Another Pope Francis Interview, Strap On Your Seat Belts!

[John Ryan]

In my opinion John, for a theologian to hold a pro-homosexual stance thoroughly discredits them. The scriptural evidence against homosexual acts in both the OT and NT is so thorough that I don't know how anyone can support it from a Christian perspective, and this is not even mentioning the arguments from natural law. Again, this is just my personal litmus test, since the mental gymnastics involved in trying to justify homosexual acts are of such great magnitude, I would be weary of anything else such a theologian believes.

 

 

By rejecting even one dogma you put yourself outside of the Church and in essence create your own version of Christianity. I know in your next quote you try to explain why you remain attached with Catholicism, but you seem more like a High-Church Anglican than a Roman Catholic, I think you would find their positions very agreeable with your own. Again, I don't understand why a person would remain in a religious community they disagree with, I presume you were raised Catholic?

 

 

If I'm not mistaken more conservative branches of the Anglicans do accept the transubstantiation, and you may also consider Western Rite Orthodoxy (both groups reject the Papal claims.) Anyway John, you choose to stay and call yourself Catholic, I'm not going to push you out since I'm not inside myself! I just find it peculiar when people choose to remain, or at least portray remaining inside, when they disagree with the fundamentals of what makes Catholicism. In the old days if you didn't agree with the Church, you left!

 

Well, considering I am not a biblical inerrantist, but rather understand the biblical literature as a sacred dialogue between man and God, a product that is both human and divine, I do not believe in such a litmus test. We must tread carefully when approaching the Old Testament, since a whole host of deplorable and evil things are justified within its pages, from genocide and ethnic hatred to slavery and misogyny. Christ never specifically addressed the idea of homosexuality and St. Paul seems to speak about it a context that has to do with domination and abuse. I tend to think that St. Paul wrote of homosexuality within the context of masters raping their slaves and male prostitution. 

 

On why I am a Roman Catholic, perhaps a less personal and more philosophic answer will help you understand. Roman Catholicism is a 2,000 year old tradition and I remain unconvinced that what the contemporary conservatives in the Church assert as the party-line reflects the truth of the tradition. I tend to understand the current structure as something made possible by the advent of modernity and in reaction to the Eastern Schism and the Protestant Reformation. When I learn about the history of Roman Catholicism, it looks much more fractured than the current hierarchy wants to believe. So in certain eras, a certain magisterial authority is extend to theologians, and there are periods where Concilarism reigns. 

 

I do not believe that the current hierarchy has a final say in what is and is not Roman Catholic. I do not view myself as a heretic, but orthodox to the history of the Church. So I do not accept your premise that to be authentically Catholic a person needs to obey every edict of the Roman Curia. By remaining with the Roman Catholic Church I express my unity with the historic tradition, and that is something I do not envision giving up anytime soon. 

 

Substance in Scholasticism is immaterial, so I don't believe that transubstantiation, properly understood, is materialist. 

 

I kind of agree with you on that point. Though we should also remember that Catholicism existed before Scholasticism came onto the scene. I am not aware of any metaphysical summation of Eucharist in the patristic period. It was a mystical truth, rather than a philosophic truth.

[Apotheoun]

I kind of agree with you on that point. Though we should also remember that Catholicism existed before Scholasticism came onto the scene. I am not aware of any metaphysical summation of Eucharist in the patristic period. It was a mystical truth, rather than a philosophic truth.

I am an Eastern Catholic and so I do not use the term "transubstantiation" to talk about the Eucharist at all, but I was simply pointing out that even in the Scholastic system "transubstantiation" does not involve a change in the material elements (i.e., the physical and chemical make up of the elements) that are consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ. It is an immaterial change that is involved, and not a material or physical change.

[Apteka]

Well, considering I am not a biblical inerrantist, but rather understand the biblical literature as a sacred dialogue between man and God, a product that is both human and divine, I do not believe in such a litmus test. We must tread carefully when approaching the Old Testament, since a whole host of deplorable and evil things are justified within its pages, from genocide and ethnic hatred to slavery and misogyny. Christ never specifically addressed the idea of homosexuality and St. Paul seems to speak about it a context that has to do with domination and abuse. I tend to think that St. Paul wrote of homosexuality within the context of masters raping their slaves and male prostitution. 

 

If by not being an "inerrantist" you mean that textual variants exists among our existing codices then I completely agree with you. However even the so called authentic letters of Paul include proclamations against homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9. Plus there is over two thousand years of tradition, and homosexuality has been looked upon the same way until around the 'sexual revolution' in Western culture. I think current reinterpretations of homosexuality have less to do with a sincere reading of Scripture and more do with molding the text in a way that fits with contemporary Western views (I was going to say values but that's really not applicable.)

