Apolegetic Gear?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ricatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ricatholic

Guest
So exactly what is this apologetic gear that I can’t get going?

Why do we make apologies for what we believe in the first place? I know that as catholics we have taken our church to a place that Jesus never wanted, but we know the church is human and God , knowing what he knows, knew that it would act in a human manner as well.

So why all these apologies for why the church isn’t perfect? Why not just focus on treating the least like they may be Jesus and see what results from that? We have tried the standard of the creed for determing what we believe, but that accomplishes little except to divide.

Now I am not saying we lay off all the people in the vatican who write thousands of volumes about the liittle details about the correct liturgical dress or rubric, but what do they really have to do with actually living as Jesus taught us to live?

If we as catholics focussed on what Jesus taught about living as servants of each other, do you think we would have any of the problems that confront our church today?

Its time to get back to basics and live as Christians and Followers of Jesus instead of making a science of apologies.

Peace
 
Apologetics doesn’t mean having to say you’re sorry. . .

😃

Apologetics is the branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.

We aren’t apologizing for things that happened in the Catholic church throughout the years by individuals, we are defending or proving the truth of our Catholic Christian doctrines.
 
Tantum ergo:
Apologetics doesn’t mean having to say you’re sorry. . .

😃

Apologetics is the branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.

We aren’t apologizing for things that happened in the Catholic church throughout the years by individuals, we are defending or proving the truth of our Catholic Christian doctrines.
Click to expand...
Does the church leadership prove the truth with their actions or with their words?

Peace
 
Ric, what are you trying to say?

That it is only the responsibility of the “church leadership” to engage in apologetics? That if members fail in their own attempts to live, speak, or otherwise display or teach Catholic doctrine by failing to live up to Catholic teaching that this INVALIDATES the Catholic doctrine itself?

Because I honestly don’t see what “the church leadership in words or deeds” has to do with your, or my, engaging in apologetics–the DEFENSE or PROVING of Catholic doctrine.
 
40.png
ricatholic:
Does the church leadership prove the truth with their actions or with their words?

Peace
Click to expand...
Motives for Actions can be many. I could just be a “nice” person. I could be looking for a favor. I could be showing off. Actions without a context can be looked at many different ways.

The words are there to give a context for actions.

So the actions are the “what” of the faith and the doctrine is the “why”.
 
ri, YOU know? YOU know what Jesus wanted? I doubt that. We have been down this road before. Let me clue you in. YOU are not Jesus. He didn’t give you the keys or name you the rock. If you don’t like the church then found your own. I do wish you would be honest with people and admit that you are NOT Catholic.
 
40.png
ricatholic:
So exactly what is this apologetic gear that I can’t get going?

Why do we make apologies for what we believe in the first place? I know that as catholics we have taken our church to a place that Jesus never wanted, but we know the church is human and God , knowing what he knows, knew that it would act in a human manner as well.

So why all these apologies for why the church isn’t perfect? Why not just focus on treating the least like they may be Jesus and see what results from that? We have tried the standard of the creed for determing what we believe, but that accomplishes little except to divide.

Now I am not saying we lay off all the people in the vatican who write thousands of volumes about the liittle details about the correct liturgical dress or rubric, but what do they really have to do with actually living as Jesus taught us to live?

If we as catholics focussed on what Jesus taught about living as servants of each other, do you think we would have any of the problems that confront our church today?

Its time to get back to basics and live as Christians and Followers of Jesus instead of making a science of apologies.

Peace
Click to expand...
I must have missed something that triggered this, but if I expect forgiveness as I forgive those who tresspass against me, it seems to be a logical extension that I make it easier for those who have perceived a tresspass that I may have committed to forgive.

(If I understand the program here, part of that “loving your neighbor” and “always being ready to give a reasoned defense of my beliefs” etc., etc., etc. is to help OTHERS to get to heaven. I endorse this concept of inviting forgiveness to that end.)
 
In case anyone is still interested in why we apologize for our faith, I believe that one definition of apology is synonomous with explanation. So when we apologize in this sense, we are explaining our faith.
 
40.png
Charles:
In case anyone is still interested in why we apologize for our faith, I believe that one definition of apology is synonomous with explanation. So when we apologize in this sense, we are explaining our faith.
Click to expand...
One of my points is that we explain or apologize for a number of things that really should not be overly concerned with explaining.

We act as if the ruination of the church will occur if any of our doctrines or dogmas are found to be untrue. But that is only because the church has painted itself into a corner by saying that it is always right concerning doctrine and dogma, unfortunately the church has chosen to codify some concepts in a manner that is so restrictive that obvious developments in human knowledge and a better understanding of Jesus’ core priciples must be ignored to keep the “truth” intact.

For instance, Jesus preached many times about exaltation. A quick glance at the structure and structures of the Vatican make it clear that some of those tenants about exaltation have been ignored. Yet instead of correcting those issues or explaining why we will keep them despite the lack of concordance with what Jesus taught, we try to justify them with the isolated instance where Jesus kept the annointing oil.

So instead of a administration that reflects what Jesus taught about exaltation, we have one that feeds upon the justification gleened from the story of Jesus keeping the oil.

The sad thing is that the real message of Jesus gets lost in the efforts to apologize for the things that are generally unrelated to whether or not we act as followers of Jesus.

Peace
 
ARE you a Catholic of the Latin Rite, ric?

What exactly are you trying to say?

Why jump back and forth with the narrow view that the whole study of apologetics deals SOLELY with apologizing–for “doctrines”, for “practices”, etc.?

Why not stick to the FACT that apologetics deals with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines?

And just what is this “exaltation” you speak of, anyway?

That the Pope exists as the Vicar of Christ? That we have a hierarchy?

