The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[RobbyS]

Catholics see scripture as a subset of the larger oral tradition. Protestants see scripture as complete in itself, and tradition as an unwarranted addition to scripture.

About right. Of course, from my point of view, I see much of what they do is "add on." Revivalism is may not be a complete novelty--one thinks of certain aspects Montanism--but it sure in not consist with Puritanism and it kind of shades in the gnosticism that I see in the South Baptists, or at least the "moderate" branch of it.

[al_c]

ALL: Hey, everybody! Sorry I'm late. Had to watch the little one while the wife went to the doctor. What did I miss?

Tuesday, November 13, 2001
Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, virgin - Memorial

First Reading: Responsorial Psalm: Gospel:

Wisdom 2:23-3:9 Psalms 34:2-3, 16-19 Luke 17:7-10 We must pray without tiring, for the salvation of mankind does not depend on material success; nor on sciences that cloud the intellect. Neither does it depend on arms and human industries, but on Jesus alone.  -- St. Frances Xavier Cabrini

Hey, Steven ... is the above quote acceptable?

And from ... well, you should know by now ...

"Being faithful to God is so hard these days. Is it really worth the effort?" The question arises often in our world, where dramatic technological advances tend to accompany sharp declines in moral values and family life. But this is not just a modern question. Believers have been struggling with this issue for thousands of years! The first readers of the Book of Wisdom--Jews living in Egypt in the first century B.C.--were no exception. Faithfulness is always rewarded. Even in trials, disasters, and death, the just are "in the hand of God" and "will abide with him in love" (Wisdom 3:1,9).

It's easy enough to be faithful when things go our way. But how do we bear up under hardship? How do we react when, despite our best efforts, the devil seems to win all the battles? Realizing that things are bigger than we can handle, we can pray like never before. We can begin to recognize challenges and hardships as opportunities to take God at his word. And if we can see our trials as a way of being "disciplined a little" on our way to the "great good" of eternal life (Wisdom 3:5), we can make the hard choices that would be just plain silly if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead.

Consider the decisions that such faith has inspired in other Christians. St. Paul gave up everything he once held dear in order to follow Christ, even when his "yes" led to rejection, beatings, shipwrecks, and imprisonment!

Choices like these aren't just for the heroes of faith like Paul. Many Christians embrace the folly of the cross in more ordinary ways. Think about those who have lost their jobs but still put money in the poor box, trusting in the Father's provision. Or what about someone who has been hurt deeply by a close friend and yet responds with prayers and forgiveness instead of hatred and bitterness? The examples are numerous, and each one of them would seem pure foolishness but for the promises of Christ.

We face similar choices at every turn. Can we believe in the resurrection enough to choose God's logic of love over the logic of the world?

"Heavenly Father, I trust you and surrender my every need into your loving hands. Pour your wisdom into my life and help me to make the hard choices for your sake."

--------------------

Have a great day, everyone!

[Invincibly Ignorant]

We must pray without tiring, for the salvation of mankind does not depend on material success; nor on sciences that cloud the intellect. Neither does it depend on arms and human industries, but on Jesus alone.

Ya. Little wordy but nothin' here to pick apart. :-)

[saradippity]

I am sorry if I was unable to state what I intended to state. Never have I equated the Kingdom of God with the Catholic Church. By that statement I do not mean to divorce the two,I am merely saying they are not equal. While it may be the door,it is not the Kingdom.

Scripture is a large part of our connection with Jesus in the natural world and permits an individual to harbor the seeds of the Kingdom in his heart. The Catholic Church,anchored in scripture,Traditions and the Magisterium is a large part of our connection with the Kingdom of God in Heaven,or the supernatural world as well and permits a society to harbor the seeds of the Kingdom in their collective heart.

I do believe the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and He will protect it from error. However,men are imperfect so frequently,imperfect men have transgressed and participated in actions that were evil,that is why the Pope apologised. I think he was trying to send a message to all men to examine their own actions,both as individuals and as members of other systems,organizations and nations.Maybe some did,who knows?

[OLD REGGIE]

Once again, excellent observations. I would like to respond to a few:

2. I have learned that, in general, the apologetics for any particular denomination or religion are most persuasive to those already within the fold, or those already predisposed to it.

