Posted on 03/28/2008 8:25:48 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
You have a healthy attitude concerning the ignorant/hateful comments of a few individuals. Just try to remember they are not unique to one set of individuals.
This whole conversation makes me tired. Reminds me of reading TNS. :)
It's true. We can get caught up in rather unimportant dialogue.
LOL, I had to laugh at that because it's true (in a sense). If I may add however, the reason there are so many writings produced under the banner "Catholic" is because the Church has been in existence for at least 1700 years (if one subscribes to the "Constantine Creation" theory). Of course, I believe it's been 2000 years. ;)
Which brings me to a point that I think is relevant to consider: Let's say the Catholic Church dies at some point (I believe that's impossible of course, but for the sake of argument let's say that), and one of the mainline Protestant churches continues on (or maybe even a non-denominational) for another 1,000 to 2,000 years. I am quite certain that simply because of the natural human tendency to "write for" one's "denomination", that there would be an equal (if not greater, since the use of the written word is so much more common since the 16th century) amount of writings for that church after so long. Put another way, simply because the writings produced by the Church are vast and complex should in no way discourage anyone from entering (or re-entering) the Church. The vast collection of arguments and discourses are, at least, simply the by product of a Church existing for 2,000 years, not evidence of anything "hidden" or "nefarious" (not that you were implying that; just my thoughts on the subject.)
I'd say it probably would not proceed in the same manner as: a) We wouldn't have an infinite amount of time to respond to another (as we do here, we can spend huge amounts of time looking up documents to "prove our case"); we'd have to actually engage in conversation, which has a tendency to omit certain facts, but also has the benefit of reacting better to a given situation and b) common manners and courtesy usually come to the forefront in actual physical contact much more so than across the Internet, (which is why meetings and dialogs are a vital component if there is to ever be any kind of "understanding" between Christians), so actually, such meetings would probably be much more "ecumenical" than we could ever achieve on FR.
I'm in the 1600 year camp myself because the structure and decision making was so very different the first 100 years after the Crucifixion and there were numerous churches loosely associated until the rise of Rome. Prior to this I believe the church created at Pentecost was just Christian and catholic in the original greek usage of the term ie., universal body of believers.
I would agree with your assessment of the nothing "hidden" or "nefarious" view. A great deal of what went on prior to the Reformation was the norm of it's day. IOW, it's easy to go back and yell about how bad persecuting other Christians or Jews was, but that is what the dominant churches of the state had traditionally done.
Likewise, the doctrines of the church were influenced by external forces. The aristocracy gaining control of the leadership is probably the greatest factor. I'm thinking of Ambrose who became a leader in Milan after only being in the church for one week as a good example.
Even with these changes there is still a core belief in the trinitarian God the Scriptures being inspired by God and a belief in the bodily resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ. We disagree on a great many things but I believe these core beliefs unite us as Christians.
Let's say the Catholic Church dies at some point (I believe that's impossible of course, but for the sake of argument let's say that), and one of the mainline Protestant churches continues on (or maybe even a non-denominational) for another 1,000 to 2,000 years.
Where I would disagree is what type of Christian church went forward. If it is one of the Sola Scriptura based churches the writings might be extensive, but never considered as equal because they would not have "Tradition" as a means to create what can't be found in Scripture. It's the "Tradition" leg of the stool in your church that has come up with almost all of the doctrines we 5 Sola types disagree with.
Do you think the "physical sacraments" are a recreation of Judaic practices under a different name?
I disagree with the part about doctrine. I am an independent Baptist and I have worked with Catholics, lived in the same house with Catholics, and demonstrated against abortion on the same protest lines with Catholics. And whenever we have discussed doctrinal issues it has quickly become evident that although we hold the same basic Christian ethical and moral standards, we have two very different doctrines regarding how a person is saved from eternal damnation and made an eternally secure member of Christ's body.
