This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The catholic dogma was interpreted this way at the time of the Council of Florence (see also Dante), but it stopped to be long before Vatican II. For example:
John Carroll, first bishop of the US.
For the protestant, I don't get it. I was taught that they believe in fate, so that your salvation was decided by God before your birth and your actions don't matter, but I'm no expert.
You can't "reinterpret" defined dogma. That's what defining a dogma means.
As for the dogma itself:
With regards to John Carroll, of course he's going to be wishy-washy like that. Maryland is surrounded by protestants. If he went around telling people they had to swear allegiance to the pope to be saved, the Establishment Clause might have been under some early pressure.
Well it was also the opinion of vatican II that everyone could be saved on his own merits, if they did not reject jesus. So it seems that you can actually reinterpret dogma, because that's what vatican II did. Just like the catholic church always had a dogma that you could not make money from money, yet there are catholic bankers now.
Let's say that person A asserts both that X, and that no future interpreters may gainsay X.
Then a century later, person B asserts both that not X, and that future interpreters may contradict A.
If both A and B are church leaders, it would be easy to say that B is simply mistaken. However, I think a better way to look at it may be that there are two separate churches, "A-type catholicism" and "B-type catholicism".
(If however B-types then go around asserting that they are and have always been A-types, we may have a problem.)
It depends how you define catholicism, but it seems to me that there is in practice only one type of catholicism. They recognize the same pope, they go to the same churches. That is why you can actually reinterpret dogmas, even if you said you couldn't. Because the dogmas are defined by the catholic community, not the other way.
Who exactly are "the catholic community"? There's a lot of variance out there.
And why does that allow reinterpretation? I'm afraid I'm not following.
The catholic community is the set of people that go the the same churches, that recognize the same pope, that have the same theology courses (be it catechism or university courses). Obviously you can ask whether south america catholics are really in the same community as rome catholics, but catholicism is heavily centralized and ultimately it's the pope who chooses the priests everywhere (through the bishops and the cardinals). If you recognize the priest the pope has chosen for you, you are a member of the community.
It allows reinterpretation because in practice it does not change the community to reinterpret. People won't leave the churches, they won't stop recognizing the priests. In fact, some might: some communities do not recognize vatican II, but they are very small minorities that do not matter much. Most catholics aren't theology nerds and the point of catholicism is that they don't have to. Knowing the dogmas and reading the bible is good for the priests, but the people just have to follow what the priests say. So why would they care if the dogmas change?
Because Christianity is a religion that concerns itself with truth, not merely unity. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Being protestant, I suppose I do not object to your considering previous people wrong, as long as you are willing to admit that they were wrong, and that the pope is not infallible. What cannot be allowed is a change in true doctrine, only a change in what is considered to be true.
In any case, considering that there are people who reject Vatican II but recognize the pope, how do you determine what the current teaching is? Just what the pope says? Is you're saying that those against Vatican II are small and irrelevant to say that truth is determined just by the size of the party?
For the record, I'm not really a christian, I'm just telling you how I understand it from (almost) outside.
If I cut your arm, what is "you" after the cut? Yourself, or your cut arm? I was made to chant "we are the body of the christ, each of us is a member of this body". It's pretty clear, isn't it?
The size of the party, or the pope, do not matter. What matters is that the community remains functional if you remove a part of it. Sure, it will be less functional if you split it in half or if the pope is heretic, because that would have important consequences on the functionality of the church.
As I said Christians say that they are concerned by truth, but it does not mean they actually are. Yes, the protestant churches are organized in such a way that communities split if they don't have the same faith. So perhaps the protestants are more concerned by the truth than the catholics. But it can't really work. There is no practical way to discover the truth, as proved by the number of protestant churches. You can say if you wish that god will lead you toward the truth, but then you have to explain why God leads so few people toward it, even among the protestant. Making religion about faith and truth is deemed to disolve it. Ultimately everyone will have his own beliefs and there will be no religion at all.
The catholic way, to stick together and let the hierarchy decide what must be believed seems a bit dishonest, but at least it's not provably false that God leads the Catholic church as a whole toward the truth. Sure, individual belivers might be false (perhaps even all of them), but at the end of the day the Church will remain and improve. And as catholics care more about charity than about faith, it's not even that important if it happens that they are mistaken for all of their life. Remember that charity is love, and love is what make people want to live together and seek unity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link