfection but as Christians we can try to see Christ in our neighbour and serve Christ in that neighbour.
    If the Church (whatever church that might be) gives us no vision for the future there is no point in belonging to it. Similarly if we have no belief at all in the power of the Holy Spirit
    there is no point in pretending that we are members of the Church.

    Who on this thread has no belief in the power of the Holy Spirit?
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    As to democracy providing answers to anything - Trump, Johnson and Brexit.

    I'm not so sure that what I am proposing is democracy, at least not the kind of democracy we have in our governments or even the kind of democracy we would want for our governments.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate

    On an unrelated note, I know a Rabbi who in conversion classes to Judaism, rightly or wrongly, defends the moneychangers in the temple, saying they were providing a needed service to pilgrims from many countries to allow for the practice of temple offerings and sacrifices in accordance with Jewish law. I have read from a different source that coins with the emperor's image or other deities would need to be exchanged for other coins because they could not be used in the temple itself to pay for birds, goats, etc., to offer. The rabbi I know added that competition likely prevented any of the moneychangers from being too exploitative in the rates they charged. He said that the practice wasn't any worse than having a gift shop in your church. I didn't really agree with his argument but it did open my mind to realize that in the modern day not everyone even agrees that the expelling of the moneychangers from the temple was a good thing.

    Those 2 accounts are not all that different, both referring to the need to have acceptable temple money. As your rabbi friend notes, the real problem was not in providing the service but in the rip-off rates charged.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »

    On an unrelated note, I know a Rabbi who in conversion classes to Judaism, rightly or wrongly, defends the moneychangers in the temple, saying they were providing a needed service to pilgrims from many countries to allow for the practice of temple offerings and sacrifices in accordance with Jewish law. I have read from a different source that coins with the emperor's image or other deities would need to be exchanged for other coins because they could not be used in the temple itself to pay for birds, goats, etc., to offer. The rabbi I know added that competition likely prevented any of the moneychangers from being too exploitative in the rates they charged. He said that the practice wasn't any worse than having a gift shop in your church. I didn't really agree with his argument but it did open my mind to realize that in the modern day not everyone even agrees that the expelling of the moneychangers from the temple was a good thing.

    Those 2 accounts are not all that different, both referring to the need to have acceptable temple money. As your rabbi friend notes, the real problem was not in providing the service but in the rip-off rates charged.
    Yes, that’s always been my understanding—that the service was appropriate and needed, but that it was done in a way that exploited others, particularly the poor.

  • Forthview wrote: »
    RpM I am certainly not able to say that there are no imperfect people within the Church and I didn't attempt earlier to say that all were perfect.
    We live in an imperfect world but the ideals expressed by Jesus (evn through the mediation of the Church) can give us a picture of what to aim for. We may not be able to achieve perfection but as Christians we can try to see Christ in our neighbour and serve Christ in that neighbour.
    If the Church (whatever church that might be) gives us no vision for the future there is no point in belonging to it. Similarly if we have no belief at all in the power of the Holy Spirit
    there is no point in pretending that we are members of the Church.

    Who on this thread has no belief in the power of the Holy Spirit?

    Eh, I've met Cessationists who insist that the Holy Spirit's work is done because we have the Bible now.

    Personally, I regard that as heresy, but there may be people reading (rather than contributing to) the thread who hold those views.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Eh, I've met Cessationists who insist that the Holy Spirit's work is done because we have the Bible now.

    Personally, I regard that as heresy, but there may be people reading (rather than contributing to) the thread who hold those views.
    I've never heard anyone argue that. If anyone does maintain that, it's definitely a heresy.

    'Cessationist' isn't a word I've heard often, but if used here it tends to mean a person who believes that charismata finished at the end of the New Testament so that anyone claiming to exercise charismatic gifts is either making it up or worse.

  • Russ wrote: »
    IIRC, Jesus got very upset when the Jews of his time turned the house of prayer into a marketplace.

    In our own day, seems like the argument is between those who've turned it into a museum and those who want to turn it into a community centre.

    And now you want to turn it into a voting booth...

    The comparison is specious. Democracy in a church context is a means of accessing a collective understanding of the will of God, not an end in itself.

