In the past it was natural and spontaneous for people to trust institutions more than themselves - including churches, and especially churches.
People trusted their church more than any other authority - to the point of leaving home, moving house, losing livelihood - and even unto death.
Nowadays this does not happen. People do not trust their churches any more than they structure other specific social institutions; and indeed people trust their churches less than they trust the consensus of high status secular institutions (when, which happens rarely, their church opposes the dominant ideology in some particular respect).
Nowadays, traditionalist Christians (leaders and laity) are put into the position of arguing that people ought to trust their church more than themselves -- but in the past this did not seriously need to be argued.
And nowadays? - well, it is easy for someone (whether a church leader, or devout lay member) to say that they trust their church above all other authority...
Yet in practice churches are never clear and unanimous when it comes to any serious matter; so the individual must (at least) discern within his trusted church...
Which means, in effect, choos-ing to trust... that-which he has chos-en to trust.
At the same time most people are afraid to trust themselves when it comes to serious matters; or, at least, they are afraid to acknowledge that they are relying on their own best judgment.
The disadvantage is that this means nearly everybody including devout Christians) is spiritually adrift and impotent...
But on the "positive" side, they never need to take responsibility for difficult decisions!
Since they can always (dishonestly) claim (even to themselves) that they are operating on the basis of trusting in the wisdom of a higher authority.
4 comments:
OK, here goes...
I trust the Catholic Church to fulfil the promise made by Jesus to St. Peter, that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. I trust the Church to preserve the revelation of Christ until he returns.
This doesn't mean I believe the Church will always be right about everything or that I can trust any given Pope, bishop, priest, on everything they say. It means I believe that the Church will never cease to proclaim its infallible teachings in such a way that I can trust my salvation (and other peoples' salvation) to it..
Yes, Catholics can disagree on many matters, including theological matters, but not on matters that have been infallibly proclaimed. Some still do but they shouldn't. They're just wrong.
I have no difficulty trusting an institution more than I trust myself! For several reasons:
1) It's been around so long and its wisdom has stood the test of time.
2) I'm not especially smart and even especially smart people are spectacularly wrong on frequent occasions.
3) Even my limited judgement is further darkened by sin.
I trust my Church with my soul!
@Mal. It does not work for me. All you have said strikes me (and from thought and investigation) as word-spells and self serving propaganda. So vague and imprecise as to be useless in practice yet irrefutable from experience.
The RCC contains tremendous resources that may be greatly valuable for some people. But nobody now can avoid discerning within their church.
You headline your blog by self describing as a JPII catholic, which is a (minority, probably) affiliation within the RCC that many RCs regard as wrong - that is your use of personal discernment. You seem to favour Vatican II, again controversial, subject to strong rejection by some devout Catholics - although a majority view.
You have placed your trust in an aspect of an institution that you have yourself selected - to do otherwise is impossible nowadays. But this is very different from, almost opposite to, what happened before modern times in multi-generational Catholic monarchies.
My point is that the change makes a fundamental difference, and ought explicitly to be acknowledged. And the implications elucidated.
Well, I would consider "JPII Catholic" to be more a sensibility than something doctrinal, but I take your point about Vatican II.
I agree that there is such a thing as Catholic orthodoxy and Catholic heterodoxy and the individual worshipper has to discern this-- though I would say it's not difficult and it's extremely well signposted. I'm not sure it was ever hugely different for anyone with a thinking faith. Theological debate has raged through the history of the Church. The Inquisition was created in the twelfth century so it's clear that heresy was a concept and people investigated by the Inquisition often stood their ground on behalf of their ideas and were often cleared (so to speak).
@Mal - Well, there we differ. I think matters have changed profoundly since - for example - the time of Chesterton and Belloc; and even since the 1970s.
Your sensibility is now distinctly heterodox, I would guess - in that you are apparently way behind the mainstream! - choosing Not to identify as an LXIV, nor an FI, nor a BXI Catholic!
I take your point that there has always been some degree of personal discrimination necessary, although I think that reinforces my position rather than weakening it.
But a century ago the ultramontane idea that the RCC was unified, and spoke with one voice, from a single and unchallenged source (i.e. the Pope) - was very easy to believe and not much interfered-with in daily practice.
Whereas now...
Post a Comment