This is true of course but it is difficult to explain just what makes one "predisposed" to it. In the case of most "ex's" you, me, other "converts", just what made us "predisposed".

3. I have learned that Protestants seem to have the hardest time recognizing the difference between the "text-in-itself" and their own interpretation (sorry guys).

I agree, but maybe for different reasons. You can't tie "Protestants" into one neat little bundle. There is no Magisterium, no Catechism, to fall back on when all else fails. They tend to think, or not think at all, by themselves accepting help but reserving final judgment to themselves.

4. I have a better understanding of the nuances of the Protestant sola scriptura.

Once again, there is no Catechism which gives the "official" definition of Sola Scriptura to Protestants. This may explain the frustration of some RC's when they wish to attack something which is solid and concrete rather than a balloon filled with water.

5. In terms of ecclesiology, I like the model of the AOG. But I still give the Catholics the edge in liturgy.

Personal taste. I still remember how, the first time I entered a Protestant Church, how beautiful I thought it was in its' simplicity and lack of distraction. Ours, on the other hand, reminded me of a house full of clutter. I sometimes wondered if I had been Protestant in a prior life.

7. I have an improved perception of Jesus, and a diminished opinion of Paul.

Don't let Becky hear you. My behind still smarts. But, on the qt, I agree with you.

10. I have been challenged in my beliefs, and have grown as a result. I have delved further into the teachings of Judaism in order to answer all your questions!

I, too, have found myself reading and thinking more than I had done in many years. I may actually be on my way to becoming a full fledged (liberal) Protestant. My position on the sanctity of life is however very conservative.

11. I have seen that, despite our significant theological differences, we can be friends.

My liberal Protestant belief is that there is room enough for all of us. We can all find God in our own way and we can all be saved.

[The_Reader_David]

As might be expected, I do not know much about those included in the Latin canon of saints who are not honored in the East.

I might be able to comment in a general way on the movement he is associated with (whether the False Union Council of Lyon, the False Union Council of Florence/Ferrar, or the unia).

We, for our part, proclaim the glorification of many who have resisted Latin overreaching, doctrine or overtures: SS. Photius the Great, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus are collectively honored as the Pillars of Orthodoxy (in addition to their own proper feasts). St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, one of our American saints, is honored for leading a fair portion of the Uniates in North America back to Holy Orthodoxy.

[malakhi]

While it may be the door,it is not the Kingdom.

I prophecy that you are gonna catch some heat on this statement.

[OLD REGGIE]

Catholics see scripture as a subset of the larger oral tradition. Protestants see scripture as complete in itself, and tradition as an unwarranted addition to scripture.

I think it is important to recognize Protestants do accept Tradition. They just insist that this Tradition ended with the lives of the apostles. Protestants, and I, accuse the RCC of "inventing" tradition known only to the Church, ie. "Revealed Tradition".

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

All

After reading some of the response to Mack's question about "has anyone changed their minds" it made me wonder if any of your guys of other beliefs, not necessairly just catholic, but does any of you think it would make God happy if for instance I was to change my mind and become catholic? Would it make a difference?

Becky

[RobbyS]

Assuming you accept the validity of the Council of Nicaea, and the doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, were not yet RCC accepted doctrines, your argument is invalid What was the Council of Nicaea ABOUT? The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption: where does the Council address these issues, have they even emerged? The purpose of the Council was to judge the validity of the doctrines of Arius by measuring it against past doctrine. Some people would say that they ruled wrongly: that Arius was closer to the Truth. He certainly makes a credible argument based on Scripture and the writings of earlier divines. Would you say that Peter and Paul taught definitively the Christological formula of the Council?

Regarding the antiquity of the Marian doctrines we must be cautious. White mentions J.N.D. Kelly, his Early Christian Doctines, I refer you to his chapter 18. I would accept that the cult of the Virgin was on the "fringe" of the Church in the late first and second centuries and overshadowed by the cult of the martyrs but is evidenced in certain aprocrypal words, especially the Proto gospel of James.By the 4th Century we have a very different picture although not a modern one. If you want to know my views on the development of doctrine,and the role of the papacy, I suggest you do read Newman

Regarding the opinions of "fathers" at variance with later Church teaching, the question I ask you is whether you are willing to let ANY authority decide between contending positions and THEN and ONLY THEN rule out other opinions, or do you insist on evaluating the fact situation and rendering a judgement yourself?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

After reading some of the response to Mack's question about "has anyone changed their minds" it made me wonder if any of your guys of other beliefs, not necessairly just catholic, but does any of you think it would make God happy if for instance I was to change my mind and become catholic? Would it make a difference?