    A United Church of Canada cleric once expressed her view to me, after a long discussion on synods and conventions (on a patio in Kingston, Ontario, accompanied by some very nice gelato) that the UCC's structure was not just a decision-making process, but their process of discerment and magisterium. This was often untidy, and sometimes bitter, which was why electors and councillors needed spiritual support.

    Since then, I have sometimes thought that Anglican synods could profit by this perspective and, in the case of new processes for the RCC, perhaps them as well.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Stonespring - I agree with much of what you say and would,with you,I think,like to see the hierarchy taking more notice of the 'sensus' or 'consensus fidelium'
    One of the challenges to this idea is the fact that the Catholic Church is one of the oldest and largest institutions in the world,as well as the fact that its central core of believers is moving away from the 'liberal West.'
    Ideas which are acceptable to the broad masses of the population change from century to century and from place to place. While the basic Gospel message 'Love God and love your neighbour' remains always,the interpretation of what these words mean in daily practice can vary.
    For example, the Church can never change the message of the importance of marriage and its place in the basic idea of a stable family life,but a community which is guided by those who are (voluntarily ?) celibate is not in a good position to guide,unless it listens to the appeals of those who have to find ways outside of traditional Christian marriage to express their own sexuality and their love and need of human closeness. To me this is one of the challenges which the (Catholic) Church still has to solve.
    Stonespring - you used words earlier which I too would use referring to the guidance of the Church ultimately by the Holy Spirit and the belief that the gates of hell can ultimately not overwhelm the Church. Without this guidance of the Holy Spirit the 'Church' is simply a collection of individuals. Those who despair (lose hope) of the ultimate guidance of the Holy Spirit are losing their faith in the Church,for all the imperfections of its members,being the Mystical Body of Christ.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I just note with interest (because it is also how I tended to think) language about ‘the gates of hell can… overwhelm’ the Church.

    Gates do not attack or overwhelm. They are static defensive apparatus which can open or glide on their hinges, but no other movement is possible.

    The saying is about the gates of hell not ‘prevailing’ against the Church - i.e. hell’s defences are ineffective against the power of the Church.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    ... For example, the Church can never change the message of the importance of marriage and its place in the basic idea of a stable family life,but a community which is guided by those who are (voluntarily ?) celibate is not in a good position to guide,unless it listens to the appeals of those who have to find ways outside of traditional Christian marriage to express their own sexuality and their love and need of human closeness. To me this is one of the challenges which the (Catholic) Church still has to solve. ...
    The "(voluntarily ?) celibate" haven't over the last few centuries shown that their limited experience gives them much competence in guiding those whose aspirations "to express their own sexuality and their love and need of human closeness" lie within the parameters of traditional Christian marriage. So it's hardly surprising that they aren't doing very well with alternative and traditionally more exotic modes of expression.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I really liked Forthview's criticism above, especially this bit:
    Ideas which are acceptable to the broad masses of the population change from century to century and from place to place. While the basic Gospel message 'Love God and love your neighbour' remains always,the interpretation of what these words mean in daily practice can vary.
    For example, the Church can never change the message of the importance of marriage and its place in the basic idea of a stable family life,but a community which is guided by those who are (voluntarily ?) celibate is not in a good position to guide,unless it listens to the appeals of those who have to find ways outside of traditional Christian marriage to express their own sexuality and their love and need of human closeness. To me this is one of the challenges which the (Catholic) Church still has to solve.

    I also enjoyed Brojames' criticism of the metaphor. I'd like to compare it to this segment from Mad as Hell, but it will be geoblocked, for sure. It's called Lamentable Puns if you want to search it in your country.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Eh, I've met Cessationists who insist that the Holy Spirit's work is done because we have the Bible now.

    Personally, I regard that as heresy, but there may be people reading (rather than contributing to) the thread who hold those views.
    I've never heard anyone argue that. If anyone does maintain that, it's definitely a heresy.

    'Cessationist' isn't a word I've heard often, but if used here it tends to mean a person who believes that charismata finished at the end of the New Testament so that anyone claiming to exercise charismatic gifts is either making it up or worse.

