Posted on 04/18/2008 11:33:27 AM PDT by annalex
Watch yourself.
Such even temporary slips of humor could be dreadfully dangerous to one’s starchy sensibilities. But your secret is safe. I won’t publicize it . . . much.
Oh, you already did. Wheew, safe I am.
Broadly speaking it is on topic. The article is written to “neutralize prejudices”. Zionist Conspirator’s chief concern is the Catholic doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, which he finds too liberal. I agree with him that it would be among legitimate questions put to Catholics, albeit not in the first tier of questions, because after all Protestant views on Biblical inerrancy range as well.
Goodness!
Evidently you didn’t get the RC’s Magicsterical’s
memo
on that MANY months ago.
Please try harder to keep up. I wouldn’t want you to miss the next FLASH BULLETIN
about the
NEXT idolatrous, blasphemous Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Marion dogma to be formally pontificated and promulgated and horrifically heralded.
BTW, I haven’t been worth a lot for a long time.
I’d ‘only’ Jesus and His Blood that seem to demonstrate otherwise.
I didn’t know Bill Maher was in the RUBBER DICTIONARY.
As I said, I have nothing more to say to you. Please direct your hostility elsewhere.
You truly have some baggage don’t you. How sad! I’ll pray to our Blessed Mother for you.
Not quite certain what that is, unless the folks at Trojan have gone into publishing.
Such a position would be commendable were you to answer those biblical assertions that you so studiously ignore, such as demonstrations of Mary's unique character and position, proofs the Bible and the "word of God" are two separate entities, rebellion against Church authority, and your own sado-evangelistic style.
LOL!
As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?
As you well know, I don't do this.
As someone who has been through the shock of converting to Catholicism and having to deal with the evolutionism, higher criticism, and Biblical liberalism of the Church, I am sincerely interested at how other Fundamentalist converts deal with this problem. What I don't understand is pretending the issue doesn't exist.
I notice there were no questions about evolution, higher criticism, or myths and errors in the Bible. Why is that always left out of such things?
What relevance does this have with the article above?
It's relevant because I'm interesting in learning how other converts to Catholicism from a Fundamentalist background deal with the issues I mentioned. Do they cave in and become evolutionists and errantists themselves? Do they maintain their inerrantism while feeling guilty for "being bad Catholics?" Do they persevere?
I'm genuinely interested and genuinely puzzled at how little Protestant converts talk about this. But you know good and well that they have to deal with it. I just wonder how.
I don’t know for sure. I am a convert, but from the Russian Orthodox Church: I never had to struggle with ANY doctrinal question at all. My wife converted from Protestantism, most recently, of Baptist variety, but her views on the interpretation of the scripture were always orthodox Catholic. We know a nun who once told her that the Old Testament stories were to be understood allegorically, and Ann and I were both apalled. However, we could not be sure what exactly she meant. Ann did tell me that if anyone in a Catholic class told our children anythign like that, that would be the end of that class for them, and I, of course, agree. But that is not something she had to struggle with in order to convert as the fundamentalist creationist views are firmly within the Catholic spectrum on this issue, and in fact, the allegorical view is heretical.
Imagine that someone is considering immigration to the US and he learns that there is a lot of snow in Minnessota. Our prospective immigrant likes warm weather and the idea of settling in a cold climate frightens him. Would that be a reason not to come to the US? Of course not: he can also live in the South and have all the sun he wants to have. People who come to the Catholic Church struggle with things that leave them no option, such as communion of saints or the papacy, or the sacraments. On biblical literalism, they can keep them and be Catholic.
As I like to repeat: we take the scripture — all of it — literally, but we take it in historical, cultural and linguistic context. Anyone who reads the Bible under these principles will be Catholic or Orthodox.
My other guess is that Protestantism taken as a whole has its doze of biblical liberalism. The idea to share his faith with others who disagree on biblical literalism should not be foreign to a Protestant.
Imagine that someone is considering immigration to the US and he learns that there is a lot of snow in Minnessota. Our prospective immigrant likes warm weather and the idea of settling in a cold climate frightens him. Would that be a reason not to come to the US? Of course not: he can also live in the South and have all the sun he wants to have. People who come to the Catholic Church struggle with things that leave them no option, such as communion of saints or the papacy, or the sacraments. On biblical literalism, they can keep them and be Catholic.
Now you see, I can't understand why Biblical inerrancy is less important than papal infallibility or communion of the saints.
We don’t say it is less important; it is just not in the deposit of faith “once delivered to the saints”. We have no record or institutional memory of Christ discussing cosmology with the disciples, or evolution, or lack of it.
He did one thing that is related. More than a few times He said something that gives a certain contrast between what He taught and what the Old Testament writes. In the Sermon on the Mount the recurring theme is “it is written ... but I say to you ...”. He never contradicts the Old Testament directly, but He explains and expands the meaning beyond the literal. For example, the literal is “thou shalt not kill” but Christ explains that even an expression of anger, or an insult is already a violation of the spirit of that commandment. Then He goes over most of the Decaloge in that fashion.
Another time Christ is accused of working on the Sabbath, and again he teaches a reasoned, analytical approach to scripture, giving an example of a work on an emergency (a donkey in distress), and an example from another passage of the scripture where King David acted in seeming contradiction to the literal commandments. “Sabbath is for the man, not man for the Sabbath” Jesus concluded.
These are examples we have to go by. They do not give a conclusive picture of whether the six days of creation were literal 24 hour days or something else; whether Adam was shaped from literal mud as a clay scuplture or if it was some lengthy process with intermediate stages of theistic evolution. They do allow the use of reason and going beyond the immediately literal in approaching this, or any other scripture.
Not that these issues are unimportant, they are simply not in the Church’s job description to dogmatize about. For the Church to proclaim a dogma she needs a definite insight into the sacred deposit of faith given the apostles. We don’t find sufficient material there to form a single doctrine. Hence, this matter is open to speculation.
There are certain things that inhere to the deposit of faith. They are God as the single first cause of creation, Adam and Eve only parents of man, man having dominion over the rest of the creation, original sin etc. So, for example, on random undirected evolution hypothesis we say a definite, resounding NO. To theistic evolution or to old earth we cannot say a No, but we welcome young earth and non-evolutionary views as well.
I, for one, do not pretend the issue does not exist.
I handle it the same way I handle my recognition the Constitution of the United States is not universally viewed through the eyes of "original intent."
A President who does not nominate constructionist jurists to the Supreme Court is still the President, exercising all the powers thereof.
To my knowledge, the Holy Father has not declared those who hold my views on biblical inerrancy, or evolution, to be heterodox, and so long as he does not, while I accept he has the authority to do so, there is no existential crisis whereby I must choose between my convictions and the Catholic Church.
I regard my fellow Catholics who feel differently about such issues to be simply, genuinely, and HONESTLY, mistaken.
I regard my fellow Catholics who feel differently about such issues to be simply, genuinely, and HONESTLY, mistaken.
Exactly! And my fellow Christians of the non-Catholic persuasion.
So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour
= = =
I may be brutally candid . . . but deception is of no interest to me.
except . . . of course . . . the many centuries of deception on the part of the RC magicsterical . . . particularly about Christ’s Church Universal and about the Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary caricature.
Given the facts . . .
Post 30 comes across as rather . . . deceptive.
Why is everybody talking like Yoda on this thread?
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.