The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Previous Thread

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Get-well prayers for L,TOWM and his Mrs.

And hope you're doing okay, RnMom. Prayers for your speedy recovery, too.

Put your feet up. 8~)

[L,TOWM]

You OK, Mom? As it turned out, my wife was not admitted to the hospital today. I guess all the surgeons had tee times set for this weekend...

Let me know how your surgery went, please.

[Wrigley]

I hope you're feeling better. Prayers.

[the808bass]

What's new and exciting?

Well, I've gotten a new job within the same company (large group health insurance administration) doing some amazingly boring things which of course is compensated at a much greater rate than the more fun things I was doing previously. My wife, daughter and I are excited to be experiencing the Christmas holidays in our first home which we purchased just a few short weeks ago (and we'll really own about the time I'm ready to retire). And I've been missing these mental gymnastics here on the thread. Got back on Free Republic for the first time in quite some time on the night of the election and peeked in on the thread to see it chugging along apace without me. And thanks for asking...

[the808bass]

If you find through prayer and study that your "church" is at odds with your view of Scripture, you are compelled to follow your internal voice, not your church.

I think this is a much fairer statement of the fundamental difference between us'ns and you'ns. And furthermore, I think it's much to frequently used and abused in Protestantism as occassion to the flesh. In other words - i.e. "Because I don't like the way the Pastor/demonimation/Kitchen committee is doing things (which have little or nothing to do with Scripture/Theology/Spiritual Praxis) I'm going to take my marbles and go play somewhere else, by myself if I have to. And, oh, by the way, this here church's view of salvation is fundamentally flawed according to my recent in-depth study (led by a guy with a weird hairdo and a gold piano who was on TV at 3 in the morning)."

Protestants have and do just abandon the "the history of Christianity

This can unfortunately be true. However, it is not always the case that when I reject a current Catholic theological position that I am ignoring the history of Christianity. And then we're back to where we started. Same questions. Is Catholicism the early church? Was Peter the first Pope? etc. ad infinitum....

What on earth is "Sola Scriptura" if not a rallying cry against any churchly authority over the individual and his Book?

I'm not sure it was a rallying cry against any churchly authority. I think it was originally a rallying cry against a specific church's authority. In the interests of protecting the accused, we will not mention said church here on this thread.

Finally, if the Rams had started the Central Catholic grad, the last two weeks might have been different.

Ok. That was low. You can insult my theological belief all you want. But do not touch football. And seriously, this Ram's season has risen and fallen upon the play of, not the quarterback, but the O-line. The Washington game had Tom Nutten and Adam Timmerman both out and injured. The Philly game had Tom Nutten and annual ProBowler Orlando Pace on the bench, both of them for the remainder of the season. Is Warner the Warner of yore? Hardly. But with a good offensive line, the Rams receivers and offensive schemes can make a redshirt freshman QB look good.

[drstevej]

Hope you feel better. Minor and surgery are not words that fit together well. Prayers for you.

[the808bass]

The existence of sinners in the Church is not now, nor has it ever been, an argument against any particular Church doctrine.

I'm not going to jump on any anti-Catholic bandwagon. I haven't thus far in my life and my neural pathways are far too set to probably even allow it at this point. However, I would like to quote my New Testament Greek professor who was simply maddened by the glut of "Practical Theology" courses being offered at the seminary I attended. He slammed his thin fist on the desk and said "Theology is, by nature, practical." The point is, of course, that if your doctrine cannot inform your action, right doctrine is no good at all. And as the case is in many of today's churches (not singling out the RCC), the laity is not the only group who is having difficulty grasping this.

We can say that sinners in the church is not evidence of wrong doctrine. And this is very true. But at what point, does a system wracked with grave problems become not only evidence of bad praxis but evidence of bad theology. For if the praxis does not reflect the theology, what good is the theology?

[the808bass]

Did you truly not understand what I was saying when I sad "Catholics believe?" Were you confused about what I meant?

I think there is some confusion here. If the majority of Catholics do not believe what Catholicism officially teaches, is Catholic doctrine still correct? This is a largely theoretical question as no one could demonstrate to anyone's satisfaction one way or the other. But this gets back to the whole "theology/practicality" issue. They must be working together or they are not working at all.

[Tribune7]

prayer bump

[OLD REGGIE]

This was already explained to you. Because the Magisterium hasn’t spoken on every issue. In fact, your very own question explained it. You asked “Really? Even if the Church hasn't spoken...” So, one does not submit his intellect and will to the Magisterium when it hasn’t issued anything to submit too.

I’m amazed you find this concept difficult.

You missed, or ignored this question so I will post it one more time.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

Now define "solely" and tell me where you fit in.

Let me repeat:

Now define "solely" and tell me where you fit in.

You will note it makes no difference whether the magisterium has spoken or not. you are not trusted to interpret the Word of God!

[OLD REGGIE]

You wrote a list of doctrines that you say that a person must hold to be accounted Catholic, with the implication that only those who got 100% on your test can be called Catholic. It is well known that the American "man on the street" would reject many constitutional guarantees--until he is told that they are in the Bill of Rights. Fact is that many Catholics are simply ignorant of their own faith but if corrected would accept the authority of the Church. Of course there are also the Gary Willses and they are not few in number, especially on college campuses, who, to use the political term, traitors.

