![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Over the last couple of tuesday lunchtimes, we've been dealing with the word catholic[1]. Joe used something he'd used for a previous parish quiet day as the basis for discussion. He'd found 5 definitions of "catholic", and we looked in them in turn.
The last point brought us onto a discussion of what counted as a communion-breaking issue - clearly there are issues which we as a church have to say are important enough that if you don't agree with us on them, then you aren't a Christian (e.g. the divinity of Christ); in tension with this is the fact that we all disagree on some points, and that's part of being authentic Christians. Perhaps inevitably, we started talking about homosexuality. Part of the problem is that many people holding forth on the subject are less hung up about who is shagging who, but more see this as a rallying point for a bigger issue - how we interpret scripture, and the authority of scripture. Maybe *that* is a communion-breaking issue, and non-Christians would probably respect us much more for debating *that*, rather than seeming obsessed with the bedroom.
The St Lukes anecdote (which I'm sure I've related here before) was also brought up, as a reminder that other Christians aren't necessarily what we think of them as.
There was a StAG person along this week, which was interesting, particularly the brief discussion at the end about transubstantiation.
[1]not as an abbreviation for Roman Catholic.
[2]In case you don't know (and some present on tuesday didn't), this is a rhetorical device similar to saying "well, do you like chocolate, or do you like cheese?": people might like either, but many like both, and a few none, so trying to split people into two on these grounds is bogus.
- "Catholic Christianity believes that God is at work in the whole Church. For this reason, it is a restless and generous form of Christianity always eager to learn from other Christians". This was quite attractive to us woolly-minded liberals - it's a suitable humble approach, and acknowledges the lesson of ecumenism that we have much to learn from Christians from other traditions.
- "Catholics are those who are in possession of the true religion, of which all others fall short". It was, I think, intentional that this follows after number 1. It's all very well to say we have things to learn from other Christians, but don't we in the end have to assert that we believe our church to be better than the others in some way (otherwise, why aren't you a methodist rather than an anglican?). Also, an excess in point 1) can lead on to relativism, and the failure to assert any truth at all, and surely Christianity is about truth in the end? We talked about these first two quite a lot, and I think it's fair to say our conclusion, such as it was, was that we have a core set of beliefs, that we assert are central to being a Christian. Outwith those, we are willing to engage with and learn from other Christians. Whilst anglicanism might be the most right church overall, there are expected to be points on which other churches can teach us. Arrogance is clearly bad, too.
- "Catholic Christianity believes that God is at work int he whole world. For this reason, it displays radical openness to all truth and to every value." This is like 1) but with even more relativism, so didn't attract much support. Christianity has a distinctive truth to share with a fallen world.
- "For Catholics, the sacraments are the place where God is present to us and changes us.". This is how the World Council of Churches uses "Catholic", as distinct from "Protestant" (rather than "Catholic" in the sense the creed uses it); Protestants say the Bible is important instead. I argued quite strongly that this is a false dichotomy[2], and that authentic Christianity emphasis both Scripture and the Sacraments. Someone suggested that you could view the Bible as a sacramental thing. We talked about the Salvation Army in this context, too.
- "Catholics are those who maintain communion with their bishop." In some sense, this was the original use of the word - heterodox people wouldn't keep communion with their bishop. By this definition, parishes who have a flying bishop are no longer Catholic, which is something to think about.
The last point brought us onto a discussion of what counted as a communion-breaking issue - clearly there are issues which we as a church have to say are important enough that if you don't agree with us on them, then you aren't a Christian (e.g. the divinity of Christ); in tension with this is the fact that we all disagree on some points, and that's part of being authentic Christians. Perhaps inevitably, we started talking about homosexuality. Part of the problem is that many people holding forth on the subject are less hung up about who is shagging who, but more see this as a rallying point for a bigger issue - how we interpret scripture, and the authority of scripture. Maybe *that* is a communion-breaking issue, and non-Christians would probably respect us much more for debating *that*, rather than seeming obsessed with the bedroom.
The St Lukes anecdote (which I'm sure I've related here before) was also brought up, as a reminder that other Christians aren't necessarily what we think of them as.
There was a StAG person along this week, which was interesting, particularly the brief discussion at the end about transubstantiation.
[1]not as an abbreviation for Roman Catholic.
[2]In case you don't know (and some present on tuesday didn't), this is a rhetorical device similar to saying "well, do you like chocolate, or do you like cheese?": people might like either, but many like both, and a few none, so trying to split people into two on these grounds is bogus.
(no subject)
It seems to me that it would be entirely possible to believe that, being fallible and human and all that, all Christian churches have got some things wrong, and consequently that fighting over who is "better" is a bit like the two fleas arguing over who owns the dog.
It's all a question of where you draw the line, though, as to what's "essential" for Christianity (after all, the above argument could quite easily be extended to include all religions if you wanted). Most Christians would, I suspect, agree on the divinity of Christ, and the crucial (pun intended) importance of the resurrection. Once you get much beyond that, though, it all seems to degenerate all too quickly into quibbling and name-calling. Perhaps (she said, with tongue slightly [but only slightly] in cheek) that's some kind of indication that the stuff beyond that is less important?
(no subject)
I must write up last night's CUC discussion which was almost entirely about this!
(no subject)
I think that (1) is fine in the sense that God is at work in the whole of his church, but I doubt that this understanding is unique to catholicism. I would also add that there is a hidden assumption about what constitutes God's church.
2) don't we in the end have to assert that we believe our church to be better than the others in some way (otherwise, why aren't you a methodist rather than an anglican?
Not necessarily. It might be the case that all Christian denominations are equally wrong (and equally right) and we just happen to be Anglicans by an accident of history. I think this is near the truth, in the sense that I believe the Holy Catholic Church to be in a state of schism, none of the fragments being complete of itself.
3) seems absurd. On the one hand, what theist doesn't believe that God is at work in the whole world? On the other hand, the impression given is that catholic christianity has a wide understanding of truth, which I don't think can be supported as a matter of observation, and comes close to an abuse of language.
4) I don't think any catholic would say that the sacraments are the place where God is present and changes us. Obviously there are others. There is a famous a-c dictum to the effect that God is present in the sacrament, and it is right to worship him there, he is present in the scriptures, and it is right to learn from him there, and he is present in the poor and it is right to serve him there.
5) strikes me as dodgy as a matter of history. There have been plenty of heretical bishops, and plenty of excommunicated bishops. I have a feeling that in St Augustine's Africa there were more Donatist bishops than Catholic. Catholics are those in communion with the Catholic church, rather than specifically with their bishop. Which, of course, requires one to identify the Catholic church, which gives the question some circularity, but does at least suggest that Catholics are a single intercommunicating group. Which just goes to show that armchair pondering can lead one badly wrong.
I don't recall the St Luke's anecdote. Can you link to it?