And this goes where this particular fool fears to tread, back into the relationship of tradition and Scripture. It doesn't seem strike me as gnostic because I don't see it as sprung full grown from the head of Zeus or of some particular guru (nor does it denigrate creation and creatures, but that's a digression).
The world view, the 'what we bring to the table' of Scripture as the sole judge and arbiter of the Church... I can see how in that view a LOT of what we do and teach seems sort of flakey (at the kindest!) But, well, I have said this before and taken some heat (more heat than light) for it, but to me it is as though IHS and the Spirit started an avalanche which has been tumbling down a huge slope ever since increasing in size and complexity, swallowing trees, people houses, cities ..... ,and within this "chaotic" (in the scienterrific sense) thing the Bible shapes and corrects and guides and judges and provides a forming tension or orientation within the dynamic system.
So it's a different view. And one way that difference shows up is the point of what JHVH said to Jeremiah, and what to make of it.
This WIDE difference is one reason I think our conversations should be notorious for their courtesy. It is as though we Catholics were a kind of quaint delegation from Mars, and we should probably spend more time asking, "What do your people think of this or that and how do you do the other?" than fulminating and breathing threats and slaughter.I would be content with an admission that the evidence for Marianism simply falls apart without the backing of Catholic Traditions.
[whispers among the Martian delegation, bzzz bzzz bzzz, finally one green and betentacled (spell check does not recognize this word - drive on) delegate steps forth, courteously wiggles his antennae, and says:] How about this: Someone who approaches the Scriptures without the organizing and hermeneutic of catholic tradition [note singular, though I'm not sure why - caffein, brain,... you understand] will not find in them what we teach about Mary.
Thanks for your patience in this exchange. Will you join me in a glass of Brxgxft? We think it quite delicious.
What do you suppose the effect of Paul's teaching would have had if the Bereans approached the scriptures through “the organizing and hermeneutic of ‘the Jewish synagogue’ tradition”, as did the Thessalonians?
Act 17:11-12, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.”
It would appear that when we approach the scriptures through any humanly constructed “organizing and hermeneutic ..... tradition”, what ever it is (ex. Liberation Theology), we will end up with the interpretation that the constructor desires rather than letting the scriptures speak for themselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It would appear that is what the word translated “noble” in the passage means; a willing mind.
*blink* *blink*... !!! You'll have to forgive me if I sit down a moment and catch my breath, lest I swoon... Your forthright answer (the first of it's kind in my experience wrt this issue from RCs) gives cause for commendation, not to mention wonderment. Just a sec whilst I fumble for a paper bag (sans glue or aerosol, for now) to steady my breathing...
Now, for the inevitable question (I am sure you can see this one coming): Regarding said scantiness of evidence: DOESN"T THAT BOTHER YOU?
And this goes where this particular fool fears to tread, back into the relationship of tradition and Scripture. It doesn't seem strike me as gnostic because I don't see it as sprung full grown from the head of Zeus or of some particular guru (nor does it denigrate creation and creatures, but that's a digression).
I meant 'gnostic' in the general sense of hidden 'knowledge'. It is usually in the form of a 'new' discovery of a book of 'scripture' which purports to show a new, deeper knowledge of some sort. Such things were used as an attempt to shoehorn pagan beliefs into Christian thought, or to prove the veracity of some vain thought without evidence in true Scripture. A hallmark of such works is a blatant attempt to wheedle confirmation by way of applying extrapolative gymnastics to various obsure verses in true Scripture in order to lend credence to the counterfeit work.
A close cousin of gnosticsm (while not gnostic per se, as it is sanctioned) is the very same action applied by way of tradition rather than by an attempt to add to the Scriptures. A ready example can be found in the Hebrew Traditions, where the Hebrew faith was certainly manipulated to consolidate priestly power, and to introduce all sorts of heresy to include mysticism, among others.
Considering the heritage of Christianity, it's founding in the Hebrew faith, and pausing to consider (without rancor) that such manipulation already occured in Jehovah's Levitical system, wouldn't it be considered a sound concern, as taken up by Protestants, that ~no~ tradition should oppose or add to the spirit and faith as presented in the Holy Scriptures?
