Hi Joedjr —
This comes from myself, (and might not please too many members here) but why would anyone want to be even remotely associated with the RCC?
Oooh! As one of my favourite Blues tracks goes, "
Don't start me talkin'!"
... however ...
I don't see any big changes in them, from the time these things were done, looking back to before and since.
Then I think I can fairly say you really haven't tracked the history of the RCC in any detail. Since the Reformation there have been three major landmark developments in Christian doctrine. To make your assertion stick, you'd have to demonstrate how it is for example (in the face of an enormous body of evidence to the contrary), that the four Constitutional Declarations of Vatican II say nothing new, or brought about no changes within the Catholic Church.
Their core philosophy hasn't really changed.
The Creed? No, it hasn't. Part of opur core philosophy is the truth of eternal principle. If what God has chosen to reveal of Himself is true, and thus eternally true, why change it?
Their source of enlightenment is certainly questionable.
It certainly transcends what can be affirmed by unaided reason ... but it's not unreasonable to believe in what we believe. You have the choice to accept it, or not, but the data itself is not subject to any order of empirical examination, nor can any empirical data offer any determinate commentary — although more than a few profess Christianity because of the evidence of their eyes and minds.
Their rite and ritual have very little Biblical foundation.
Really? You do realise those rites and rituals were in place
before Scripture was written, so I would suggest the idea that a community would produce a Bible that undermines their practice and their beliefs as somewhat contradictory.
From my studies, I think our rites and ritual reeks of Scripture.
Judaism is a liturgical religion, so is Christianity. Everything else is just being a good person. I would argue the profession of Christianity without a liturgical dimension is questionable, as there's no meaningful difference between that and secular humanism.
At the very least it's impoverished, something minus the transcendent dimension ... no real engagement in with the Spirit, nor the Mystery.
Most of the teachings come, no more or less, from the mind of men.
Well that's your opinion. There is not one Catholic teaching that does not trace back to a Scriptural foundation.
That there were disputes (3-6th century) over terms used, as not deriving from Scripture, shows how cautious the Church was in declaring any dogma.
And there are many Spiritual Masters, outside of the Christian Tradition altogether, who affirm the Spiritual illumination and inspiration of the text.
Their organization is quite the same as others that are run by men.
Well it can hardly be otherwise, surely? It is an organisation composed of people, after all.
The big difference is that we've outlived and outlasted most other organisations, which some philosophers regard as significant and meaningful, although no doubt there are a few here who will suggest something along the lines of 'sell-by dates'.
They make mistakes, make some changes, keep stumbling on. No different than anyone else.
None at all.
Infallibility can hardly be claimed.
No man claims infallibility. We claim infallibility for the Office of St Peter,
but not for the men who fill that office. There is a difference, although many fail to comprehend it, and assume all manner of error in thinking otherwise. There is a Scriptural foundation for that belief as well, so to deny it would involve denying Scripture.
They claim special knowledge but can't produce evidence.
Scripture is evidence enough, I would have thought.
For my part, I would say that anyone who claims an interpretation of Scripture as valid, simply because it's the way they interpret it, is on paper, plainly a nonsense. I know my own fallibilities, and as I, like you, agree that no man is infallible, then no man should rely on his own interpretation alone.
That the community that produced the Scripture in the first place claims the right of its authentic interpretation, a community that can demonstrate an unbroken succession of teaching from its founding Apostles has the far stronger case.
The community is a better bet than the individual in the long run, even when the community is wrong, and the individual right.
Einstein went against the community, but was finally endorsed by him, yet he was left behind when he denied Quantum Physics.
I could be wrong but the infallible man has not walked this earth.
I agree. That's the value of Tradition. That's what the Reformation abandoned and lo, not just one alternative to Christianity, but successive and increasingly contradictory alternatives ...
They have "good apples" on board just as any other group, but that does not make them any better or worse.
The point is that the 'good apples' all claim the same thing, and that is what I am loyal to and hunger after ... that there are rotten apples is in the very nature of things, but then I do not pursue what the rotten apples pursue ... (I've got my own problems to contend with!)
If we dismantled every institution, or abandoned every path, because of bad apples, there would be no institutions, no paths.
In the end perhaps just another house of questionable ritual?
In contemplating the Mysteries, I listen to the voice of the Masters and the Mystics — their insight tends to surpass my own! The common notion that somehow Catholic mystics operate 'outside' the Church, which I have seen expressed often, is pure apocryphal nonsense — there's not a jot of evidence for any such claim — the reverse is the case without fail.
I hunger after what they have seen, and if the way was good enough for them (and indeed they invariably claim they are hardly worthy of it), then who am I to criticise?
Thomas
