Not just Lutherans, but others that fit the category established by Commenter
Can a communion that respects Tradition retain orthodoxy without the Magisterium in an increasingly anti-Christian Western culture?
- Thread starter JonNC
- Start date
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
Hi there.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Before this thread gets out of first gear, can we put “(?)” after “anti-Christian Western culture”.
“Increasingly non-Christian” might be fair, “Anti-Christian” seems to me just plain wrong (from where I’m sitting, anyway).
“Increasingly non-Christian” might be fair, “Anti-Christian” seems to me just plain wrong (from where I’m sitting, anyway).
J
JustaServant
Guest
It’s always helpful to move to another chair to get the other’s perspective.
It is a good question however. Can those Christian religions without a ‘centralized authority’ survive in a culture that sees only itself as a ‘centralized authority’?
Is that another way of putting it Jon?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I just know a Catholic who is passing by and see this what his/her answer would be. Then a certain Catholic priest would instantly correct us and thus stop the discussion.
I think the answer is pretty obvious, depending on where you are standing. The bigger question is: is there any room for discussion at all between Catholics and non-Catholics on topic such as this because a cursory glance will tell you it is a no for Catholics and a yes for the non-Catholics. But I am watching and see if it can go another way.
It should be interesting.
I think the answer is pretty obvious, depending on where you are standing. The bigger question is: is there any room for discussion at all between Catholics and non-Catholics on topic such as this because a cursory glance will tell you it is a no for Catholics and a yes for the non-Catholics. But I am watching and see if it can go another way.
It should be interesting.
S
steido01
Guest
Your seat must be cushier than mine.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
If you’re referring to my excess weight, that’s just a temporary thing. Fully intend taking more exercise, eating fewer vegetables, etc.
Yes, I quite admit it may depend on where you are sitting. For those of us who have seen how non-Christians have been treated in the past in Western nations, the idea that the current state of relations between people is “anti-Christian” seems odd. But that’s not the real point of the OP, and I hereby bow out.
:sad_bye:
S
steido01
Guest
To answer the question; yes, by the grace of God.
As for measuring whether a given body retains its orthodoxy, the tests are rather simple. Has its doctrine changed, developed, or “gotten with the times” in the last 500 years? If so, is it to further compliance with Scripture, or to appease the Zeitgeist? Does it profess the same faith as described in its own Confessional documents?
On a deeper level, the necessary functions of the Magisterium can be completed by a faithful Ministerium acting in an irenic spirit of brotherly koinonia with one another - passing on their knowledge of orthodoxy, calling out any errors of wayward be others, and jealously guarding the Office of Holy Ministry so that only those who’ve been properly vetted and trained are ordained.
The added threat of financial, psychological, political and -eventually- physical martyrdom may end up pruning the branches, but that’ll only serve the health of the tree. Its roots grow deep.
As for measuring whether a given body retains its orthodoxy, the tests are rather simple. Has its doctrine changed, developed, or “gotten with the times” in the last 500 years? If so, is it to further compliance with Scripture, or to appease the Zeitgeist? Does it profess the same faith as described in its own Confessional documents?
On a deeper level, the necessary functions of the Magisterium can be completed by a faithful Ministerium acting in an irenic spirit of brotherly koinonia with one another - passing on their knowledge of orthodoxy, calling out any errors of wayward be others, and jealously guarding the Office of Holy Ministry so that only those who’ve been properly vetted and trained are ordained.
The added threat of financial, psychological, political and -eventually- physical martyrdom may end up pruning the branches, but that’ll only serve the health of the tree. Its roots grow deep.
D
Duane1966
Guest
I would think a question that must be asked is: Can any new church or denomination be founded, that in its very inception does not rewrite what orthodoxy is? From its inception to the present day, whenever a split has happened in any church, those on either side have always felt in some way they were being orthodox. The side that leaves, creates a new meaning of orthodoxy for it’s followers. For before they thought of leaving a church, what they held as orthodox, changes from what they hold now. For the ones leaving, they must create in their followers the sense that the changes they are making, were in fact the way things were originally.
S
steido01
Guest
Oh, don’t go! I think your point is entirely relevant to the thread. Those of us who don’t live in an officially Christian nation sit in entirely different pieces of furniture. If you live in a country that considers the secular to be sacred, eventually the state’ll get all “compulsatory” when you refuse to worship. I wonder how much the past aggression towards non-Christians was actually due to the state enjoying some semblance of uniformity, and not overzealous Christians (though I’m sure one could find examples).If you’re referring to my excess weight, that’s just a temporary thing. Fully intend taking more exercise, eating fewer vegetables, etc.
Yes, I quite admit it may depend on where you are sitting. For those of us who have seen how non-Christians have been treated in the past in Western nations, the idea that the current state of relations between people is “anti-Christian” seems odd. But that’s not the real point of the OP, and I hereby bow out.
:sad_bye:
J
jmcrae
Guest
We have less and less freedom of speech, and it’s to the point of being expected that our institutions (schools, hospitals, etc.) will provide “services” that go contrary to the Christian message, or be regulated out of business. And forget running a private business on Christian principles, or giving your own employees Sundays off - those have been off the table for years, now.If you’re referring to my excess weight, that’s just a temporary thing. Fully intend taking more exercise, eating fewer vegetables, etc.
Yes, I quite admit it may depend on where you are sitting. For those of us who have seen how non-Christians have been treated in the past in Western nations, the idea that the current state of relations between people is “anti-Christian” seems odd. But that’s not the real point of the OP, and I hereby bow out.