The world view, the 'what we bring to the table' of Scripture as the sole judge and arbiter of the Church... I can see how in that view a LOT of what we do and teach seems sort of flakey (at the kindest!)
There is much to applaud in the Catholic Church- There is much in majesty, formality, and reverence. There is earnestness and good works. The lion's share of Catholic practices are admirable and well meaning. I would not describe them as 'flakey' at all (or at least, for the most part :) ).
But, well, I have said this before and taken some heat (more heat than light) for it, but to me it is as though IHS and the Spirit started an avalanche which has been tumbling down a huge slope ever since increasing in size and complexity, swallowing trees, people houses, cities ..... ,and within this "chaotic" (in the scienterrific sense) thing the Bible shapes and corrects and guides and judges and provides a forming tension or orientation within the dynamic system.
That's a really good analogy. The criticism I would interject would be that there doesn't seem to be a way to back it all up. No reverse gear, if you might imagine. The corporate structure of the RCC would seem to be very rigid and hierarchical, and as with any corporate structure, it has a tendency to indemnify itself, to immunize itself against change.
Not that such rigidity is necessarily always a bad thing, mind you. I would consider the preservation of the Scriptures to be largely due to immovable Rome. One might suggest that such a structure serves to preserve, to keep heresy at bay...
But, and this is a big hairy but, I am afraid that such a structure would fail in one certain way- That being a case wherein heresy does enter. If such does occur, it seems to me that the monolithic and preservative qualities of the RCC structure would have a tendency to preserve and expand that accepted heresy, and would really provide *no* means of rejecting such a thing, especially as years roll by and it is incorporated into accepted Tradition. Since Tradition is given the same weight as the Word of God, that accepted heresy effectively changes the Word in just the fashion that Christ railed against while He was among us:
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(e-Sword: KJV)
I am sure the priesthood of that day considered themselves likewise immune from error, and that they declared themseves God's hand in the concerns of man's salvation. But by Christ's own mouth they had been found to have corrupted the Word. What an awful thing, that the Savior's visit would condemn the very system thought to represent Him on the earth! It should be a caution to us all.
[...] we should probably spend more time asking, "What do your people think of this or that and how do you do the other?" than fulminating and breathing threats and slaughter.
While I agree (and I do, really), I doubt that such an arrangement is possible in a grand scheme. Our singular reliance on faith and scripture makes us an ill fit for the Catholic mold, and Catholic dependencies make them ill suited to the necessary independencies found in the Protestant mold. You and I may be able to speak rationally on the issue, but I think the temperment needed for such an exchange is hard to find without being EC, which is anethema to both sides.
betentacled (spell check does not recognize this word - drive on)
I believe the proper tense and form would be 'betentackleboxed', unless one has dangling participles, in which case, I can recommend a useful ointment. :D
How about this: Someone who approaches the Scriptures without the organizing and hermeneutic of catholic tradition [note singular, though I'm not sure why - caffein, brain,... you understand] will not find in them what we teach about Mary.
A stunning concession on your part (Where did I put that paper bag)! Then perhaps what must come next is a summary of the "organizing and hermeneutic of Catholic tradition" which allows for such as the Marian doctrine. Is there a way to present it in a workable form for the purpose of the discussion at hand?
Considering the above concession, can you see where Protestants' concerns are valid?
Thanks for your patience in this exchange. Will you join me in a glass of Brxgxft? We think it quite delicious.
I will have to pass. I recently imbibed several vials of screesplotz with an Alpha-Centurian. Being a Martian, perhaps you don't know, but consuming screesplotz and brxgxft within close proximity can cause an harmonic sort of flatulence that can cause bull moose to immediately enter a rutting state. As you can probably undertand, a rutting moose infestation is something I dare not chance, though I am quite thankful for the invitation. ;)
I am enjoying this conversation. I apologogize for my tardy reply. I am often unable, as illness intervenes. Please don't suppose I am ignoring you.