Define Yourself

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpiritMeadow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SpiritMeadow

Guest
It has occurred to me over the last few days that part of our problems here in not seeming to understand one another, is that we make assumptions about what others believe. So, although I usually wish I hadn’t, I’ve started this thread to discuss this openly.

I’m not sure we have to debate much, but I think it would be helpful if we can see how others view themselves. I shall begin, and we will see if anyone feels this exercise profitable to continue.

I am somewhere between a progressive and liberal . I’m more often tagged as liberal and there seems to be a decided negative conotation to that.

Here is what I believe. I believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I believe in Trinity. I believe in the resurrection. I believe in natural evolution and big bang theory. I do not believe the bible should be read literally. I believe there is much fact in the bible, but also much myth. I believe that all the writers were inspired to put down as best they could their belief and/or their communities belief about God and how God interacted with them. I believe the bible is essential a record of a people’s walk with God, and their growth in that belief.

I do not accept fundamentalism as either a correct way to view scripture nor as the correct way to view God. I believe in sacred tradition and the magisterium as co-repositors of the Faith.

I believe that the Church continually grows in her understanding. Thus doctrines do change over time as the Church gains a fuller and more complete understanding of both the world created by God, and its understanding of pre-existing texts.

I believe that a scholastic approach to studying the bible is fruitful and provides new and exciting ways of looking at God, Jesus, and the early Church community. I recognize apologetic bible study as something quite different, starting from a different place. Apoletics says, this is what I believe, what support do I find in scriptures for this belief. Pure scholastic study says, I am aware I have beliefs, and I do the best I can to set them aside and follow the evidence to its natural conclusion. Both approaches are correct in what they pursue. They are not meant for the same thing.

I think of progressives as those who are willing to see change in the church and see that as fine. I view liberals as willing to discard a lot of what I consider tradition. I agree with them on a thing here or there, but don’t wish to march if you will. I think of progressives as those who motivated and were successful at Vatican II. I think it was a wonderful council.

As I said, I didnt’ start this so we could now all argue about the rightness of what I believe or you believe. We may want to do that after we’ve had a fair time for all to state who they are. I will simply ignore posts that go to an attack mode and will call for the closure of the thread if that happens. Can we for once just try to learn about each other?
 
I’ve never put much stock in terms like “progressive” or “conservative” or “traditionalist,” so I’ll just state my position and let anyone label me as they will. If I have to call myself anything, it’s Catholic.

I believe in the Holy Trinity, original sin, the Immaculate Conception, the virgin birth, the Resurrection, the Ascension and the Assumption. I believe that God inspired the prophets, apostles and their successors to carry his message to his Church, both in spoken and written form. I don’t find it likely God did this by means of possession or automatic writing, but I also don’t believe we can do much more than speculate about what the relationship between God and writer was while was under His inspiration. Because of this, the scriptures are perfectly and truly the word of God, but we must consider the prophets and apostles are there too in a very real sense.

I believe that every possible sense of scripture must be considered, and within its context. The bible doesn’t always speak literally, but to ignore its literal sense completely would be dishonest. God meant it to read as it does, and He had reasons for making it so. We may study our history through it, but the historical matter within the text is not an archive of current events recorded for their own sake. God didn’t tell us absolutely everything there is to know through the bible, He had written what had to be written for his purposes. The bible should be considered as both as God’s message to the church of the time each book was written, as well as God’s message to the church through the ages to the present day. It is our duty not just to understand it but to apply it once we do.

I believe that the fact that the Church endorsed the Vulgate as free from doctrinal error gives that text an endorsement higher than its given any other, and on doctrinally significant variations between it and other texts, at very least we know the Vulgate has a correct answer, even if it does not exactly reflect the present Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. I believe the decision to return to the original languages was a natural and correct one, but that discarding the Vulgate outright as a legitimate source for our translations takes it a step too far. I also believe that as the scriptures of the apostles and the fathers, the LXX should be given its due regard. Thus, I think that where the Hebrew, Greek & Latin agree, we should go back to the Hebrew for the sake of being closest to the original idiom. Where they disagree, we should consider the LXX and the Vulgate as taking priority over the rabbinic text we now have, but still look at the Hebrew as a clue to the earlier text that underlie the ancient versions (the NETS LXX project seems to be translating in a fashion like this). I also believe that the other ancient versions of our sister churches should be considered as legitimate for their own uses and worthy of comparative study for ours.

I believe that the distinction between Sacred Tradition, small-t tradition and rules of discipline must always be well defined. Sacred Tradition was given to us by God, not always in written form but as a true and binding part of our faith. Lowercase traditions remain with us out of habit, not inspiration. Discipline is how we handle our affairs as any structured organization must. The first category is an essential part of who we are and we cannot change it because we have no right to (Example: we cannot have women priests, because we were never given permission to by our Lord). The second is part of our shared heritage as a people set apart, and should not be changed for change’s sake; changes here come naturally and organically as we change and grow as a people (Example: the agape feast is now post-mass coffee & donuts). The discipline of the Church as a whole is no more holy than the bylaws of your local parish council – we are bound to respect it as legitimate, but free to question and criticize it with all the usual considerations of charity (Example: weighing the merits of clerical celibacy against the practical consequences of opening the priesthood to married men). In my opinion, this freedom to question becomes an obligation if discipline ever interferes with our highest goal of saving souls for the kingdom of Christ.
 
