klomp44 wrote:Rev, I must say that I strongly enjoyed reading your long post in the Pope thread. It is so true that there is a lot of negative attention on the Church (sorry, but when I capitalize Church, I mean the whole body of believers, not just the Catholic Church). These people bringing the negative attention probably don't realize it until its too late.
A little OT, but it doesn't really matter what title we put on our religion. In fact, it isn't our religion that puts us into heaven, its our relationship with Christ. There will be people of all sorts of belief backgrounds in heaven, not just one. There might even be a couple Catholics there (sorry, slight joke).
I am glad you like my write up. I appreciate your support. Ironically with all the attention RC gets for the sex scandals southern baptist have had more than RC. It just seems like they get no attention for it. Not saying anything to justify, but the focus is ironic.
BTW, not to start a debate, but Capital C is Catholic, That is how protestant does it also. As a matter of fact the "invisible church" idea is relatively new. It is the result of the incredible amount of division seen withing protestant ecclesiology and an attempt to reconcile that with unified Church teaching. Unfortunately the whole thing is a contradiction of biblical teaching as well as patristic testimony.
Your second paragraph is a very simple protestant soteriology. We could discuss it if you want, but it is just polemic jargon and not helpful or insightful. It does not really explain anything and is just designed to be anti-catholic. We could have a fun OT discussion on the essence of Theosis, but the modern "warm and fuzzy" is just a reaction of the last 50 years or so. "religion" is not a four letter word. The word literally means "The voluntary subjection of oneself to God" it is not just the "relationship"(which the Catholic church has always taught as seen in the CCC) but it is a matter of change. The impact and direction of a life. "Catholic" (meaning universal--ala universal church) is the historical Church since the Christian beginning that draws its roots and teachings with the first Christians (as we see in patristics) The reason the history and lineage is so important to me is this. I believe that something that is true is intrinsically rational. Even though the ultimate subject matter of Christian theology is beyond our threshold of reason, theology as such exists in a continuum and thus conforms to the structures of rationality. The intrinsic relationship between truth and reason, even truths of faith and natural reason, is not severed.
Now since Christianity is not merely a set of postulates but is in fact a historical reality rooted in actual historical events, it follows logically to my mind that Christian belief as seen through a Historical context must have an essential continuity otherwise it can rightly be described as absurd.
Therefore, a doctrine or system of theology which fundamentally undermines the historical continuity of Christian belief cannot coexist with the assertion that Christianity is true. One might be able to suggest that their particular brand of Christian belief is true, but then they are speaking of a personal system of belief, not a revelation which transcends the individual and is rooted in historical events. As disrespectful as it may sound, I see persons such as this to be less like Christian teachers and more like gurus who happen to use the Bible.
(btw, the matter of soteriology and the influence/aspect on protestant theology is something I hope to focus on in my PhD work. So I enjoy talking about it. Being that I came from that arena first and grew into Catholicism--If you want to have a thread where we can discuss this and I can leave it open to just you and I then we can do it. Let me know)
)
