EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 30, 2012 10:38:52 GMT -5
Since Georgetown is a Catholic institution, I think it is appropriate that we have a thread about what the Catholic Church, as an institution, believes. I'd like to start it by quoting from yesterday's Gospel of Matthew:
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven".
Catholics believe Jesus appointed Peter to head His Church and the popes that succeeded him were/are also heads of his Church. Catholics believe Jesus gave Peter and the other Apostles, and their successors, the power to forgive sins or to deny forgiving sins. Further, we believe that, in the end, the Church will prevail.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Jun 30, 2012 11:39:20 GMT -5
And what point are you trying to make?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 30, 2012 15:40:08 GMT -5
I'm trying to make the point that we on this board talk about elections, science, television programs, music, the Supreme Court, basketball, Georgetown ranking as an institution, and a myriad of other topics and, as a Catholic institution and, as a Hoya Talk board, it seems appropriate to have some discussion on Catholic beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Jul 1, 2012 15:38:01 GMT -5
If you want a discussion, there needs to be something to discuss.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,730
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 1, 2012 19:36:00 GMT -5
Issues of faith and Georgetown tend to get lost in the weeds because of the phrase Ed identified above "as a Catholic institution". The Church defines this in at least seven different ways, from institutions formed by the Church itself (e.g. Catholic University) all the way down to institutions formed by the laity. The spectrum between universities properly teaching the faith but running independently otherwise and those universities solely devoted to all things Catholic (the so-called Ex Corde universities like Steubenville and Ava Maria) is part of the tension which ocasionally brings Georgetown into the spotlight, as was the case earlier this year.
Bill Blatty's proposed canon lawsuit won't go far because there is no claim from the Archdiocese that Georgetown doesn't teach theology correctly. If the Archidiocese doesn't press the case, there's no "prosecution" per se. His complaint rests largely on the perception that the rest of the University is not as reverently Catholic as back in his day.
In 1949, Blatty's graduation year, every major position at the University was run by a Jesuit (according to the yearbook) except the librarian and the chairman of the English department. Whether it was the director of admissions, the moderator of athletics, or the dean of the SFS, an S.J. ran the show. Two years later, when president Hunter Guthrie S.J. dropped football, he did it with no outside oversight. The Board of Directors consisted solely of the Georgetown Jesuit community, of which Guthrie was its rector; hence, no disagreement permitted. When Guthrie was summarily replaced a year later, the Superior General in Rome installed Fr. Bunn, end of story.
The 1967 Land O'Lakes agreement, of which Georgetown was one of five whose university presidents signed it, was a break with the idea that the Maryland Province owned the school and in the post-Vatican II wake, the province did little to oppose it. By the early 1970's, Georgetown only had a plurality of Jesuits on the Board of Directors; today, there are just four among 36. Where the Jesuit Community at GU numbered over 100 as late as the 1970's, there are far fewer today. The ability of the Jesuits to drive Georgetown's Catholic policy isn't there as it used to be, largely because the Jesuits aren't there to do it.
Georgetown is also unique in the academic argument because it is the only Catholic university where Catholics are not a majority of its students, at least across all campuses. Fair or unfair, this also plays a role in the disdain heaped upon GU by those who complain GU is "not Catholic enough" but would not go so far as to publicly argue for a religious preference in admissions. Ex Corde institutions are so self-selective that there is practically no non-Catholic admissions, much like orthodox Protestant institutions.
Georgetown refers to itself as a "Catholic centered research university". Absent an extra 200 Jesuits or some sort of admonition from the Archdiocese, that passes muster until told otherwise. But for those who would argue that schools should be defrocked as "Catholic" institutions, Pope John Paul II warned that "the term ‘Catholic’ will never be a mere label either added or dropped according to the pressures of varying factors."