Please note the definition of "Catholic" and "Heretic" is not mine. If you have an argument it is with your "True Catholic" compatriots on this forum.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

We can say that sinners in the church is not evidence of wrong doctrine. And this is very true. But at what point, does a system wracked with grave problems become not only evidence of bad praxis but evidence of bad theology. For if the praxis does not reflect the theology, what good is the theology?

I may be confused here :), but does doctrine always come from an infallible statement from the pope? Is say for instanse the celibate vows that a priest takes doctrine? Is "theology" doctrine? If not what difference does it make? Wouldn't that just be prefrences, and if the pope states his preference and some catholic doesn't like it would that make the catholic not a catholic? LOL, told I was confused:)

If the grave problems are doctrine, and doctrine is from an infallible pope then the grave problem becomes even more grave, IMO.

If the celebate vows are not doctrine, not from an infallible source, does that call them into question

Becky

[OLD REGGIE]

(SoothingDave) Did you truly not understand what I was saying when I sad "Catholics believe?" Were you confused about what I meant?

I think there is some confusion here. If the majority of Catholics do not believe what Catholicism officially teaches, is Catholic doctrine still correct? This is a largely theoretical question as no one could demonstrate to anyone's satisfaction one way or the other. But this gets back to the whole "theology/practicality" issue. They must be working together or they are not working at all.

Actually, during your hiatus, Dave and I have been having a go-around over his use of "Catholic". Of course I know what he is saying to me when he says such things as "Catholics believe".

I firmly believe there is no such thing as a generic "Catholic" or "Protestant" or even "Athiest" for that matter and it is important to qualify the statement that "X believes" anything.

BTW, Dave knows full well that I know that he knows that I know. IOW, it is a little gamesmanship.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Dave knows full well that I know that he knows that I know.

No wonder I'm confused:)

Reggie, you're bad:)

Becky

[OLD REGGIE]

If the celebate vows are not doctrine, not from an infallible source, does that call them into question.

Celibacy is a "discipline", not doctrine. The RCC could drop the requirement tomorrow if they wished. OTOH, a Priest who has taken the vow of celibacy is bound by his oath. It still has nothing to do with infallibility.

To complicate this issue a little further, the RCC could, by exercising the correct formula, (which is vague enough that there is no consensus on the exact implementation) declare that celibacy is now a doctrine of the RCC.

You asked a simple question, didn't you?

[OLD REGGIE]

But you know that I know that he knows that I know don't you?

IOW, Becky knows I know he knows I know. (Is that better?)

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I'm surprised you understood the question.

So is bass speaking of doctrine or disipline when he talks about theology, or is that something differnt too?

Becky

[OLD REGGIE]

So is bass speaking of doctrine or disipline when he talks about theology, or is that something differnt too?

I dunno. I guess you'll have to wait for bass to answer.

[OLD REGGIE]

(Becky) Dave, instead of saying what Catholics believe, say the RCC teaches.

Does this make sense? :) Becky

(SD) Yes, that would appear to be one way out of it. I'll try to remember.

Something told me this wasn't the first time the specificity of the term "Catholics Believe" had been discussed and Dave had admitted it probably wasn't exactly the proper term.

Since I had some free time and because I am a "skootch", I decided to look for some "Davisms" concerning the use of "Catholics".

I went back to August and decided it wasn't necessary to dig any deeper. The story is told.

(SD) 8/20/02 "Once you are Baptised, you are Catholic. There's no going back."

I replied that Dave had settled on a very broad definition of Catholic which included people like angelo and me in the group of "Catholics believe".

(SD) I have "settled" on nothing. Sometimes I mean it in the broadest possible sense. But most of the time, I am espousing orthodox Catholic teaching, which is much narrower.
Typical Dave smoke which really says "it means what I think it means at the time I say it.

(angelo) If only half of baptized, at least occasionally church-attending Catholics believe in the Real Presence, then saying "Catholics believe in the Real Presence" is somewhat problematic. Probably better to say "the official teaching of the church is the Real Presence" or some variation thereof.

(SD) Yes. I admit I am using a form of verbal shorthand and have offered to clarify when any confusion arises. I simply can't see, amongst friends, the need to be overly belaboring, even if it is a more exacting usage.
The first grudging admission that he could be more precise.

(Becky) Dave, instead of saying what Catholics believe, say the RCC teaches.

(SD) Yes, that would appear to be one way out of it. I'll try to remember.
Note he'll "try" to remember as if it is so difficult to do so.

Don't hold your breath. He'll continue in his ways and be "astonished" when someone (usually me) picks him up on it.

Wanna bet?

Don't forget, he knows I know he knows and we know he knows we know and he will continue to pretend he doesn't know we know he knows we know.

[RobbyS]

I mean to point out heresy as an analogue of sedition and treason. It is like "free-thinker." who aims to undermine the established order in a way that leaves no room for the "orthodox". Witness the P.C. crowd. They tolerate anything except contradition of their values.