Papabile: Papal predictions thread

[Sheilbh]

Contrast that to the Catholic position of needing faith informed by charity, and you have a very fine distinction indeed. 

I think that's true of much theology

I'm no theologian obviously, but in my view that distinction is almost so meaningless as to be misleading in practice:  "faith alone is all you need.... but you will do good works if you have faith" implies that without good works you aren't truly justified in the first place. 

Catholics have always attacked sola fide for its antinomian elements and that's been a long problem for Lutherans and other Protestants.

I think Luther's perspective, as I say, is that you can't take the two apart. Someone who has faith is justified, that faith will lead them to works and to following the law or they will not be saved. It's the natural and inevitable consequence of faith. If you have someone who has 'faith' but doesn't follow the law or do good works then they are, in Luther's phrase, an 'unbeliever'. Their faith isn't real or authentic. The heat and light analogy is a very good one for his view on this. Luther also separates out justification and sanctification. So you're justified by the faith, but you live a life pleasing to God by works and that sanctifies you. But nothing you can do can make you worthwhile for God, except faith. I've always found it a rather dark doctrine, in the darker recesses of Augustine.

The Augustine quote earlier carries on and is an example of this. James is talking about Abraham offering Isaac for sacrifice. Augustine's view is that that act came from faith. The good work was the fruit of faith, it proceeds from it. If he hadn't had faith then Abraham, in Augustine's view, would have gained nothing from it. If he just had faith and so didn't act because he knew God would forgive him anyway, then he would have, in Augustine's phrase, 'a dead faith'. So there's no contradiction between James and Paul. As I say I think Luther ultimately really unpacks that wrinkle in Augustine's thinking.

The other key difference is that faith in the Protestant tradition is an event. To use the modern Evangelical phrase, you accept Christ, which is the defining moment.

The Catholic perspective is that there's a body of law and the sacraments and that faith is demonstrated through following that and that it's sin not the state of your conscience that distances you from God. Which makes sense to me because the Catholic view is that even if you go through a period of doubt your faith is being demonstrated by going to Mass and confession. The state of your personal religious attitude at any time isn't as important as the act of faith. So even if your belief tails off, you're demonstrating a perhaps deeper faith by going to Church.

So, you're still left with the greater question of the inherent contradictions of the sola scriptura approach, which informed Luther's fetishizing of the faith alone passage.

Oh I agree. Sola scriptura isn't very helpful in my view.

[Camerus]

Contrast that to the Catholic position of needing faith informed by charity, and you have a very fine distinction indeed. 

I think that's true of much theology  

True enough.     The trouble comes when elevating such a fine distinction to what is arguably the main pillar of Lutheran faith for everyday use by ordinary people.  Not only is it Biblicaly somewhat dubious given the wide number of passages expressing the need for charity and love, but also as I suggested, the argument often leads to a selfish and in my view decidedly non-Christlike antinomian reading of the faith.  Thus it's intellectually, morally and practically quite an odd and unhelpful tenant to elevate to such an important level.

Secondly, if we accept that the common claim that the Christian God is pure love and justice, it is almost inconceivable to me that such a being would judge and justify individuals on the basis solely of faith rather than also on charity.

The other key difference is that faith in the Protestant tradition is an event. To use the modern Evangelical phrase, you accept Christ, which is the defining moment.

That's an interesting point, but how does that work in practice?  Doesn't one go through periods of greater and lesser faith, works, church attendance etc. as a matter of course?

[Eddie Teach]

Secondly, if we accept that the common claim that the Christian God is pure love and justice,

The asshole Calvinist God seems more realistic given the world he's said to have created.

[Camerus]

Secondly, if we accept that the common claim that the Christian God is pure love and justice,

The asshole Calvinist God seems more realistic given the world he's said to have created.

With that approach, you might also accept the common Gnostic claim that the world was created by the evil and ignorant Yahweh as Demiurge.   

[Martinus]

The Catholic perspective is that there's a body of law and the sacraments and that faith is demonstrated through following that and that it's sin not the state of your conscience that distances you from God.

Exactly - which was my original point that you can be Catholic and a believer without having an internal conviction that God exists, as long as you act as if He did.

Plus, faith to me is more of a continuum than a binary condition - it can be fanned or it can be doused. Since I made a conscious decision I do not want to be a part of the church that rejects me, I have been dousing my faith with a lot of water - but I suspect this process is reversible.

[The Larch]

For people raised in Catholic countries, Catholicism is not just religion, but an integral part of your culture. A lot of Catholics also go to church and participate in religious ceremonies despite disagreeing with the official church doctrine not just on social issues, but often on points of religious doctrine (e.g. you may have people who consider themselves Catholics, but believe in reincarnation or think that hell does not exist).

Does it help to explain what I was talking about?

Yep. Not just Catholic countries but Catholic cultures. Look at me and CdM

No, it's you people. There's nothing mystical at all about being raised in a catholic environment.

[garbon]

Exactly - which was my original point that you can be Catholic and a believer without having an internal conviction that God exists, as long as you act as if He did.

