The division in the Catholic Church (Churches)

Valletta said:

There was a person who said that the Communists had infiltrated the Church and provided details. That person, Bella Dodd, said they had recruited numerous people. I found an article mentioning Bella Dodd:

Bella Dodd & the Communist Infiltration of the Catholic Church (Guest: Paul Kengor)

Bella Dodd is one of those mysterious figures who often comes up in discussions of Catholic conspiracy theories. But who was Bella Dodd and why should Catholics care?

crisismagazine.com

Click to expand...

I discussed this earlier. An issue with claims that Bella Dodd said they infiltrated and she was a part of it is that all such accounts are secondhand of a few people saying they heard Bella Dodd said it, and all of the ones that people point to are from decades after her death (allowing for a greater period of time for people's memories to shift). But the bigger issue is that we have Bella Dodd on record (not secondhand hearsay, in an actual recording) saying she never met any member of the Catholic clergy she knew was a communist. This article goes over all of it in pretty good detail:


It does discuss some ways her statement could be reconciled with the secondhand testimony, some of which I do see as possibilities. But people should be aware that Bella Dodd's alleged claims about infiltration, until someone happens to find a recording or something in which she says it, come only to us secondhand.

The Liturgist said:

But it seems to no longer reflect current RC doctrine concerning the validity of EO, OO and Assyrian sacraments, and the permissability of EO, OO and Assyrian Christians to receive the sacraments in the RCC without converting, and likewise, the permissibility of Roman Catholics and sui juris Eastern Catholics to receive the sacraments from EO, OO and Assyrian churches.

Click to expand...

Can you specify what part of the Catechism of the Council of Trent you are referring to. I have that catechism in my lap and I’m not finding what you seem to be referring to.

concretecamper said:

The Roman Catechism is certainly straight to the point without the gray of the CCC

If one reads Trent's Catechism, it doesn't need "unpacking" like the CCC because it is clear and concise.

Also, I'm not sure what 16th century idiom means. The same truth is truth in the 16th or 20th century

Click to expand...

The KJV only people say the same thing about the KJV. Clear and concise and needing no unpacking.

chevyontheriver said:

The KJV only people say the same thing about the KJV. Clear and concise and needing no unpacking.

Click to expand...

Non answer, try again?

concretecamper said:

Non answer, try again?

Click to expand...

A non-answer to what specific question?

chevyontheriver said:

A non-answer to what specific question?

Click to expand...

Also, I'm not sure what 16th century idiom means. The same truth is truth in the 16th or 20th century

chevyontheriver said:

Can you specify what part of the Catechism of the Council of Trent you are referring to. I have that catechism in my lap and I’m not finding what you seem to be referring to.

The KJV only people say the same thing about the KJV. Clear and concise and needing no unpacking.

Click to expand...

Fortunately we no longer have to argue with KJV Only people, since debates about that were banned by the site rules. And that was really a blessing, since those threads were really profoundly unpleasant. Especially for someone like me who really likes the KJV but also really likes other translations, and recognizes the history of the Biblical text.

At any rate, concerning the portion of the Tridentine catechism I am referring to, it was that quoted by our friend @concretecamper :

concretecamper said:

Catechism of Trent

Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church’s pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

Click to expand...

I suppose this is not incompatible, on further analysis, with Catholics receiving sacraments from the Orthodox and Assyrians, and vice-versa, provided that we Orthodox, and our Assyrian brethren, are no longer regarded as schismatic. The ecumenical work of Pope Benedict XVI did have the happy effect of declaring the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches as non-heretical, which is in contrast to how they had been viewed at one time (unfortunately, there are still some Eastern Orthodox who regard them as heretics, but most canonical Eastern Orthodox take a more positive view, so the only people who really consistently insist the Oriental Orthodox are monophysites and heretical are the Old Calendarists, who are viewed by the canonical Eastern Orthodox as schismatic.

The Liturgist said:

Fortunately we no longer have to argue with KJV Only people, since debates about that were banned by the site rules. And that was really a blessing, since those threads were really profoundly unpleasant. Especially for someone like me who really likes the KJV but also really likes other translations, and recognizes the history of the Biblical text.

At any rate, concerning the portion of the Tridentine catechism I am referring to, it was that quoted by our friend @concretecamper :



I suppose this is not incompatible, on further analysis, with Catholics receiving sacraments from the Orthodox and Assyrians, and vice-versa, provided that we Orthodox, and our Assyrian brethren, are no longer regarded as schismatic. The ecumenical work of Pope Benedict XVI did have the happy effect of declaring the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches as non-heretical, which is in contrast to how they had been viewed at one time (unfortunately, there are still some Eastern Orthodox who regard them as heretics, but most canonical Eastern Orthodox take a more positive view, so the only people who really consistently insist the Oriental Orthodox are monophysites and heretical are the Old Calendarists, who are viewed by the canonical Eastern Orthodox as schismatic.

