Oh boy. It has been the ordinary, constant teaching of the Church (Orthodox and Catholic) that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Now, whether you would define that as "dogmatic", I don't know. Something doesn't need to be officially defined at a Council to be considered a belief of the "entire Church, everywhere and in all times". However, it is not part of our faith [dogmatic items], part of the Creed.
OK good, this is what I'm trying to get at. From the Luther thread, I have a specific memory (which could be faulty :) of there being three specific main "layers" of Church holdings (perhaps this only applies to Latins): dogma, doctrine, and discipline. I was under the impression that each was distinct and very defined in terms of authority. I had the idea that these were measures of accountability for you, i.e. you have to agree with this because it's dogma, but you are allowed to disagree with this because it's discipline, etc. But now we have an idea that something can be a "belief of the 'entire Church, everywhere and in all times'", YET, "it is not part of our faith".
SO, :) the next time I meet a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox at a cocktail party, and I start debating theology with them, to what standard should I hold them to for faithfully representing the faith?
I'll even play along. You could legitimately ask me how I can call myself a Calvinist when I don't follow infant baptism, as Calvin did follow it, and the majority of Reformers do. I would say that I am fine with the description of Calvinist, but that I am more properly called a Reformed Baptist. In any case, there is no governing body who has the power to decide who may call himself what as to Calvinism. Therefore, to find out what the terms mean, it would be a good idea to --- ALWAYS CONSULT FIRST WITH THE BIBLE :) --- consult with several who call themselves these terms (which you already have) and then read the literature by the Protestant Fathers, and others (which you have already been showed). That is just the way that God has set us up. Although we hate to see kooks fly off in other directions, overall, it has worked well for us Bible believing Protestants.
THEREFORE, :) after all that, I would want anyone to hold me accountable; as a Southern Baptist, as a Reformer, as a Reformed Baptist, or as a Calvinist to scripture FIRST and ONLY. That doesn't mean I won't find myself in a pickle or two, but THAT'S the only standard for me. :) The standard for interpretation is as the Holy Spirit leads me, which has included some of what could be called Reformed tradition.
The matters of our faith, dogmatic items, include:
From what you listed I probably agree with you 90%. That's not too bad. :)
Vatican 2 continued the teaching that Sacred Writ is from God and is inerrant. However, it is not PART of our faith, if you understand what I am saying by what I listed as those things that have been revealed by God to us.
I probably muddied the waters.
PERHAPS! :) I can understand how you're supposed to follow it, but how can God's admittedly inerrant word NOT be "part of your faith"? I didn't even see Tradition on the list. Maybe it's just one of those things again. :)
The community (Church) is a voluntary organization. As such, its rules should be followed voluntarily to maintain membership. The authority of this organization has the right to cast our voluntary members who refuse to follow the rules.
I would generally agree, but in this case being "kicked out of the club" means being damned for all eternity, as I understand it. This is why I was curious as to the level of accountability.
This is the idea in mind when the Church warns pro-abortionist politicians that they tread on dangerous ground. They can no longer call themselves "Catholic" and flout something diametrically opposed to our beliefs.
And let there be no mistake, I fully support and agree with the policy. :) While my opinion doesn't matter, I would think that if some of the pols WERE actually kicked out, the Church might lose some dead wood, but there would also be a heightened level of credibility for the hierarchy among the laity.
To those who disagree with these Catholic teachings [e.g. sanctity of life], the question remains "why are you still Catholic"?
Simple question, simple answer. VOTES! (as I'm sure you know). I sincerely doubt that if the Kerry's and the Kennedy's of the world were in any other line of work that they would ever darken the door of a church. Same with the Clintons.
as distinct from "Recovering Baptist" which is something else all together, right? ;-)
I'd bet there are two ways to get the RC Church to carefully and dogmatically define the role of Scripture. (1)Get a bunch of people to say it has NO role whatsover; or (2) have a groundswell of people asking for a particular definition and then have a few miracles associated with the groundswell.
From out here in left field, let me throw this into the soup: Being a Catholic to me is not the most important thing - IF by that you mean identifying particular points of doctrine and nailing down in detail how I (or we) differ from this group or that group on this or that point of theology.
Yeah, I had to do SOME of that in the process of deciding to convert, but most of the points of consideration were about ecclesiology, I suppose, not exactly what to say and what to avoid saying about merit, faith, grace, and so forth. If it weren't for FR and the conversations, and especially what seem to me to be mendacious characterizations and attacks on what we believe and what our beliefs imply, I wouldn't think about it at all, or not very much.
I want to "see God more clearly, follow Him more nearly, love Him more dearly." I don't think even about "being saved", as such.
Some seem to think (And I guess some Catholics encourage this kind of thing) that we are frightenedly dependent on our clergy to mediate God's graces to us. I KIND of get that, but here on the ground, it's not like that. That I can go to mass daily is a blessing, but I don't fearfully tally up my sins to see if I'm worthy (Quick answer: no, I'm not) or struggle to get my priest to say "jump" so that I can ask him "How high?"