:sad_bye:
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
“Anti-Jewish” I’ve seen. I know what that looks like. “Anti-Muslim” I’ve seen, it’s loud and clear all over the internet and in the mouth of a leading politician. “Anti-Christian”? In the West? It’s true that there has been a decline in the very privileged position of Christianity.
As to the main question, it seems to me that the key point is not whether there is a Magisterium – most churches have some teaching authority – but the extent to which church members are willing to submit their own judgement to that authority. The RCC has been strong in that regard, but it cannot be guaranteed: we have seen on this forum that some Catholics seem perhaps not particularly happy to accept what has been evolving church teaching for 50 years on relationships with other Christians. On the other hand my (uninformed) impression is that unorthodoxy in, say, the South Baptist churches would be severely dealt with.
As to churches that are Lutheran or Anglican or Methodist, we have seen that some are more prone to develop their teaching than others. Whether that is good or bad no doubt depends on the teaching concerned. Some teachings over the years have been “developed” to the extent that has benefited us all. But I should stop there: that looks nastily like my prejudices showing.
As to the main question, it seems to me that the key point is not whether there is a Magisterium – most churches have some teaching authority – but the extent to which church members are willing to submit their own judgement to that authority. The RCC has been strong in that regard, but it cannot be guaranteed: we have seen on this forum that some Catholics seem perhaps not particularly happy to accept what has been evolving church teaching for 50 years on relationships with other Christians. On the other hand my (uninformed) impression is that unorthodoxy in, say, the South Baptist churches would be severely dealt with.
As to churches that are Lutheran or Anglican or Methodist, we have seen that some are more prone to develop their teaching than others. Whether that is good or bad no doubt depends on the teaching concerned. Some teachings over the years have been “developed” to the extent that has benefited us all. But I should stop there: that looks nastily like my prejudices showing.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Southern Baptist, of course.
P
pianistclare
Guest
So, are you alleging that expert commentary is not welcome? how odd for a Catholic forum. Generally the words of the clergy, especially such a learned one with impeccable credentials are quite educations. Of course, some are never ready to concede a different point I suppose.I just know a Catholic who is passing by and see this what his/her answer would be. Then a certain Catholic priest would instantly correct us and thus stop the discussion.
I think the answer is pretty obvious, depending on where you are standing. The bigger question is: is there any room for discussion at all between Catholics and non-Catholics on topic such as this because a cursory glance will tell you it is a no for Catholics and a yes for the non-Catholics. But I am watching and see if it can go another way.
It should be interesting.
At any rate, dismissing a priest on this forum is really really bad form.
po18guy
Well-known member
The magisterium, along with Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition is one of the three foundational cornerstones. Similar to the fire triangle, take any one away and it becomes like a tether ball once the tether is cut. In the 1500s, Philipp Melanchthon and a few others communicated with the Greek Orthodox Church with the intent to form a relationship, even a political alliance. After several years of dialog and 400 pages of letters, the Greek Orthodox rightly concluded that a community which lacks Apostolic Tradition is no longer a Church.
The “Lutheran Church” these days is virtually undefinable, the natural consequence of cutting the ties to the anchor of Tradition. And, look at the utter confusion which reigns outside of the Lutheran communion.
The “Lutheran Church” these days is virtually undefinable, the natural consequence of cutting the ties to the anchor of Tradition. And, look at the utter confusion which reigns outside of the Lutheran communion.
Not from my POV. When the current administration targets the Little Sisters of the Poor the way they have, when business owners are prohibited from exercising their religious beliefs, a mRching band prohibited from playing a tune that has religious words,etc., it is an increasingly anti-Christian culture.
Jon
Not necessarily . Even a tradition built on doctrine, such as Lutheranism, has not done well maintaining orthodoxy over the last 60 to 80 years.I just know a Catholic who is passing by and see this what his/her answer would be. Then a certain Catholic priest would instantly correct us and thus stop the discussion.
I think the answer is pretty obvious, depending on where you are standing. The bigger question is: is there any room for discussion at all between Catholics and non-Catholics on topic such as this because a cursory glance will tell you it is a no for Catholics and a yes for the non-Catholics. But I am watching and see if it can go another way.
It should be interesting.
Jon
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Yes, I don’t know about the marching band case – I suppose it to be another instance where the United States has gone so far down the road of separating church and state that it’s lost its sense of proportion. But then I come from a quite different culture, so perhaps I’m bound to think that.
On the Little Sisters and on the cake-makers (I presume that’s the case), this is about whether and how a government should imbed in its legislation concessions for various religious standpoints, and of course governments often do. These usually involve compromise, naturally, because both government and faith have their separate requirements. Where compromise exists (as I believe it did in the case of the Sisters – forgive me if I’ve got that wrong) it may seem quite inadequate to the offended side. That doesn’t mean the offended side is under attack.
My father’s brother was a member of a pacifist Christian denomination. In WW2 he was a conscientious objector, and the government, instead of enlisting him, set him to work on a farm. That was the concession to his religion, but of course it was a compromise: his work replaced another labourer who could enlist and fight; the food he produced supported the war effort. Did that make the government anti-Christian?
S
steido01
Guest
See, trouble is Progressives in the U.S. no longer tolerate the sort of compromise that a reasonable person like (perhaps?) you or I might consider necessary for, you know, this thing called ‘governing.’ Take private pharmacists who choose not to sell abortifacients. They’ve chosen not to provide a certain service because it would violate their conscience. Never mind that this private business owner can refer a customer to 30 places within 5 miles that does sell the drug; his choices are either: to close down his establishment or be complicit in murder. All must bow to the peace-loving secular god. By force, if necessary. Conform. Conform. Conform.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Yes, this pharmacy business does seem lacking in the appropriate flexibility.
- Status