I believe in God first and foremost and what He revealed. The way I see it, I believe in things I don’t even know about or can’t identify - well, I just see it as perhaps that there’s a lot in my beliefs which isn’t known to me. Sounds a bit self-contradictory, but that’s due to the limitations of language.

As for trends such as conservative or progressive, I don’t believe in any such trend. I believe the need to stay truthful to God’s message precludes any conservative or liberal bias as a good in its own right. We may have a factual bias, but our goal is to be true to the message, not to be conservative or liberal.

This is a view I take in secular matters too - it doesn’t matter whether it’s conservative or liberal. It matters whether it makes sense. In this case, it matters whether it’s in accordance with the message of God.

Some examples perhaps: Gay marriage is not there. Female ordination is not there. The Church has no power to “change” this, nor ought She to. Latin, however, is not a scriptural language, nor was it a language of the Apostles and first disciples (though I’d bet some spoke it). There were reasons for making Latin the language of the liturgy as well as keeping it like that. However, Latin is not superior to Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic. Latin is a good language for philosophers, lawyers, theologists even. But the arguments for the use of it in liturgy, rather than other languages, are of a rational nature, not theological. This is something I understood despite liking Latin, knowing it, teaching it, going to Latin mass (I mean language, not version of the Roman rite).

You could probably call me a conservative because I don’t like daring interpretations serving to remove prohibitions. On the other hand, “that’s always been forbidden,” is not an argument - or rather, it’s not an all-trumping argument, since anything is an argument. Actually, I believe in honesty. I don’t even want to say “intellectual honesty”, because brands suggest there are kinds of honesty, while honesty is only one. So I believe in honesty in arguing. That means real arguing, without blanket bans on certain arguments. So yeah, “it feels good,” is an argument and, “it has always been forbidden,” is an argument too. There’s just the question of the weight of those arguments.
 
I believe in searching for what the Apostles believed. That has led me to Catholicism (I was born into catholicism, but almost converted to Protestant when I was in my late teens and early 20’s, before I started reading the Apostolic Fathers).

I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the church and that the church can teach infallibly. I take infallibility seriously, and any new teachings must not contradict previous infallible teachings.

I believe the bishop of Rome can teach infallibly, but I have a feeling that this position has been distorted since the great schism, and I watch carefully for signs that the ship is going off course, in case I’ll have to jump ship and become Orthodox. I believe that real infallibility comes from the whole church, east and west, and that one day they will be re-united and we’ll have even more certainty about what is and isn’t infallible.

I believe all the moral teachings of the church are very important, and I’d rather just admit if I can’t live up to some of them than to pretend that the teachings are out of date. Sometimes I think this makes me Traditional, in the sense that most modern catholics seem to accept birth control and pre-marital sex, but I don’t really like the traditional Latin mass.

I tend to take most of the bible literally, but I’m realizing that this is because I’ve never had much appreciation for literature, and I have trouble understanding non-literal things. I’m trying to learn about other ways to view the bible.

I think the evidence for God and for the human soul is clearly visible everywhere, and that we don’t need to fear science. I think we can learn more about truth from studying science, and shouldn’t be afraid of learning about evolution and psychology.
 
I am hoping that what I write will indicate that I am as well balanced a person I believe I am and not prove I am as messed up as, I suspect, most contend.

This may sound trite but what I believe is what I profess at Mass in the Nicene Creed or when I pray the rosary and recite the Apostle’s Creed.

The starting point of my Ecclesiology is a High Ecclesiology while my Christology begins from a Low Christology. However, I hope and work towards a proper balance in my life and studies of High and Low Christologies and High and Low Ecclesiologies which has affected my approach to studying scripture and sacraments but more importantly how I live my life.
 
I believe all we profess at mass.

I love Jesus with all my heart.

I’m proud to be catholic. I’m a convert. Since my conversion, my relationship with God has reached a level I never thought possible!

I’m trying to learn to give God control of all aspects of my life seems like I always get distracted and the next thing I know I have taken control back and messed up everything.:o

I have 2 kids that I’m trying to teach as much as possible about our faith. I realize they will probably stray at some point but I what to show them all I can so when that happens they will hopefully come back eventually to what I teach them. (My 5 year old daughter told me today that St. Anthony was the bomb!!! - maybe that’s a sign she is getting it!!! sure hope so!)

I strive to have a better relationship with Him and to always treat others like Jesus would want me to treat them, with love and mercy.

I know I have so much to learn about Him! I just pray I will do all I need to do where my relationship with Jesus is concerned to get into heaven. I can’t imagine why Jesus would give up His life for a sinner like me! But I’m very thankful He did!

I guess this isn’t exactly what you are looking for…if not, sorry.
 
Thanks to everyone so far.I feel like I indeed know some of you better. The people i would most like to do this of course won’t, but any area where we can find peace with each other is a good place I believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top