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,407
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 2, 2012 10:55:20 GMT -5
This thread deserves a comment precipitated by a sermon by a visiting priest (to our parish - UNLV Newman center) a few weeks ago. He told about a discussion between the current pope (I believe when he was still a cardinal) and one of the US archbishops. The discussion concerned, what is the Catholic Church. The current pope said it was the universal church centered in Rome, while the American archbishop said it was indeed the local churches, where the members of the mystical body of Christ resided. Now the priest didn't take sides, but on talking with him after Mass, he clearly favored the latter interpretation.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 2, 2012 15:09:41 GMT -5
When I started this thread I had no intention of having it get into the subject of Georgetown and Catholicism or who is the Church but I have no objection to either discusssions. However, what I did intend was to precipitate views on Catholic beliefs. In my original post I cited the readings that said Jesus delegated to Peter the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" along with the power to forgive sins or to refuse to forgive sins. Implied in this delegation is Catholic belief that Jesus intended Peter and his Church to be the conduit for all people to heaven and that all should be one under Peter and his successor. Jesus made this delegation to Peter alone, as an individual, and this was a delegation of authority and power unlike any other in human history.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 2, 2012 15:38:52 GMT -5
When I started this thread I had no intention of having it get into the subject of Georgetown and Catholicism Since Georgetown is a Catholic institution, I think it is appropriate that we have a thread about what the Catholic Church, as an institution, believes.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 2, 2012 18:16:03 GMT -5
When I started this thread I had no intention of having it get into the subject of Georgetown and Catholicism Since Georgetown is a Catholic institution, I think it is appropriate that we have a thread about what the Catholic Church, as an institution, believes. Read DFW's post.
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Jul 3, 2012 7:58:26 GMT -5
This thread deserves a comment precipitated by a sermon by a visiting priest (to our parish - UNLV Newman center) a few weeks ago. He told about a discussion between the current pope (I believe when he was still a cardinal) and one of the US archbishops. The discussion concerned, what is the Catholic Church. The current pope said it was the universal church centered in Rome, while the American archbishop said it was indeed the local churches, where the members of the mystical body of Christ resided. Now the priest didn't take sides, but on talking with him after Mass, he clearly favored the latter interpretation. . I think this underscores the larger issue between the Vatican and American Catholics. The Vatican is strict in its beliefs and interpretations while American Catholics tend to be less strict in practicing the official beliefs. This strict interpretation does little to appeal to Americans who culturally have not been introduced to Catholicism as children. So I could see how an American Catholic would see the Church as the local churches and the the faith that is practiced there, where someone with a much stricter adherence to the faith would see the church as HQ. This is a critical period in the Catholic faith. Other mainstream Christian denominations have shown themselves to be more willing to adopt the current viewpoints of members, while the Vatican is more comfortable dictating viewpoints. When you combine that stance with the world wide child molestation scandal that many people feel has been dealt with only begrudgingly and not well enough and you have an entire generation of younger people who view the Church with disdain even while considering themselves to be religious and seeking religious guidance. In the air of a transparency I'm a new father, married to a Catholic in the Church but felt uncomfortable raising my son in a faith I feel is too rigid regarding social issues. So my wife and I joined an Episcopal Church which is about as Catholic a church can be without being Catholic. Initially my wife was skeptical about changing Churches but openly admitted she just didn't follow the parts of Catholicism she didn't agree with. Now shes ready to baptize our child in the Episcopal Church because she thinks it's a better fit to her beliefs. Please don't take this post as an argument that the Episcopal Church is better than the Catholic Church. It's more an example of the types of current and future members the Church is losing. At some point leaders of the Church will have to decide is better to have X number of members but members who are very much in line with the viewpoints of the Vatican or is it better to be able provide spiritual guidance to X+ members by shifting some beliefs more inline with a new generation of Christians.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 3, 2012 9:24:35 GMT -5