It would make God happy if you were doing what He wanted you to do.

[malakhi]

This is true of course but it is difficult to explain just what makes one "predisposed" to it. In the case of most "ex's" you, me, other "converts", just what made us "predisposed".

Good question. The answer could be as unique as each individual. There have been suggestions on these threads that the Catholic Church appeals to those who like both order and complexity, that Protestantism appeals to those who are more individualistic, that pentacostals like disorder... ;o) Individual personality may predispose us to relating to God in certain ways. Many converts have an incentive to believe because they want to marry someone of that faith. Perhaps a person is seeking, and reads a book or is evangelized by a person of that faith.

You can't tie "Protestants" into one neat little bundle.

I agree, and was reluctant even to use the word "Protestant" here. Perhaps I should start saying "Reform Christians" as a general category for those who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Personal taste. I still remember how, the first time I entered a Protestant Church, how beautiful I thought it was in its' simplicity and lack of distraction. Ours, on the other hand, reminded me of a house full of clutter. I sometimes wondered if I had been Protestant in a prior life.

I wasn't speaking so much about the church building itself as about the style and order of service. An order of liturgical prayer has always been more appealing to me than a few hymns and a 45 minute sermon. Just a matter of taste.

[malakhi]

it made me wonder if any of your guys of other beliefs, not necessairly just catholic, but does any of you think it would make God happy if for instance I was to change my mind and become catholic? Would it make a difference?

I don't think it would make a difference in terms of your relationship with God if you converted to Judaism or not. If you love God and seek His will, then you are righteous.

[dadwags]

#7662
Thanks for the post, al_c.

[dadwags]

#7669
I couldn't say it better than Invincibly Ignorant(the poster formerly known as Steven)said it .
as long as you follow your conscience, you are trying to do God's Will .
Of course, we can all agree to disagree , (sometimes more disagreeably than others) :)

[al_c]

does any of you think it would make God happy if for instance I was to change my mind and become catholic?

Personally, I think God would be happy with whatever it takes to bring you closer to Him. If the path you're on is the path He chose for you, then that would make Him happy. If He was to call you to the Catholic Church, and you followed the call, He'd be happy with that. I believe that God uses the path that would work for each individual and for me that path is through the Catholic Church.

[al_c]

It would make God happy if you were doing what He wanted you to do.

Basically what I was trying to say, but written in bumper sticker format. Thanks, Steven.

[al_c]

Hey, everyone! They're catching on to the CHEESE phenomenon on the other threads ...

Go here.

[eastsider]

Catholics see scripture as a subset of the larger oral tradition. Protestants see scripture as complete in itself, and tradition as an unwarranted addition to scripture.

Catholics see one Revelation: Christ. Sacred tradition and sacred scripture are two streams by which Christ continues to reveal himself. As I understand it, these two streams are not discrete, as you rightly imply: technically speaking, sacred scripture is the product of sacred tradition, which roughly can be understood as the living of the faith.

In the larger picture, each of sacred tradition, sacred scripture and espiscopal authority relies reciprocally on the other two:

Sacred scripture relies on the sacred tradition on which it is based;
Sacred tradition relies on the sacred scripture that attests it.

Sacred tradition relies on the episcopal authority that guarantees its authenticity;
Episcopal authority relies on the sacred tradition that supports its transmission.

Episcopal authority relies on the sacred scripture that attests it;
Sacred Scipture relies on the episcopal authority that guarantees its authenticity.

This reciprocal reliance means that each is indispensable to the other two, such that if you dispense with any one of them, you dispense with all three.

[malakhi]

al_c, you're late to the party. The cheese thing has been going around for months. It was kinda the next cool thing to post after the "all your base..." stuff got boring.