Plus, faith to me is more of a continuum than a binary condition - it can be fanned or it can be doused. Since I made a conscious decision I do not want to be a part of the church that rejects me, I have been dousing my faith with a lot of water - but I suspect this process is reversible.

What are you believing in then if you don't believe in God?

[Martinus]

Exactly - which was my original point that you can be Catholic and a believer without having an internal conviction that God exists, as long as you act as if He did.

Plus, faith to me is more of a continuum than a binary condition - it can be fanned or it can be doused. Since I made a conscious decision I do not want to be a part of the church that rejects me, I have been dousing my faith with a lot of water - but I suspect this process is reversible.

What are you believing in then if you don't believe in God?

It's essentially Pascal's wager. You are agnostic about the existence of God, but you are nonetheless acting as if God existed.

The Catholic Church has never had a problem with unbelief as long as the ritual and the law were observed. Hell, sacraments work even if the priest does not believe in God, according to the catholic doctrine.

[Martinus]

Crap.

Pope Francis Once Supported Gay Civil Unions, But Only As the 'Lesser of Two Evils'

When it was announced that as pope, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio would be taking the name Francis, after the reformer Francis of Assisi, many briefly got their hopes up before being informed that while he might address corruption in the Vatican, Pope Francis probably won't be reversing any of the church's controversial positions on social issues. However, the New York Times reports that at one point Bergoglio did take a position on gay rights that initially sounds surprisingly liberal. When Argentina was about to legalize gay marriage in 2010, Bergoglio urged the church to support civil unions for gay couples — before he become the face of the church's opposition to the law.

Cardinal Bergoglio made the suggestion at a meeting of Argentina's bishops in 2010, arguing that since the gay marriage bill was almost certain to pass, the church should try to compromise by backing civil unions instead. Bergoglio described it as the "lesser of two evils," according to his authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin, but the bishops voted against his proposal.

Marcelo Márquez, a gay rights leader and theologian, tells the Times that Bergoglio responded quickly and was very respectful when he sent a letter challenging him on the issue around the same time. In a phone call, Bergoglio "told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage," says Márquez.

However, Esteban Paulón, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transsexuals, notes that while Bergoglio might have struck a conciliatory tone in private, "He took a role, in public, that was determinedly combative," and said some "terrible things." In addition to backing large protests against same-sex marriage, he described the bill in a letter as a "destructive pretension against the plan of God" and argued that gay adoptions discriminate against children. Later he called gay marriage "the devil's work."

The incident does suggest that on social issues, Pope Francis might be somewhat more willing to compromise than his predecessors. However, it isn't hard to look progressive when the previous pope used a Christmas address to describe how homosexuality is destroying the very "essence of the human creature."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/pope-francis-supported-gay-civil-unions.html

[fhdz]

Marti lacks the courage of his convictions.

[garbon]

Actually what's odd is that it seems pretty likely (especially given the rest of that article) that he is still pretty much an opponent.

[garbon]

Exactly - which was my original point that you can be Catholic and a believer without having an internal conviction that God exists, as long as you act as if He did.

Plus, faith to me is more of a continuum than a binary condition - it can be fanned or it can be doused. Since I made a conscious decision I do not want to be a part of the church that rejects me, I have been dousing my faith with a lot of water - but I suspect this process is reversible.

What are you believing in then if you don't believe in God?

It's essentially Pascal's wager.

That God will look the other way if you attend his house of worship but don't believe in him?

[Martinus]

Exactly - which was my original point that you can be Catholic and a believer without having an internal conviction that God exists, as long as you act as if He did.

Plus, faith to me is more of a continuum than a binary condition - it can be fanned or it can be doused. Since I made a conscious decision I do not want to be a part of the church that rejects me, I have been dousing my faith with a lot of water - but I suspect this process is reversible.

What are you believing in then if you don't believe in God?

It's essentially Pascal's wager.

That God will look the other way if you attend his house of worship but don't believe in him?

The God will not "look the other way", but as Sheilbh pointed out, God is not in the business of rewarding or punishing you for the state of mind that you have no control over - but whether you have faith, which expresses itself through acts of worship, not through a mental state.

Obviously, you can't do it with a point of view of being a fraud, but it is enough to "want to believe" to be saved - you do not need to actually believe.

[garbon]

The God will not "look the other way", but as Sheilbh pointed out, God is not in the business of rewarding or punishing you for the state of mind that you have no control over - but whether you have faith, which expresses itself through acts of worship, not through a mental state.

Obviously, you can't do it with a point of view of being a fraud, but it is enough to "want to believe" to be saved - you do not need to actually believe.

God no wonder we have crazy protestant fundies here in the US. Catholic Church sounds worse than Church of England/Unitarians as at least those latter two groups are a bit more honest with their charade.

[Sheilbh]

Not really. You've got faith in the Church, which is the mystical body of Christ; you pray; you participate on the sacraments. That's kinder (or as Francis would put it, more merciful) than the doubts over whether your faith is enough, or if, facing death you doubt, or whether you're one of the elect. Even Mother Theresa doubted.

As they say every mass 'look not on our sins but on the faith of your Church'.