Click to expand...

The way I have been taught to look at it is that the schismatics were the ones who caused the schisms, not their unwitting descendants. And then that excommunications are for individuals until death if not lifted earlier. Excommunications cannot last hundreds of years, much less eternity. So there is only inertia keeping us apart and those who revel in past divisions. We are separated because the big shots have not agreed to bring us together, and they are too afraid that we will not back them up in coming together.

When I read that section of the Catechism of the Council of Trent late this afternoon I didn’t read it as anti-Orthodox but having to do much more with the Protestants. There was a polemical animosity by Protestants against Catholics and Catholics against Protestants. The Orthodox just were not part of the polemic. OTOH there were Catholic and Orthodox attempts at reunification, such as at Florence, which failed, but at least somebody was trying.

It might be interesting to see if Hubert Jedin, the great historian of Trent, had anything to say about the Orthodox.

concretecamper said:

Also, I'm not sure what 16th century idiom means. The same truth is truth in the 16th or 20th century

Click to expand...

Had you phrased that like a question maybe. Your uncertainty about something does not compel me to understand you are asking a question of me when it is not in the form of a question.

Truth prevails. It is even eternal. But the way we talk about it is influenced by the questions we are asking and the preparation we have had to understand both the questions and the answers. We cannot automatically assume that we and they are on the same exact wavelength. Some of that is because of the dreadful condition of most contemporary Christian thinking. We have regressed a lot and have trouble understanding what they were even talking about. Some of it is that they had different issues than we do. I can’t presume that reading the documents of Vatican II make abundant sense any more because enough time has passed. Ditto for ALL of the councils. They are true, but in what they say, not what we now think they say.

chevyontheriver said:

Had you phrased that like a question maybe. Your uncertainty about something does not compel me to understand you are asking a question of me when it is not in the form of a question.

Click to expand...

Finally dawned on you your KJV comment was a dud?

chevyontheriver said:

Truth prevails. It is even eternal. But the way we talk about it is influenced by the questions we are asking and the preparation we have had to understand both the questions and the answers. We cannot automatically assume that we and they are on the same exact wavelength. Some of that is because of the dreadful condition of most contemporary Christian thinking. We have regressed a lot and have trouble understanding what they were even talking about. Some of it is that they had different issues than we do. I can’t presume that reading the documents of Vatican II make abundant sense any more because enough time has passed. Ditto for ALL of the councils. They are true, but in what they say, not what we now think they say.

Click to expand...

Hogwash. Read all the Canons of Justification from Trent and let me know which Canons you can describe as

"have trouble understanding what they were even talking about"

In fact, read all the Canons listed in Trent and let me know which ones you have trouble understanding.

Now, of you want to talk about Session 15 and giving safe passage to Protestants or Session 24 talking about concubines, now you may have a point. But that's not what we are talking about about is it.

concretecamper said:

Finally dawned on you your KJV comment was a dud?

Click to expand...

Nope. You just want to argue with me. And you got me to play along for a while. I should have ignored you from the get go. You are now ignored. I thought we were friends.

concretecamper said:

The Roman Catechism is certainly straight to the point without the gray of the CCC

Click to expand...

That is rather the point isn't it. There are times when black and white understandings don't match reality because reality is nuanced. For example, when the Council of Trent happened, all Protestants were people who had once been part of the Church and left it. They were all basically guilty of heresy.

Today, the vast majority of Protestants were born outside of the Catholic Church and have never been part of the Catholic Church, don't know what the Catholic Church teaches, and if they have been told anything about the Church have probably been told lies about it. Similarly, the most common experience that many people have of the Catholic Church is nominal Catholics who neither know nor practice their faith, or worse yet, politicians and other public figures who are a constant source of scandal and routinely defame the faith by their actions.
Thus the reality now is quite different than the reality when the Council of Trent happened, and when that Catechism was written. The Protestants of today are quite different than the Protestants of that time.

The Truth does not change, but circumstances do. As such, the expression of the Truth in a given time and place, and how it is applied and understood in variant circumstances will change.

concretecamper said:

Finally dawned on you your KJV comment was a dud?

Click to expand...