Maybe because I'm an ares (there, THAT ought to set the cat among the pigeons ...) I guess I tend to think in military terms. I get a kind of combination of medical care, R&R, resupply, moral support, and campaign plans in the various cultic activities I carry on with at Church, and more of the same in my private daily prayers and readings. Then I go out into the world and make an ass of myself, as usual strive against the world, the flesh, and Old Nick and try to do the odd spot of good one way or another.
Maybe I ought to set aside the apologetic endeavor altogether, but I do so enjoy a friendly, shared enquiry into these matters. But I don't intend to master the entire scope of dogma, doctrine, teaching, opinion, nagging, and friendly advice, and then see how yesterday's deeds or tomorrow's plans stack up against that huge edifice. I talk to God -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to Mary, to Anthony, Augustine, Catherine Laboure (who mostly says, "God loves you, shut up and get to work," (which, I think is different from what she says to a lot of people), Michael (a little), Gabriel (a little more) and the poor angel who has me as special assignment, and try to make it to bedtime without messing up.
And by and large, I feel privileged and blessed far beyond my non-existent merit.
I'm trying to give an explanation of the inchoate account that some of us give of the various levels, combinations, and permutations of doctrine. It's just not central to some of us. Jesus is central. Seeing Him is the hope -- "and we shall never hope in vain." (te deum)
One more effort. If you are gazing into your beloved's eyes, and he or she is gazing back, and somebody comes along and asks, "Are you confident that this love will endure forever or, rather, are you living in fear that if you mess up you may lose this love?" what's your answer? Mine is,"Excuse me, we're gazing into each other's eyes now."
That's sort of kind of maybe my personal excuse for not being able to give a systematic account of all the ins and outs.
Be gentle.
Some things are widely believed (such as the Limbo) in some parts of the Church, but do not constitute clear teachng of the Bible, the Councils, the consensus patrum or the Creed, and are not mentioned in the Liturgy (all of which are Holy Tradition). They are not clearly heretical because they do not deny the essentials of the Faith believed everywhere (catholic) and always (unchanging), namely the Holy Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, the Mother of God, the sacraments, the Apostolic succession, etc.
We don't worship the Bible. The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but each individual writer put into it his own humanity. Nonetheless, the Bible reveals God's truth in spite of human element in it.
Sounds nice, but it is unbiblical, impractical, and wishful thinking. The word "only" is the problem. We also hold ourselves accountable to what is in Scriptures. But we base this accountability of the Scriptures as read by the Church, the community, not on my own twisted and deviant decision to call wrong - right, evil - good, gay - acceptable, abortion - a choice, contraception - my own business, and any other thing under the sun that can be taken out of context in the bible to fit my own personal life. As you may have noticed by now, people can make the Scriptures back up NUMEROUS life decisions and theologies... The truth is not accessible to the individual unless he goes outside of himself. That PARTICULARLY includes the interpretation of God's Word.
I can understand how you're supposed to follow it, but how can God's admittedly inerrant word NOT be "part of your faith"? I didn't even see Tradition on the list. Maybe it's just one of those things again. :)
The "Faith" includes our beliefs in God, man, and the salvation plan in history. The Bible is not part of that. It relates God's plan, but is ITSELF not God's plan of salvation of men. It is an instrument, inspired and inerrant, without question, but it is not part of the "Rule of Faith", that Jesus suffered, died, and rose from the dead for our salvation. We believe that the Bible is inspired, but it is not part of the Paschal Mystery. Tradition is how we view our faith. This is past down by the Bible and the teaching Church.
I would generally agree, but in this case being "kicked out of the club" means being damned for all eternity, as I understand it. This is why I was curious as to the level of accountability.
"Being kicked out of the club" doesn't mean eternal damnation. Anathema means to cast out of the visible Church. Only God knows the relationship that exists between such a person and the Body. We would tend to think that a person who rejects Christ would be damning himself. But we don't know the true thoughts of another, or the ignorance of someone, or the knowledge with which a person "rejects". We leave that to God. However, the community has a right to oust members who are a scandal to the rest. This does not mean they are doomed to hell.
While my opinion doesn't matter, I would think that if some of the pols WERE actually kicked out, the Church might lose some dead wood, but there would also be a heightened level of credibility for the hierarchy among the laity.
I would agree. I can understand the decision not to rush such things, though. Some are afraid of schism, so it is a difficult decision to weigh on how hard they lean on such politicians.
I sincerely doubt that if the Kerry's and the Kennedy's of the world were in any other line of work that they would ever darken the door of a church. Same with the Clintons.
I will let God be the judge of that. Perhaps their interpretations of the Bible we both possess differs, and they think the Holy Spirit leads THEM to do what they do... Whether you realize it or not, you ALSO call upon the idea that the Church, the community, must be the objective interpreter of what is the norm to be read from the bible for the individual. In time, I hope you will understand where we are coming from.
Regards