    The view @Doc Tor describes is part of the same package.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    ... For example, the Church can never change the message of the importance of marriage and its place in the basic idea of a stable family life,but a community which is guided by those who are (voluntarily ?) celibate is not in a good position to guide,unless it listens to the appeals of those who have to find ways outside of traditional Christian marriage to express their own sexuality and their love and need of human closeness. To me this is one of the challenges which the (Catholic) Church still has to solve. ...
    The "(voluntarily ?) celibate" haven't over the last few centuries shown that their limited experience gives them much competence in guiding those whose aspirations "to express their own sexuality and their love and need of human closeness" lie within the parameters of traditional Christian marriage. So it's hardly surprising that they aren't doing very well with alternative and traditionally more exotic modes of expression.

    A minor quibble - widowed people can and do join religious orders/take holy orders in the RCC (and in other denominations with religious orders, divorced people can often join too). Historically, many widows became nuns - celibacy doesn't mean someone has always been celibate. Also, some married priests can become priests in the RCC, eg Ordinariate priests.
  • QuestorQuestor Shipmate
    A very important factor totally ignored by many posting here is the roll of the Councils of the Church where important issues of faith were thrashed out.
    The Nicene Creed was formulated in 325 at city of Nicaea. Some of the issues not answered by the Bible are the natures of Christ and the meaning of the Trinity.
    These at least were attempted.
    Celibacy of the clergy is peripheral and not an essential issue as with women clergy, periods of fasting before receiving the Eucharist, the observance of Lent and Advent, feast days, the calendar of saints, monasteries, pilgrimages etc.. They are not tenants of Faith.
  • On Sunday I was told that the bodily ascension of Mary into heaven is one of those tenants, by virtue of a papal decree of infallibility. I also bounced the Host off my facemask, and picked it up under the 3 second rule.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Simon,I don't think that 'tenants' is exactly the word you are looking for.
    The teaching of the bodily assumption of Mary comes in the Creed from the sentence
    'I believe in one,holy,catholic and apostolic Church' If that ,one holy ,catholic and apostolic Church is indeed under the spiritual guidance of the successor of St Peter then it is not too unbelievable that that successor of Peter can make this belief binding upon those who claim to follow his guidance.
    Given that most people will be unable either to prove or to disprove this particular tenet of faith it is not too difficult just to accept that the Mother of God has been taken up to ,Heaven,just as one day we may also hope to be , as we again say in the Creed 'I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    there are certain things which one has to take or not 'on faith'
    Few if any poeple will be able to prove or disprove
    For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven
    and by the Holy spirit was incarnate ofthe Virgin Mary and became man.
    For our sake he suffered death and rose again on the third day
    He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the father

    These are all 'acts of faith'
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Before the pope declared the doctrine of the Assumption he took the views of the worldwide bishops. He didnt do it single handed.
    Doesnt make any more credible, though!
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    A few years ago ,on what was called the 'day of the four popes' I was attending a ceremony in Rome. I came out of St Peter's and sat down at the side of one of the colonnades in front of the building. It was absolute chance,I think, that my eye was drawn to some names inscribed on the colonnade 'Eduardus Douglas,epus Matris fontis' and 'Josephus Black ,epus Pasletanae' ( bishop of Motherwell and bishop of Paisley). When I looked more closely I saw that names were inscribed as far up the colonnade as I could see
    What a chance that I had just happened to see the names of two Scottish bishops out of the hundreds of bishops,whom Pius XII had 'consulted' before making his special proclamation of the Assumption on 1st November 1950 and who were present on that day.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    there are certain things which one has to take or not 'on faith'
    Few if any poeple will be able to prove or disprove
    For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven
    and by the Holy spirit was incarnate ofthe Virgin Mary and became man.
    For our sake he suffered death and rose again on the third day
    He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the father

    These are all 'acts of faith'

    Thanks for the correction, brain out to lunch again. I like the distinction you might be drawing between what we know by experience and what we know through an 'act of faith'. The first category is in me very small, but distinctly there. The rest is a conscious choice to trust and follow.