This thread deserves a comment precipitated by a sermon by a visiting priest (to our parish - UNLV Newman center) a few weeks ago. He told about a discussion between the current pope (I believe when he was still a cardinal) and one of the US archbishops. The discussion concerned, what is the Catholic Church. The current pope said it was the universal church centered in Rome, while the American archbishop said it was indeed the local churches, where the members of the mystical body of Christ resided. Now the priest didn't take sides, but on talking with him after Mass, he clearly favored the latter interpretation. . I think this underscores the larger issue between the Vatican and American Catholics. The Vatican is strict in its beliefs and interpretations while American Catholics tend to be less strict in practicing the official beliefs. This strict interpretation does little to appeal to Americans who culturally have not been introduced to Catholicism as children. So I could see how an American Catholic would see the Church as the local churches and the the faith that is practiced there, where someone with a much stricter adherence to the faith would see the church as HQ. This is a critical period in the Catholic faith. Other mainstream Christian denominations have shown themselves to be more willing to adopt the current viewpoints of members, while the Vatican is more comfortable dictating viewpoints. When you combine that stance with the world wide child molestation scandal that many people feel has been dealt with only begrudgingly and not well enough and you have an entire generation of younger people who view the Church with disdain even while considering themselves to be religious and seeking religious guidance. In the air of a transparency I'm a new father, married to a Catholic in the Church but felt uncomfortable raising my son in a faith I feel is too rigid regarding social issues. So my wife and I joined an Episcopal Church which is about as Catholic a church can be without being Catholic. Initially my wife was skeptical about changing Churches but openly admitted she just didn't follow the parts of Catholicism she didn't agree with. Now shes ready to baptize our child in the Episcopal Church because she thinks it's a better fit to her beliefs. Please don't take this post as an argument that the Episcopal Church is better than the Catholic Church. It's more an example of the types of current and future members the Church is losing. At some point leaders of the Church will have to decide is better to have X number of members but members who are very much in line with the viewpoints of the Vatican or is it better to be able provide spiritual guidance to X+ members by shifting some beliefs more inline with a new generation of Christians. See, I had the opposite experience. My wife chose to convert to Catholicism before our marriage because she preferred it over being a Methodist like she was raised or any of the other visions of Christianity she'd looked into. Part of it was the lack of equivocation (I'm not sure that's the right word, but the structure of the Mass and the fact that the core rules and beliefs did not shift with the times that much were the way she described it) and the other part was the celebration of God through beautiful art and architecture. Then again, I know my sister and mother are moving away from the church because of the Church's problems with females (ie the lack of female priests, not the birth control stuff). Personally, I'd like to see female priests (still celibate). It seems like the kind of change that would help to bring the Church in line with the modernity and would not change the core appeal of the Church--the tradition of the Mass and the structure of the global Church. Also, I think there is something to both the Archbishop's and the Pope's thoughts on the center of the Church--it lies both in Rome, which preserves the traditions and beliefs of the Church and in the individual priests and parishes. Both define the Church--the Catholic Church wasn't started to get a divorce, nor is its core beliefs subject to the whims of each individual parish, but without quality priests and parishes, people won't want to attend. When you get a priest that gives bad homilies, or has decided that he should sing (poorly) a lot or whatever, people are less willing to put in the effort to attend Mass.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Jul 3, 2012 16:17:24 GMT -5
. I think this underscores the larger issue between the Vatican and American Catholics. The Vatican is strict in its beliefs and interpretations while American Catholics tend to be less strict in practicing the official beliefs. This strict interpretation does little to appeal to Americans who culturally have not been introduced to Catholicism as children. So I could see how an American Catholic would see the Church as the local churches and the the faith that is practiced there, where someone with a much stricter adherence to the faith would see the church as HQ. This is a critical period in the Catholic faith. Other mainstream Christian denominations have shown themselves to be more willing to adopt the current viewpoints of members, while the Vatican is more comfortable dictating viewpoints. When you combine that stance with the world wide child molestation scandal that many people feel has been dealt with only begrudgingly and not well enough and you have an entire generation of younger people who view the Church with disdain even while considering themselves to be religious and seeking religious guidance. In the air of a transparency I'm a new father, married to a Catholic in the Church but felt uncomfortable raising my son in a faith I feel is too rigid regarding social issues. So my wife and I joined an Episcopal Church which is about as Catholic a church can be without being Catholic. Initially my wife was skeptical about changing Churches but openly admitted she just didn't follow the parts of Catholicism she didn't agree with. Now shes ready to baptize our child in the Episcopal Church because she thinks it's a better fit to her beliefs. Please don't take this post as an argument that the Episcopal Church is better than the Catholic Church. It's more an example of the types of current and future members the Church is losing. At some point leaders of the Church will have to decide is better to have X number of members but members who are very much in line with the viewpoints of the Vatican or is it better to be able provide spiritual guidance to