Any argument that relies on the claim that something is perfectly clear and needs no "unpacking" is doomed to failure because it is woefully short-sighted and woefully ignorant of the reality of human nature.

Even things that are literally defined as "self-evident" by their very nature, are not self-evident to everyone.

It is, of course, true that something can be more or less clear. However, it is also true that when a thing is complex, making it "clear" through simplification often also results in misunderstanding. Just because something seems clear to you, doesn't mean your understanding of it is correct.

Simon_Templar said:

There are times when black and white understandings don't match reality because reality is nuanced.

Click to expand...

Haha, the Evil one couldn't have said it better

Simon_Templar said:

The Truth does not change, but circumstances do.

Click to expand...

Situational ethics, no thank you.

Simon_Templar said:

. Just because something seems clear to you, doesn't mean your understanding of it is correct.

Click to expand...

Being clear to me is not the point. Being clear to all is.

Simon_Templar said:

Any argument that relies on the claim that something is perfectly clear and needs no "unpacking" is doomed to failure because it is woefully short-sighted and woefully ignorant of the reality of human nature.

Click to expand...

So maybe you'll take a look at the Canons on justification from Trent and let us all know which ones are not crystal clear.

chevyontheriver said:

Nope. You just want to argue with me. And you got me to play along for a while. I should have ignored you from the get go. You are now ignored. I thought we were friends.

Click to expand...

Holding someone accountable for what they say is more like it.

JSRG said:

I discussed this earlier. An issue with claims that Bella Dodd said they infiltrated and she was a part of it is that all such accounts are secondhand of a few people saying they heard Bella Dodd said it, and all of the ones that people point to are from decades after her death (allowing for a greater period of time for people's memories to shift). But the bigger issue is that we have Bella Dodd on record (not secondhand hearsay, in an actual recording) saying she never met any member of the Catholic clergy she knew was a communist. This article goes over all of it in pretty good detail:

Rethinking Bella Dodd and Infiltration of the Catholic Priesthood - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Dr. Bella Dodd, the famous one-time Communist lawyer who reverted to the Catholic Faith of her youth, has been the subject of much discussion over the

www.hprweb.com

It does discuss some ways her statement could be reconciled with the secondhand testimony, some of which I do see as possibilities. But people should be aware that Bella Dodd's alleged claims about infiltration, until someone happens to find a recording or something in which she says it, come only to us secondhand.

Click to expand...

JSRG said:

I discussed this earlier. An issue with claims that Bella Dodd said they infiltrated and she was a part of it is that all such accounts are secondhand of a few people saying they heard Bella Dodd said it, and all of the ones that people point to are from decades after her death (allowing for a greater period of time for people's memories to shift). But the bigger issue is that we have Bella Dodd on record (not secondhand hearsay, in an actual recording) saying she never met any member of the Catholic clergy she knew was a communist. This article goes over all of it in pretty good detail:

Rethinking Bella Dodd and Infiltration of the Catholic Priesthood - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Dr. Bella Dodd, the famous one-time Communist lawyer who reverted to the Catholic Faith of her youth, has been the subject of much discussion over the

www.hprweb.com

It does discuss some ways her statement could be reconciled with the secondhand testimony, some of which I do see as possibilities. But people should be aware that Bella Dodd's alleged claims about infiltration, until someone happens to find a recording or something in which she says it, come only to us secondhand.

Click to expand...

Dr. Alce von Hildebrand and Bishop Fulton Sheen are highly respected within the Catholic Church.

concretecamper said:

Situational ethics, no thank you.

Click to expand...

Indeed, situational ethics is no ethics at all, since divine morality is, and should be, applicable in every instance. There is no scenario, for example, where abortion or euthanasia could be justified, in my view.

Valletta said:

Dr. Alce von Hildebrand and Bishop Fulton Sheen are highly respected within the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

I thought it was Archbishop Fulton Sheen? Anyway, I love watching recordings of his program on YouTube.

The Liturgist said:

I thought it was Archbishop Fulton Sheen? Anyway, I love watching recordings of his program on YouTube.

Click to expand...

You are correct. Yes, he took on many spiritual and social issues which are still quite relevant today.

The Liturgist said:

I thought it was Archbishop Fulton Sheen? Anyway, I love watching recordings of his program on YouTube.

Click to expand...

He was ‘promoted’ to archbishop because he simply didn’t have the gift of administration. So he was promoted out of being the bishop of Rochester NY to be archbishop of some defunct titular see, freeing him again to do the thing he was truly good at. It was the best thing. He was freed from administrating a diocese and free to teach, which he excelled at.