Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
My spellchecker doesn’t see anything wrong with walter. I can’t help it.
If God determined what out choices will be before the foundation fo the world, then we do not have a measure of free will, FK. We are (pre)destined to think and act as God programmed us. In your theology God lets us "feel" that we have free will, but in reality it is a deception. No matter how you turn it around, the Reformed God is either creating evil or deceiving.
I answer: ON the one hand, yeah, the catechism is a big book. But on the other, in the wide range of doctrine and morals stuff about which one might have an opinion, the Big Cheeses only speak (I think; I am no historian, so this is an ignorant impression which wiser heads may reliably correct) when controversy (like the Trinity, two natures in one person, etc.) gets so rough that a resolution is called for OR when popular pressure is very strong.
I think I have offered before the analogy of a solution out of which solid matter slowly precipitates. All these notions float around, like "Jesus is Lord," "Jesus is the Son of God," "Christ is present in the Sacrament," "The canonical books are the NT and, you know, all those other books," and finally, somebody says that we have to nail down what we mean by that, BECAUSE a lot of people are saying, "Well, He's Lord (or Son), yeah, but in THIS way, not in THAT way," or "Nope, not Maccabees," or whatever.
SO it's like the controversy gets kicked up the subsidiarity ladder to a body of sufficient, so to speak, "jurisdiction" (Hey! looka me! Lawyer talk!) to decide and bring the controversy to an end.
(It's helpful to me to remember that not every polity in the world has the crisp division between judicial, legislative, and executive branches that we have.)
So, as the Supremes are the court in which a question ends up when two appellate courts disagree, so when there is widespread and strong disagreement among the "churches" (that is, the dioceses) well either the Holy Father has got to "declare and define" or a council has to be convened.
And when that's happened, Roma locuta, causa finita.
[ This not only cracks me up, but it also may give some sense of the "on the ground" reality of this: Rome said, "Girl altar boys are okay." This had been a vexed issue.(I don't know which chunk of "Rome" said that or how authoritative it was supposed to be, but the return address was "Vatican City".) So our then Bishop, Walter the Pink, who was very much in favor of girl altar boys, actually said, "Roma locuta, causa finita." Fine.
[ Then, within a few months, J2P2 said that there weren't going to be, there couldn't be, lady priests. The manner of hi saying this was discursive and firm, and somebody else with the same return address said, "This should be regarded as 'infallible'." (Of course "should be regarded" is the kind of language that gets my attention: why not just say, "This IS infallible"? )
[Anyway, Walter the Pink says s bunch of stuff about how this is a complicated and controversial issue and we haven't seen the last of it and blah blah blah. So evidently the causa was no more finita than the "Ordinary" wanted it to be, at least in that bishop's alleged mind anyway.]
So most of the stuff we discuss is going to refer to the "final decision", which can only be made "at the top". We can't say that the powers of the state in eminent domain are delineated firmly until the Supremes have decided Kelo (and, as in that case, sometimes not even then.)
It seems to me to be a matter of common sense that, for a matter to be "settled" (and thus fit matter for Catholics to say, "This is the teaching of the Church") is has to be settled by the entity with final jurisdiction.
It may be that we Catholics over-state the divisions in Protestantism. It gets my attention that the very word is sufficiently vexed that the Episcopal Church used to call itself Protestant and now doesn't and that some Protestants would say of some other western "ecclesial assembly" not in communion with the see of Rome, that they are not REALLY Protestant. But if the First Baptist Church of Esmont (a small community near hear) has one opinion on a matter of faith and morals and the Green Mountain Baptist Church of Porters (a community within a half mile of Esmont) has another, who can say, authoritatively, "This is what Baptists believe and teach: ..."?
In any event, I would prefer "supreme or final jurisdiction" to "supreme power".
The spell checker doesn't see the error...mortal, in context, of course. Did you have to ask, or does context not matter to you?
As to quoting you, the quote was accurate and a great opportunity to praise God!
It was accurate, but out of context, an excerpt cherry-picked for desired effect.
As to wave/particle duality - it stands as a great example of the observer problem. What the observer sees depends on the observation made
The observer problem exists inwardly as well as outwardly. Inward "observations" can be just as relative and misleading as those outwardly ones.