X+ members by shifting some beliefs more inline with a new generation of Christians. See, I had the opposite experience. My wife chose to convert to Catholicism before our marriage because she preferred it over being a Methodist like she was raised or any of the other visions of Christianity she'd looked into. Part of it was the lack of equivocation (I'm not sure that's the right word, but the structure of the Mass and the fact that the core rules and beliefs did not shift with the times that much were the way she described it) and the other part was the celebration of God through beautiful art and architecture. Then again, I know my sister and mother are moving away from the church because of the Church's problems with females (ie the lack of female priests, not the birth control stuff). Personally, I'd like to see female priests (still celibate). It seems like the kind of change that would help to bring the Church in line with the modernity and would not change the core appeal of the Church--the tradition of the Mass and the structure of the global Church. Also, I think there is something to both the Archbishop's and the Pope's thoughts on the center of the Church--it lies both in Rome, which preserves the traditions and beliefs of the Church and in the individual priests and parishes. Both define the Church--the Catholic Church wasn't started to get a divorce, nor is its core beliefs subject to the whims of each individual parish, but without quality priests and parishes, people won't want to attend. When you get a priest that gives bad homilies, or has decided that he should sing (poorly) a lot or whatever, people are less willing to put in the effort to attend Mass. As an anglican/episcopalian I find any comparison between the church I know/grew up in and the Catholic church. I think Eddie Izzard summed up the anglican church pretty well: cake or death. Skip to the 4:45 min mark.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,407
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 3, 2012 17:23:41 GMT -5
"As an anglican/episcopalian I find any comparison between the church I know/grew up in and the Catholic church." Cambridge, I am anxiously awaiting the end of your sentence.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 6, 2012 9:40:43 GMT -5
See, I had the opposite experience. My wife chose to convert to Catholicism before our marriage because she preferred it over being a Methodist like she was raised or any of the other visions of Christianity she'd looked into. Part of it was the lack of equivocation (I'm not sure that's the right word, but the structure of the Mass and the fact that the core rules and beliefs did not shift with the times that much were the way she described it) and the other part was the celebration of God through beautiful art and architecture. "Lack of equivocation?" Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church would have required your wife to believe that her Methodist family is going to hell, despite their belief in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ. I wonder: if the Church had not equivocated on this point, would that have impacted her decision to convert? (Note: I am saying this mainly for purposes of discussion, because I think it may be closer to what Ed actually wants to talk about, given his references to Peter.) If you look at centuries of Catholic history, "lack of equivocation" isn't exactly the best way to describe the church, and that's not always a bad thing.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 6, 2012 11:50:24 GMT -5
See, I had the opposite experience. My wife chose to convert to Catholicism before our marriage because she preferred it over being a Methodist like she was raised or any of the other visions of Christianity she'd looked into. Part of it was the lack of equivocation (I'm not sure that's the right word, but the structure of the Mass and the fact that the core rules and beliefs did not shift with the times that much were the way she described it) and the other part was the celebration of God through beautiful art and architecture. "Lack of equivocation?" Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church would have required your wife to believe that her Methodist family is going to hell, despite their belief in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ. I wonder: if the Church had not equivocated on this point, would that have impacted her decision to convert? (Note: I am saying this mainly for purposes of discussion, because I think it may be closer to what Ed actually wants to talk about, given his references to Peter.) If you look at centuries of Catholic history, "lack of equivocation" isn't exactly the best way to describe the church, and that's not always a bad thing. Yeah, equivocation is probably not the right word. It's almost like I said that in my comment in an attempt to ensure that no one went Textualist on me by applying the word literally (also, since when does changing = equivocating?). Maybe I'm looking for respect for tradition? Conservatism (in the sense that the institution and beliefs generally don't shift with the wind)? Personally, I have a sense that the underlying / core belief system the Catholic Church is resting on is solid, even if the institution fails in some way, which it obviously has, or the applications change (such as Vatican II, or the retranslations that were recently promulgated). And yeah, I bet that would have impacted her decision as well. Luckily that changed. I'm sure the inquisition or indulgences would have been an issue for her as well.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 6, 2012 18:22:59 GMT -5
"Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church would have required your wife to believe that her Methodist family is going to hell, despite their belief in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ."