Read up on the history of the early church, and the Fathers. If you aren’t Catholic, learn about Catholicism. If you are, relearn about your heritage.
 
Tantum ergo:
Why not stick to the FACT that apologetics deals with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines?

And just what is this “exaltation” you speak of, anyway?

Read up on the history of the early church, and the Fathers. If you aren’t Catholic, learn about Catholicism. If you are, relearn about your heritage.
Click to expand...
Tantum, if you are not familiar with how many times Jesus preached on exaltation and status , then perhaps a review of the gospels might be in order.

Without being totally sure, I would suspect that the theme of exaltation occurs in the top two or three if counted. From the specific admonitions such as the first shall be last and loving the least as if they were He, to the equality of the workers in the field and the status of the prodgical son in the parables, Jesus frequently taught about equality and the inherent value of each person.

Now am if I am mistaken about the purpose of why Jesus taught about those notions and why they are just suggestions as opposed to the “truth”, let me know. Thanks.

Peace
 
40.png
ricatholic:
Tantum, if you are not familiar with how many times Jesus preached on exaltation and status , then perhaps a review of the gospels might be in order.

Without being totally sure, I would suspect that the theme of exaltation occurs in the top two or three if counted. From the specific admonitions such as the first shall be last and loving the least as if they were He, to the equality of the workers in the field and the status of the prodgical son in the parables, Jesus frequently taught about equality and the inherent value of each person.

Now am if I am mistaken about the purpose of why Jesus taught about those notions and why they are just suggestions as opposed to the “truth”, let me know. Thanks.

Peace
Click to expand...
Well, Ri, Jesus’s admonitions toward the pharisees did not abdicate their authority.

Matt.23
[1] Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
[2] "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
[3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Christ left his Church with an authoritative heirarchy, with the power to bind and loose sins.
 
40.png
ricatholic:
Without being totally sure, I would suspect that the theme of exaltation occurs in the top two or three if counted. From the specific admonitions such as the first shall be last and loving the least as if they were He, to the equality of the workers in the field and the status of the prodgical son in the parables, Jesus frequently taught about equality and the inherent value of each person.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right that the role of the leader must be that of the lowliest servant. It was in this vein that pope Gregory the Great prefered the title *Servus sevorum Dei *(servant of the servants of God). Our Holy Father refered to this in “Crossing the Threshold of Hope.”

He goes on to quote St. Augustine,“I am a bishop with you and a Christian with you.” John Paul II’s states that “*chritianus *has far greater significance than episcapus”. In other words, when you meet the Holy Father, in his eyes your role as brother Christian means more than his role as Bishop of Rome.

God chose him as our leader. I think he chose wisely.
 
Apologetics is important to me for these reasons:
  1. People accuse me of idolatry.
  2. People accuse me of praying to the dead/demons.
  3. People accuse me of vain repetition.
  4. People accuse me of cannibalism.
  5. People accuse me of being part of the Whore of Babylon for [insert very minor reasons here.]
  6. People accuse the Pope of being the Antichrist.
Unless you think the reputation of the Catholic Church isn’t important, then doing away with apologetics isn’t a good idea. I, for one, like to actually have something to say in response when met with such incredibly stupid allegations.

The Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, and if anyone has a problem with it, that person has a problem with Jesus.
 
40.png
johnnyjoe:
Well, Ri, Jesus’s admonitions toward the pharisees did not abdicate their authority.

Matt.23
[1] Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
[2] "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
[3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Christ left his Church with an authoritative heirarchy, with the power to bind and loose sins.
Click to expand...
It is somewhat ironic that you make a post that has Jesus extolling the virtues of those that do not practice what Jesus taught on one hand, and then you follow it with the notion that Jesus abdicated His power and by extension, that of The Father.

One thing we have to keep in mind when we quote Matt. is that he was prone to exageration, it is prudent that we place what he wrote in the context of the totality of what Jesus taught. When you start quoting Matt on seperate verses as if they can stand on their own it can lead us into all types of quandries.

For instance, is Peter the Rock of 16:18 or the Satan of the verses that follow?

Peace
 
40.png
ricatholic:
Does the church leadership prove the truth with their actions or with their words?
Click to expand...
There were great Popes and there were rogues. But they never taught false doctrines.

Therefore I will say “with their words” because even the rogues were guided by the Holy Spirit when they teach.

:cool:
 
40.png
bob:
There were great Popes and there were rogues. But they never taught false doctrines.

Therefore I will say “with their words” because even the rogues were guided by the Holy Spirit when they teach.

:cool:
Click to expand...
Does the strength of the doctrines enable them to be protected from being responsible for their actions?

Peace
 
Folks, I remind you that ri is a dissenter. He denies the infallibility of the Church and the Pope. He constantly and deliberately confuses infallibility and impeccability. He denies the entire Pauline corpus. He is convinced that the Church has erred and is apostate. And he believes that he and only he understands what Jesus really wanted. In other words he is a Protestant who pretends to be Catholic. He has heard all your answers before and will ignore any reply you make. Then he will repeat himself endlessly. When you refute him he will then ignore you and go on to someone else to spread his brand of anti-Catholicism.
 
40.png
cestusdei:
Folks, I remind you that ri is a dissenter. He denies the infallibility of the Church and the Pope. He constantly and deliberately confuses infallibility and impeccability. He denies the entire Pauline corpus. He is convinced that the Church has erred and is apostate. And he believes that he and only he understands what Jesus really wanted. In other words he is a Protestant who pretends to be Catholic. He has heard all your answers before and will ignore any reply you make. Then he will repeat himself endlessly. When you refute him he will then ignore you and go on to someone else to spread his brand of anti-Catholicism.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
ricatholic:
So exactly what is this apologetic gear that I can’t get going?
Click to expand...
The repuatation system is gone now. There is no “apologetical gear” you need to get going now.

🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top