Replies

Care to take a stab at my question du jour? Is your understanding of God the same now as it was when you were first saved? Does that mean God or the Truth changed or does it mean you understanding grew?

Before I answer your question, answer some for me. Aren't you one of those who chastise us proddies for supposedly believing in things that you say can't be tracked back to the first or second centuries? Why is it that somehow your (RC) understanding grew and developed, but when we come up with something contrary to your beliefs (even if we cite Biblical support) you say it isn't what the apostles or church fathers wrote? So which is it to be? You guys always want to have it both ways. Does your body ever hurt from the constant contortions you go through?

Why is it that somehow your (RC) understanding grew and developed, but when we come up with something contrary to your beliefs (even if we cite Biblical support) you say it isn't what the apostles or church fathers wrote?

Good point, Io.

You guys always want to have it both ways. Does your body ever hurt from the constant contortions you go through?

nah...'cos they practice the Limbo a lot......(ooooh, was that bad?)

Care to take a stab at my question du jour? Is your understanding of God the same now as it was when you were first saved? Does that mean God or the Truth changed or does it mean you understanding grew?

Before I answer your question, answer some for me.

Always willing, as long as consideration is given to the answers. :-)

Aren't you one of those who chastise us proddies for supposedly believing in things that you say can't be tracked back to the first or second centuries?

I think that's fair. The beliefs, nor a people espousing these beliefs are not found in history.

Why is it that somehow your (RC) understanding grew and developed, but when we come up with something contrary to your beliefs (even if we cite Biblical support) you say it isn't what the apostles or church fathers wrote?

Because it isn't what the Church fathers wrote. That is, the Church Fathers give us a glimpse into what the early Church thought about such things. Consider it Biblical commentary from the first few centuries. We see a belief in unity around the Bishop and the Real Presence in the Eucharist there.

So which is it to be? You guys always want to have it both ways.

I don't understand the apparent conflict. Do you think perhaps that the beliefs you have now developed in time from the original ones? I just don't see that because I see negation. Surely Mary was revered early in the Church. That her role(s) and title(s) came as development doesn't mean there wasn't respect for her at the beginning.

For Protestant theology to be a "development" from the early fathers is to believe in total opposites. This isn't development. We can't have church fathers believing in the Real Presence "developing" into a purely symbolic gesture done infrequently. We can't have the belief in the authority of the Bishop "developing" into the ultra-individualist philosophy now found in Protestantism.

Catholic development is organic and has a continuity with the past. We don't negate, but explicate.

Protestant development is a break with continuity.

SD

Does your body ever hurt from the constant contortions you go through?