That is not true.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 7, 2012 1:16:35 GMT -5
"Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church would have required your wife to believe that her Methodist family is going to hell, despite their belief in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ." That is not true. I'm happy to be corrected. Please explain.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,232
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 7, 2012 2:43:16 GMT -5
Raised in a Protestant household I remember my devout Catholic aunt and my cousins suggesting that I would not be saved because I wasn't Catholic when growing up in the 1960s. Check out this explanation. www.staycatholic.com/salvation_outside_the_church.htm"Vatican Council II addressed this point in its "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)," "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation" (no. 16). In short, those who are truly unaware of what God requires of them are not held responsible; rather they are judged by what they did with the truth they had. Ironically, many Bible Christians have their own version of "No Salvation outside the Church". They believe that unless a person accepts Christ as personal Lord and Savior he or she is headed for hell. No allowances are made for people who don't know any better. The Catholic Church rightly portrays God as both just and merciful – as opposed to legalistic. Traditionalists view God in the same way that Bible Christians do. They believe that God makes no exceptions. Do it right or you are lost. In this case if you are not Catholic you have no chance for salvation. They reject Vatican II's qualification of the doctrine. They contend that Vatican II ignored earlier councils and introduced something new. Thus it is invalid and to be ignored. This of course is false. The Church's teachings before and after the council are the same." Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church suggests to me that non-Catholics aren't condemned to hell: 836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation." 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." 843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 7, 2012 9:31:05 GMT -5
"Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church would have required your wife to believe that her Methodist family is going to hell, despite their belief in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ." That is not true. I'm happy to be corrected. Please explain. The Catholic Church believes, before and after Vatican II, that the Catholic Church is the true church established by Christ, and it is decended from the Apostles. It further believes, then and now, He desires all people to be united under the Catholic Church and that baptism was necessary for one to achieve heaven. What was taught prior to Vatican II was that there were three ways to be baptized: (1) Baptism by water (the usual way); (2) Baptism of Blood (martyrdom); and, (3) Baptism of Desire. What was taught was that Baptism of Desire included those who, through no fault of their own, had no religious faith but practiced doing the right thing; those who devoutly practice faiths other than Christianity; and those who were baptized in other Christian faiths. The Church's view was that, even though these were not members of the Catholic Church they were leading lives following their consciences so, without knowing it, they desired to be members of the Catholic Church. I don't believe any of this changed post Vatican II.
|
|
|
Post by hooahhoya on Jul 10, 2012 21:27:30 GMT -5
What was taught was that Baptism of Desire included those who, through no fault of their own, had no religious faith but practiced doing the right thing; those who devoutly practice faiths other than Christianity; and those who were baptized in other Christian faiths. The Church's view was that, even though these were not members of the Catholic Church they were leading lives following their consciences so, without knowing it, they desired to be members of the Catholic Church. But how does this jive with what you said earlier, "Implied in this delegation is Catholic belief that Jesus intended Peter and his Church to be the conduit for all people to heaven and that all should be one under Peter and his successor."? I agree with the notion you expressed in describing Baptism by Desire, but it sounded different than the prior statement, which when I read it, I disagreed with. From your perspective are the statements compatible because God is saying that while it was His intent/desire/goal/ideal for Peter to be the one conduit to heaven through the Catholic Church, until the Catholic Church succeeds in being a worldwide church, it is only reasonable to allow for Baptism by Desire?
|
|