|
Post by prue on Jul 28, 2006 7:57:52 GMT -5
There were two Catholics. One joined our church. The other went to see his neighbour and said they could no longer be friends. The Catholic would still say hello to his former friend, he wasn’t rude, spiteful or backbiting. We respected this Catholic man – he was a good citizen; a man strongly principled and loyal to his beliefs. What is a good Catholic? He regularly attends church; holds to foundation beliefs such as the authority of the Pope; the Nicene Creed; the Trinity of God, the Apostolic foundation of the church; the Seven Sacraments and the Eucharist. And like a good Jew, he usually likes to have little Catholics to keep his church alive. He is respected for his sense of community, honesty and loyalty.
What is a bad Catholic? He rejects the authority of the Pope and wants to open the church to doctrines alien to its identity. He usually believes in liberal notions that all ways to lead to God. He often has few or any children, and says the church should take on board political, economic and environmental issues. This person wants to change the way Catholics live, yet wants to remain within the church. He wants to enlarge the definition of Catholicism to include many ways and thus weaken its identity. He is alert to the failings of his church. He defines doctrinal boundaries as a form of “exclusiveness.” He may or may not be a good citizen, but he is not a good Catholic.
The religious historian Jaroslav Pelikan spoke of the need to set boundaries “Sentiment about some transcendent dimension otherwise undefined, does not have any staying power. It’s OK to have that at 10 o’clock on a Sunday morning when you’re out with your friends somewhere, but in the darkest hours of life, you’ve got to believe something specific, and that specification is the task of the creed. Because much as some people may not like it, to believe one thing is also to disbelieve another. To say Yes, is also to say No …”
Bert and Prue
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Jul 28, 2006 8:55:21 GMT -5
and the point is.............?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2006 9:27:57 GMT -5
There were two Catholics. One joined our church. The other went to see his neighbour and said they could no longer be friends. The Catholic would still say hello to his former friend, he wasn’t rude, spiteful or backbiting. We respected this Catholic man – he was a good citizen; a man strongly principled and loyal to his beliefs. What is a good Catholic? He regularly attends church; holds to foundation beliefs such as the authority of the Pope; the Nicene Creed; the Trinity of God, the Apostolic foundation of the church; the Seven Sacraments and the Eucharist. And like a good Jew, he usually likes to have little Catholics to keep his church alive. He is respected for his sense of community, honesty and loyalty. What is a bad Catholic? He rejects the authority of the Pope and wants to open the church to doctrines alien to its identity. He usually believes in liberal notions that all ways to lead to God. He often has few or any children, and says the church should take on board political, economic and environmental issues. This person wants to change the way Catholics live, yet wants to remain within the church. He wants to enlarge the definition of Catholicism to include many ways and thus weaken its identity. He is alert to the failings of his church. He defines doctrinal boundaries as a form of “exclusiveness.”He may or may not be a good citizen, but he is not a good Catholic. The religious historian Jaroslav Pelikan spoke of the need to set boundaries “Sentiment about some transcendent dimension otherwise undefined, does not have any staying power. It’s OK to have that at 10 o’clock on a Sunday morning when you’re out with your friends somewhere, but in the darkest hours of life, you’ve got to believe something specific, and that specification is the task of the creed. Because much as some people may not like it, to believe one thing is also to disbelieve another. To say Yes, is also to say No …”Bert and Prue Could you supply the motive and conclusion that you would like us to glean from your post? Otherwise it's open game, and will lead to a lot of unnecessary debate just trying to figure out what your meaning is. Thanks- Karl
|
|
|
Post by Bert unlogged on Jul 28, 2006 9:52:19 GMT -5
That word "narrow" as in a "narrow church" has become too pejorative. That word "boundary" has become offensive to a liberal society. That word "truth" has been badly contextualised, deconstructed, and relativised. When we see people holding fast to religious convictions, whether they be RC, Shia, Sunni, JW etc we don't call them "exclusivists" though that is what they probably are.
In Australia there have been debates between Jew, Muslim and Christian. Even secular people can’t help but notice how the Christian is seen as one who wants to accommodate others, moderate his belief, give grounds on doctrine, or even apologise, when Jew and Muslim would not concede an inch.
People who "open" their beliefs and "tolerate" do so largely because they don't believe anymore, not because, as they like to believe, that they are better people now. We need to be a little bit more exclusive, without losing the ability to be good citizens.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Jul 28, 2006 11:35:12 GMT -5
In your opinion, how "exclusive" should we be within our own faith - be it Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.?
Best, Edy
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 28, 2006 11:48:13 GMT -5
Is it the Christian's job to worry about whether the Jew or the Muslim is making concessions in their faith? What about the commandment to love your neighbor, to love your enemy? Did Jesus allow for exceptions? Is turning the other cheek and forgiving 70 x 7 not an "accommodation" commanded by Jesus himself?
|
|
AreYouABad Christian
Guest
|
Post by AreYouABad Christian on Jul 28, 2006 13:11:02 GMT -5
Catholic - derived, through Latin, from the Greek adjective καθολικός, meaning "general", "universal"[1] - when used as a specifically Christian religious term, can have a number of meanings:More errors of the VOT pluggers. A Catholic is a Christian but not necessarly meaning to belong to the RCC. Once again your thinking is skewed by the exclusivness by posting catholic and not making the distinction of RCC. In the back of your KJV under Catholic Epistles it is made clear that you as a 2x2 are Catholic, i. e. Catholic denotes "universal". Opps you are a 2x2 so you do not belong to the universal Church of God since you do not believe that these teachings were to the whole Christian society. It was only for the 2x2's
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 28, 2006 14:01:48 GMT -5
A good Catholic? Pretty much a redundant expression.
|
|
|
Post by Bert unlogged on Jul 28, 2006 16:54:48 GMT -5
Mrloe. You wrote "Is it the Christian's job to worry about whether the Jew or the Muslim is making concessions in their faith?"
It is the Western Christian who seeks concessions and apologises for his own faith.
What about the commandment to love your neighbor, to love your enemy?
This is the role both of the Christian and the good citizen. But to love doesn't mean to accomodate.
Did Jesus allow for exceptions? Is turning the other cheek and forgiving 70 x 7 not an "accommodation" commanded by Jesus himself?
You are missing the point of what we are saying.
|
|
|
Post by Bert unlogged on Jul 28, 2006 16:56:46 GMT -5
Greg wrote "A good Catholic? Pretty much a redundant expression." There are many good Catholics. I think you are being a little predjudiced
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 28, 2006 21:17:56 GMT -5
Greg wrote "A good Catholic? Pretty much a redundant expression." There are many good Catholics. I think you are being a little predjudiced What makes you think I am or my post is predjudiced?
|
|
|
Post by Bert unlogged on Jul 29, 2006 6:21:11 GMT -5
Greg, sorry, I misunderstood what you had written - I read it as saying "contradiction in terms"
|
|