This thread echoes others I have posted criticising the so-called Emerging Church for its liberal views, but I figured that a fresh evaluation was overdue at this point. This particular posting has been inspired by not least the ongoing homosexual debate, and the general consensus that it is fully acceptable for a Christian to be a practising homosexual/lesbian.
My point is that there is a second Church currently emerging, represented by the numerous young people in the Catholic faith (and within other denominations) who readily accept traditional teaching on the sins of homosexuality, extra and pre-marital sex etc. without reservation. This strand is overlooked by OST, it appears, which presumes that the only movement ‘emerging’ is a liberal one. Thankfully, there is a neo-conservative trend concerned with preserving the instruction of Scripture and Tradition,and I know which group my own money would be on to survive. By contrast, the liberal wing is not so much emerging as ‘submerging’ in a veritable slough of clever words which at the end of the day merely excuse and apologise sinful behaviour.
But only one Church
Ivan, I’ve enjoyed our conversations (beginning with Mary and branching out from there) on this site. I understand your frustrations with some of the opinions voiced on this site — it is always difficult to hear someone disagree with a belief one holds dear, and perhaps you have not encountered very many people who would profess faith in the same God you do, and call upon the name of the same Savior as you do, and yet hold such contrasting beliefs on some pretty serious issues.
This response is inspired by a desire to see the church become a testimony to the world of how love overcomes every kind of divisiveness. It pains me — literally! I get a stomachache — when people split God’s family into factions and pit them against each other. We all have a drunk uncle we aren’t particularly proud of, but dammit, he’s family too.
Diversity within the visible church is certainly at an all time high, and it is presenting the faithful with some unique and difficult challenges. This site is one attempt to address these challenges.
Although it may feel like you are the lone traditionalist on this board, rest assured you are not. And if you were, that would make your presence and your “prophetic voice” here even more important to keep the more liberal faction honest.
Keep in mind that there are an awful lot of Brits on this site, and there hasn’t been a conservative English Christian since John Stott.
Just kidding, my UK brothers and sisters. I shall always revere the gathering place of the Westminster divines. (And with that statement I have alienated myself from the liberals AND the catholics…) Bugger that for a lark!
I apologize, by the way, if I was too harsh as I tried to referee your dialogue with sBryan. I was only attempting to maintain an atmosphere of “agreeable disagreement” that I deem essential to a site like this, and indeed to the 21st century church.
On a completely different note, since you are the most prominent catholic on the site, I wanted to ask you a hypothetical question concerning your theological commitments. If I remember correctly, you were not in favor of the ordination of women. If the next Pope were to welcome women into the priesthood — hypothetically — would you change your view, or would you find fault with the Pope?
P.S. I’m not the only one with a drunk uncle, am I?
Not planning on joining the sedavacantists
You’ve asked a valid question there. The Catholics are variously split and factionalised more than the Church maybe admits at times, with sedavacantists and independents all vying with the mainstream as the authentic voice of the Catholic faith. Would I join them if the next Pope advocated women priests? I like to think not, and trust that God will provide the Church with His choice, one who will continue with the traditional teachings of John Paul II.
God's sovereign choice
“I like to think not, and trust that God will provide the Church with His choice, one who will continue with the traditional teachings of John Paul II.”
Ivan - either you didn’t realise what you were saying or you have a great sense of humour!
What I meant was . . .
In view of the stunned silence on this site since my last comment, what I meant was that Ivan appeared to be saying that God’s sovereign choice would be proved by the election of a Pope whose views co-incided with Ivan’s.
This was such a silly comment that I now regret making it. It just looked amusing at the time. To my somewhat warped sense of humour. Sorry Ivan.
I think what Ivan meant was --
at least what I inferred reading between the lines — is that he doesn’t know exactly what he will do, and hopes not to have to answer that question. He hopes that the next Pope’s views will coincide with what he personally accepts as truth and orthodoxy. If they do not, he will have to decide whether he and John Paul were wrong, or the next Pope is wrong. I suspect he would continue to follow the Pope’s teachings — it’s hard to call yourself a Catholic otherwise, although I know many many Catholics who completely disregard the previous Pope’s rulings on such things as birth control… You know what they say, A Catholic who doesn’t follow the Pope is… an Anglican!
I suppose it might seem funny to a protestant, but to Catholics it’s a very hard question to answer.
This, of course, is why I find the doctrine of Papal Infallibility untenable. If Galileo was right, then the Pope (whoever it was in Galileo’s time) was wrong. But if Galileo was wrong, then John Paul was wrong in absolving him. And there are a thousand other such examples of Papal reversal. I wonder, could there be a concept of momentary infallibilities — in other words, something can be really true according to all the wisdom and data an age can supply, and yet in some other time and place be proven false — without the whole house of cards falling down?
Uh oh, another thread is forming, and it’s one of those philosophical / epistemological threads that will give me a big headache. :P
No need to apolgise, Peter...
…there was no offence taken. erlenmeyer has stated far more eloquently than I managed to do what my position pretty much is. And I just want to say again that I feel a real sense of fellowship and acceptance by you guys (and the rest of OST members) despite our sometimes opposing views.
Looks like "no worries" concerning women priests
I’m pretty sure Ratzinger isn’t going to go there!!!
Unfortunately, I think this also means that there will be no significant "coming together" of Catholics with other Christian denominations, dashing a secret hope that I have held in my heart during the conclave.
I wonder if there’d be any interest in a thread discussing the future of the Catholic church under Ratzinger? Perhaps not, as it looks as if it will be status quo.
Hang in there Ivan
Ivan It is certainly not my impression that there is a ” general consensus that it is fully acceptable for a Christian to be a practising homosexual/lesbian.” There is in fact a wide range of views and a serious attempt for people to understand each other’s point of view.
It is extremely important that we to do this. I think erlenmeyer’s comments on your post were well said.
Definition Headache.
I’m still struggling with the concept of ‘emerging’ church, and what Ivan says above has confused me still further. I had sort of formed the idea that to be ‘emerging’ a form of the church had to be in some way different from what had gone before, and that, in order to be identified as a distinct phenomenon at all, it would have to have a structural aspect. Theological aspects alone don’t seem to me to be adequate as a means of identification/definition, because any sort of theology can now exist within mainstream denominations. Surely, Ivan, a lot of young people agreeing with the views of their traditional denomination isn’t emerging - it’s continuing, which seems to me to be exactly what the new Pope would want it to do.
(BTW - I thought the Sun easily won the cheesy tabloid headline competition with Papa Razzi.)
jmt.