 

And I'm curious, textual scholarship also rejects things like the virgin birth, etc. Do you believe in the virgin birth and literal resurrection?

 

On why I am a Roman Catholic, perhaps a less personal and more philosophic answer will help you understand. Roman Catholicism is a 2,000 year old tradition and I remain unconvinced that what the contemporary conservatives in the Church assert as the party-line reflects the truth of the tradition. I tend to understand the current structure as something made possible by the advent of modernity and in reaction to the Eastern Schism and the Protestant Reformation. When I learn about the history of Roman Catholicism, it looks much more fractured than the current hierarchy wants to believe. So in certain eras, a certain magisterial authority is extend to theologians, and there are periods where Concilarism reigns.

 

 

So in your view John, Roman Catholicism is really this formless religion with many different view points and manifestations. The Pope and the dogmata form only one subset in Roman Catholicism, wrongly posing itself as the only form when in fact it's a diverse religion that encompasses many different beliefs and practices. Personally, as a non-Roman I find this view untenable and your attachment to calling yourself Roman Catholic strange. If we removed any titles I would have thought you were an Anglican branch-theorist! 

 

I do not believe that the current hierarchy has a final say in what is and is not Roman Catholic. I do not view myself as a heretic, but orthodox to the history of the Church. So I do not accept your premise that to be authentically Catholic a person needs to obey every edict of the Roman Curia. By remaining with the Roman Catholic Church I express my unity with the historic tradition, and that is something I do not envision giving up anytime soon. 

 

 

Did you ever notice how every heresy claims to be a restorationist movement? From Luther, to Mormonism, to Islam, to even groups like the SSPX. They never say they are changing the religion, rather they are harkening back to a purer, earlier time period. Of course in this they imply that what is current has departed from the truth. Roman Catholicism is unique in that it has an official teaching authority, but if that teaching authority does not have the final say, then who does? Can I believe in a consubstantial Eucharist, believe in conciliarism, and hold that abortion is morally acceptable and still call myself Roman Catholic? Again, it just makes no sense to associate with a group that you reject. I'm not saying of course that you have to agree with everything, but you do have to accept the dogmata. I'm just curious John, how do you differentiate yourself from the other Roman Catholic? Do you label them as "conservative Roman Catholic" and yourself as a "genuine Roman Catholic"?

[Nihil Obstat]

If by not being an "inerrantist" you mean that textual variants exists among our existing codices then I completely agree with you. However even the so called authentic letters of Paul include proclamations against homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9. Plus there is over two thousand years of tradition, and homosexuality has been looked upon the same way until around the 'sexual revolution' in Western culture. I think current reinterpretations of homosexuality have less to do with a sincere reading of Scripture and more do with molding the text in a way that fits with contemporary Western views (I was going to say values but that's really not applicable.)

 

And I'm curious, textual scholarship also rejects things like the virgin birth, etc. Do you believe in the virgin birth and literal resurrection?

 

 

So in your view John, Roman Catholicism is really this formless religion with many different view points and manifestations. The Pope and the dogmata form only one subset in Roman Catholicism, wrongly posing itself as the only form when in fact it's a diverse religion that encompasses many different beliefs and practices. Personally, as a non-Roman I find this view untenable and your attachment to calling yourself Roman Catholic strange. If we removed any titles I would have thought you were an Anglican branch-theorist! 

 

 

Did you ever notice how every heresy claims to be a restorationist movement? From Luther, to Mormonism, to Islam, to even groups like the SSPX. They never say they are changing the religion, rather they are harkening back to a purer, earlier time period. Of course in this they imply that what is current has departed from the truth. Roman Catholicism is unique in that it has an official teaching authority, but if that teaching authority does not have the final say, then who does? Can I believe in a consubstantial Eucharist, believe in conciliarism, and hold that abortion is morally acceptable and still call myself Roman Catholic? Again, it just makes no sense to associate with a group that you reject. I'm not saying of course that you have to agree with everything, but you do have to accept the dogmata. I'm just curious John, how do you differentiate yourself from the other Roman Catholic? Do you label them as "conservative Roman Catholic" and yourself as a "genuine Roman Catholic"?

The SSPX is not heretical.

[Apteka]

The SSPX is not heretical.

 

You're right, but my point was resistant groups claim themselves to be restorationists. The SSPX say they remain in Roman Catholicism by holding on to the Eternal Magisterium. John is claiming something along the same lines, interestingly.