So does the uncertainty principle, by the way, stand as a great example. The observer can know momentum or location but not both
Very good! These wave/particle issues simply tell us what every honest scientist should be able to admit: we do not know the true nature of light or electrons or gravity or anything for that matter. What we know is what we discover through our working models.
Just as a spiritual person should be able to admit that we do not know God as He really is, and that what we know of Him is through our "spiritual" working models.
In either case, we have limited human working models.
That's ecumenical relativism. That's denying that Protestantism is a grave error.
What is "personal" to you? If you talk to your congressman and ask him to do something, is that a "personal" relationship? What is personal about the OT God? Does anyone hug him? Does anyone kiss him? Does anyone call him "Daddy?"
What Kolo is telling you is that the ineffable OWN is impersonal compared to the human Jesus. A human being is a lot more personal than a burning bush. That's why Christ reminds us that it is only through him that we can see the Father.
No it's not (it snot).
It's doing things one at a time. I'm not saying he's NOT wrong. I'm also not saying "nyah, nyah". I'm trying to say something like: It is ALWAYS wrong not to 'follow your conscience' (where 'conscience' is rightly understood) even though following your conscience is no guarantee that you will do the right thing.
And when the best your conscience can do is to lead you astray, while you have the benefits of having followed your conscience, you're still astray, and suffer the consequences of that.
And then I'm saying that, of course, those who do not acknowledge the self-evident truth that I am right will, in their delusion, think that I am missing out on something because I have my opinion.
I guess I think it important in these conversations to make clear when I don't think I've given a comprehensive and conclusive answer and to, so to speak, pre-emptively acknowledge that there are still disagreements left to be discussed.
There you go, you are learning something..,
Indeed, flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit..
you: It was accurate, but out of context, an excerpt cherry-picked for desired effect.
You also said:
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - I Corinthians 1:18-25
To God be the glory!
You illustrate the mistake of looking at the reasoning for something from only one view, which is exactly what happens when you rely on the early theologians of your church.
I picked the Donatist's for a very specific reason. They were a part of your church and left for very specific reasons. They were not considered "heretics" until they refused to submit to a central authority that was backed by the power of the state.
It would only be less freedom for the adult. The child would gain freedom by being born, by not being exploited sexually and children would be produced by the union of a man and woman in marriage rather than two homosexuals.
The thing to keep in mind is conservatives today are actually the liberals of old. It is the liberals who have changed into the conservatives by seeking all answers to problems by the state, or large institutions.
AS to whether they were considered heretics, what do you think Augie thought of them? Surely he thought they were in error. I'd guess they couldn't really rise to the level of obstinacy required for heresy until there was an authoritative statement to the effect of, "Yo! Y'all are WRONG! Chill!"
Everything.
Prior to the power of the state being used to enforce the will of a hierarchy churches choose to cooperate or not. Now they would no longer have that option. While the mono-bishophoric system began to emerge in the 120-130 AD it still did not have any power to force cooperation. For example Clement writes a letter complaining that the church in Corinth has changed their leadership. Other than sending a letter he had no power to deny the church in Corinth the right to do this.
Is that the reaspon St. Augustine gave, or is it an assertion of your own?
On your larger point, of course the fathers of the Chruch are important in clarifying the position of the Church, including the position vis-a-vis the heretics. That's news?
I think you’re confusing “power” and “right”/”authority”?
“...mono-bishophoric system....”
What’s that? You lost me, wf.
A leadership system that culminates in one person having the final authority in a region, or for an entire church. For example, this did not exist at the Jerusalem Council where James was considered the head of that church. Peter presented his thoughts and Paul presented his thoughts. The Apostles, elders and entire church then discussed and decided as a group. The final decision making was not left to James.
In the early 100's you begin to see a single head of a church in various cities and then heads of churches for regions. This is the beginning of the mono-bishophoric system. Apparently it developed to a greater extent in the west.
I think if we were looking at a "right" it would not have happened. It was never the example of the early church. Even in the early 100's the Shepherd of Hermes indicates leaders in Rome, not a leader.
I think it developed in part due to external forces such as Marcion as well as internal desires to be able to "just get things done". I am not ascribing any evil intent. It was an organizational trend that led to events like what occurred to the Donatist's.
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.