My conversations with Catholics on that subject have convinced me that Catholic salvation doctrine, at least as understood by those who I talked with, is basically salvation through good works, ideally beginning at baptism as an infant and progressing to final fruition by works of charity, righteousness, and obedience to Church doctrine and dogma throughout life. OTOH, protestant salvation doctrine encompasses both sola fide and sola gratia i.e., unearned and unmerited salvation imparted to the believer by grace through faith alone. The salvation doctrine of many protestant denominations, especially Baptist, is also closely associated with the doctrine of eternal security of the believer, IOW once saved always saved, while other protestants don't accept it.
IMHO most of the the other doctrinal differences between the two major branches of Christianity (except probably Sola Scriptura) can be dealt with to at least some degree of mutual satisfaction without either side saying or implying that the other does not represent authentic Christianity. But the plan of salvation is so critically important, and there is such a wide gulf between the two views of the most fundamental and important doctrine of all that I don't believe that there can ever be a reconciliation of the two doctrines without one side or the other admitting it's error and accepting the doctrine of the other, and I can't imagine that happening.
FWIW, this is one of the features of this forum I truly enjoy. Often when we disagree with someone in person we are very careful to not "hurt their feelings". Here everything gets thrown on the table. If it gets me to irritated I just step away for a while, but I always learn what those who disagree are basing their position on.
Judaism doesn't call them "sacraments," so I wasn't speaking with total accuracy. I merely wished to point out that, while Catholicism's symbolism has led most modern Catholics to regard the Bible as nothing but didactic mythology, Judaism's mitzvot (tefillin, tzitziyyot, etc.), while similar to Catholic "sacraments," have not led Orthodox Jews to redefine the Torah as a big Aesop's Fable.
In Judaism how great a role does "Tradition" play. Is it considered equal to mitzvot (Holy writings?). Also, how centralized is the authority structure in Judaism?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Therefore the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism are not doctrinal or ethical.Except it is. Most protties accept divorce, artificial contraception, women in the pulpit and a host of other doctrinal errors.
Considering that Tradition preserves the authentic Biblical text and the rules and regulations for writing it down (so that it is an exact replica of the Torah Moses wrote) and that Tradition preserves the vowels and punctuation (which aren't in the Holy Writings at all), I'd say Tradition was mighty important. In fact, you couldn't even read a Bible without it.
Faith sharing bump.
Oh Fiddle-de-de!
“I gather that your point is that Prottys don’t believe that???”
Read the sentence again: I never imply. I’m not shy or tonguetied. If I thought that, I would write that. I did not.
Once Again, What is written is this:
Catholics believe Scripture is the inspired word of God and the Holy Spirit is God’s means of instructing men through His word.”
Got it?
Describing Protestant authority in terms of believing the scriptures and Catholic authority as blind obedience to men isn't "articulating differences," it's setting up a strawman misrepresentation of the other side's POV and then smashing it to score polemical points.
It's always interesting to recall that Protestants have no formal curses written down and preserved in ink and blood against Roman Catholics
No, incorporating "Pope is the antichrist" language in every one of your 16th century confessions isn't any sort of written and preserved formal curse.
wm, I really think you need to re-read your history. The history of most of the medieval period in the West was marked by intractable conflict between the (supranational) church and the nation-state. It really isn't that long ago, even in America, that Catholics were widely suspected of having some sort of divided loyalty, as though their Catholic faith was not truly compatible with American citizenship. (The draft boards never seemed to regard it as any sort of disqualification, however.)
Look up concepts like "lay investiture" and the whole conflict between the King of France and the Pope, and the whole other conflict between the King of England and St. Thomas a Becket, and the whole other conflict between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor.
The so-called "reformation," especially in England, the German states, and Scandinavia, often enough consisted of the church decisively and finally losing that battle with the state. Luther was protected by "state sanction". Lutheranism was planted in Scandinavia and the German principalities by "state sanction". Anglicanism was explicitly established in England by Act of Parliament.
To paint Catholicism as a religion formed and imposed by state sanction, and Protestantism as its opposite, doesn't fit the historical record in the second millennium at all. It was often enough exactly the opposite.
Agreed. Protestants place the emphasis on the Bible that defines the church. Catholics emphasize the Church that defines the Bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.