    The difficulty with trusting and following is whether to draw a line. I am stubborn and a doubter. The first time I attended church as an adult I was in the grip of mania, a religious fervor that proved to be personally trustworthy, as the outcome is my presence as a believer stable in mood (on and off) 22 years later. What happened that evening is precious to me, from the patch of sunlight breaking through the cloud and bathing me through the church's skylight to the old worn out Priest asking me to move on, because he wanted to watch Richmond on the telly. The gospel was the appearance for Thomas the doubter, confirming for me that unquestioning faith is not required. Thomas is my talisman.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    @Forthview what's the 'day of four popes'? The phrase may mean something to fellow RCs but it's redolent of 1950s triumphalism to assume it means anything to the rest of us.

    And what is the connection between the column you mention and the papal proclamation. Is the list of names related to it in some way, or is it just a list of bishops?

  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    the 'day of the four popes' would not mean too much to most RCs either. It was,however, the day of the canonisation of pope John XXIII and pope John Paul II in the presence of pope Francis and pope Benedict. (I was there to witness the canonisation of John XXIII.)
    The column which I referred to was one of the huge columns infront of the basilica of St Peter. I sat down to rest and looked at one of the columns when I saw that incribed in tiny letters on the column just at the level of my eyes were names which I recognised. It turned out when I investigated further that these were the names of all the bishops who were present in St Peter's on the day of the Solemn Definition of the dogma of the Assumption on 1st november 1950.

    If one mentions in the one breath four popes there is no real reason to link it with triumphalism - four out of twohundred and sixty four occupants of the See of Rome is a tiny number.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Enoch , now long dead there was once a 'popular' tenor singer in Scotland,called Sydney McEwan,who modelled himself on the much more popular Irish tenor John McCormack
    Sydney McEwan,was,however, first and foremost a Catholic priest,for many years parish priest of Lochgilphead on the shores of Loch Fyne.
    In his autobiography 'On the high Cs' he recalled his time as a seminarian in Rome when in his first year he was sent to be part of the guard of honour round the body of pope Pius XI. This would be in 1939 and he recounted how often he had asked himself 'what am I, a wee boy from Glasgow , doing here in this huge church,the epicentre of Catholicism,guarding the body of a dead pope ?'
    I think that many of us will have felt a high charge of emotion if we find ourselves in a place which has been important for centuries.
    I always feel a sense of awe on the rare occasions in my life when I have approached St Peter's in Rome and this emotion was heightened by seeing (quite by chance ?) albeit in Latin,the names of two Scottish bishops,one of whom I knew personally.
    I may say that I felt much the same emotion the first time I crossed Red Square in Moscow even although I had no personal connection either with any of the czars or with any of the Communist dictators.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Sorry @Forthview my reference "but it's redolent of 1950s triumphalism" was to the assumptions of many RCs particularly from that era that the Roman church is so much 'the one true and only church' that non-RCs should know what such essentially RC things as 'the feast of Peter's chair' or 'why de Chardin was a heretic' were, or if they don't know, they jolly well ought to.

  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Ah Assumption and assumptions !
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Sorry @Forthview my reference "but it's redolent of 1950s triumphalism" was to the assumptions of many RCs particularly from that era that the Roman church is so much 'the one true and only church' that non-RCs should know what such essentially RC things as 'the feast of Peter's chair' or 'why de Chardin was a heretic' were, or if they don't know, they jolly well ought to.

    There are plenty of Anglican inside baseball terms (ie, jargon) used on the Ship all the time. Granted, I would not be surprised if even in the 1950s most RC's did not really know when the Feast of St. Peter's Chair is and other than saying that it had something to do with St Peter and presumably the papacy probably could not say much else about it, and most would have no idea who De Chardin was.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Sorry @Forthview my reference "but it's redolent of 1950s triumphalism" was to the assumptions of many RCs particularly from that era that the Roman church is so much 'the one true and only church' that non-RCs should know what such essentially RC things as 'the feast of Peter's chair' or 'why de Chardin was a heretic' were, or if they don't know, they jolly well ought to.

    There are plenty of Anglican inside baseball terms (ie, jargon) used on the Ship all the time. Granted, I would not be surprised if even in the 1950s most RC's did not really know when the Feast of St. Peter's Chair is and other than saying that it had something to do with St Peter and presumably the papacy probably could not say much else about it, and most would have no idea who De Chardin was.

    Every day here is a school day for this RC.
    Only yesterday I dicovered that TULIP is more than a flower.
Sign In or Register to comment.