Once again you have provided me the catholic church’s teaching on this matter…again weaving the web.
May I suggest the main Catholic Answers website?
Tradition, with a capital “T” , is a one word synonym for “Apostolic Teaching.” For the reason I note below as well, the statement about 1545 is also wrong. One wonders what the Church did for several hundred years before the canon of the New Testament was closed. Indeed, the Church had been baptizing, celebrating the Holy Eucharist, and virtually everything else it does today for a good 20 years before the first work that is found in the New Testament was even written, let alone canonized.
This is playing it a bit fast and loose with the word “recognized.” Formally proclaimed as a doctrine then, yes. Recognized then, as if for the first time? No.
In fact, the church is the guardian and servant of the Deposit of the Faith. She did not create it, she received it from her Founder and Head, and His Apostles. She cannot, and has not, either changed it, added to it, or subtracted from it.
it took 1800 years to proclaim doctrine? What happened for all of the years before that? they were fallible?
I do too, which is why all of the other stuff is BUNK!!
I think the problem most people have with it is that he is going to speak at their place of worship. Catholics are beginning to be very “watchdoggish” and protective of the sanctitiy of the Mass. We are concerned about liturgical abuse. Sometimes people in charge allow liturgical abuse… such as too many people on the altar or people other than the priest putting their hands over the Eucharist during consecration… Speakers taking over the homily which the priest or deacon is suppossed to do. This names just a few. I think people are concerned that this speaker might give his speech in place of the Homily, or that he might promote reading material that is against Catholic doctrine. People may have less of a problem if he is going to speak at a parish center and they are sure that, even if he is going to discuss Hinduism, he is not going to try to *promote *Hinduism, over Catholocism (which would be fine in a secular location, we have religious freedom in America) I have nothing personal against Hindu people or the culture of India… Ghandi has always been a hero of mine.
… History shows Hindu people treating Christians with much more love and respect compared to, say, Christian England. Ghandi said he had not problem with Christianity, he had a problem with Christians…because the ones he encountered, failed to practice what they preach… unlike Mother Teresa…
Well what you see as the description of Manson and Koresh and how their followers and they themselves viewed it are different. They were spiritual teachers, and BOTH claimed to be the son of God. C.S. Lewis could have said, Jesus was a 70 year old chinese lady, that doesn’t mean it’s true. And also you should note that I never said he was a “good” teacher either, as his message was so distorted and over interpreted. So literary quotes offer nothing, especially when they are so obviously biased. You are trying to assert that if someone says they are one with God, then they incapable of fault, and I am telling you that you are wrong. Many Many people have made, make, or will make that claim. So this is STILL a fallacy.
) made up the rules. Well, if men made up the rules, common sense would tell you that these MEN were very consistent in their teaching of the Faith through the millenia. It is in the bible that Tradition was also to be the deposit of Truth. Look it up!I have been saying this forever…you will get nowhere like this. They are not trying to hear this kind of reasoning. They have grown up with the church being infallable, they were not introduced later when they were making their own decisions about things. You will have more luck telling them that a tree is really called a car, or that the sky is green and the ground is blue. Just trying to help you avoid needless hostility
No, I have to disagree. These are not sacriments, as there is no sacred or holy aspect to them. Tai chi isn’t even a religion it is a martial art. The movements are punches and kicks and such, not really very sacrimental. As far as yoga, you are stretching your body to increase internal energy. Everyone has this energy in their bodies, they call it chi, we call it bioelectricity, but it is the same thing. You are not praying in these positions (meditation is not a part of yoga, so even the idea that meditating is somehow praying is wrong) you are making your body more limber and increasing the internal flow of energy which promotes good health. So this is not transubstantiation, or anointing the dead, it is exercise. I don’t feel I’m conflicting with ANY dogma while exercising.
Hinduism is not a “cult”, it is a religion (they DO have more than a billion members). I thought he was speaking on yoga, not hinduism. Some of the eastern practices you guys actually did like enough to borrow. I hear of priests “meditating” all the time. It would be egotistical to think God would only reveal himself to one culture, and to all others he turns his back. What is to say God didn’t give them part of the truth and you guys part of the truth? Maybe we all have to work together to get the “full” message and set of practices. Seems far fetched I’m sure, but just speculate for a minute. Does God want us to drive wedges between ourselves and celibrate our differences, or does he want us to work together and celibrate our similarities? I would like to believe the latter, because I would like to believe he loves ALL his children and would reveal truth to us all, not just a small group in the middle east and europe. You show such patience for me, the “self proclaimed antichrist” but you would lend none to a man that is probably much more just than I am? Keep an open mind and an open heart and you may learn something, and if not at least you gave him the respect to come say what he believes in peace. It wouldn’t be very christian to turn him away because he is different. Jesus associated with prostitutes and tax collectors, you could “kick it” with a yogi for one day I’m sure.
Which one rose from the dead?
Steady now, no one quoted C.S.Lewis as an authority. His analysis was selected because it was well formed to address the issue at question.
Oh come now! Where was that said?
I will agree with you on this one. I think minor denominations occured because of people’s desire to follow what THEY think is right. It should be noted however, this practice didn’t become popular until the church strayed from their original teachings and started selling indulgences. This leads me to believe that it is mans nature to change his beliefs based on convenience or interpretation, and that everyone is probably guilty of it to some degree. Further, it seems to me that religionism (in this context dicrimination based on religion) is like racism was in the south. And by that I mean it is a means to seperate and in essence elevate ones self above all others. I noticed racism was especially bad in white people that were just above poverty (in the lower middle class), and it seemed this was their way of being better than someone. "Well I may be poor, but at least I ain’t no n***** " I know this seems like a harsh example ( it is a true one) but that is the same kind of closed minded thinking that causes people to want to seperate and catagorize everything. There are major and undeniable concepts of the bible that need NO interpretation. As long as someone can live by those, what is the point in trying to interpret a way in which everyone eles is wrong? You can be right, without everyone else being wrong.
I was refering to the Yogi…I am sure he is a decent person or the church would not have seen fit to invite him.
Do i say he was a good teacher? Yes, because he added a softness that judaism lacked. He had a simple message about loving your neighbor, and turning the other cheek. So yes in the way that gandhi was a good teacher and spiritual leader, so was Christ. Do I assert that he was MERELY a good teacher? I don’t know. My point was that your reasons were faulty, not your answer. To say that christ was a good teacher is AND the son of God is fair, but if you say because he said so, then that is flawed logic. Take a philosophy course sometime.So then, while we’re at it, do you hold that Jesus was merely a “good teacher”?
Ok noted. The table should take it’s own advice then.
You are trying to assert that if someone says they are one with God, then they incapable of fault, and I am telling you that you are wrong. Many Many people have made, make, or will make that claim. So this is STILL a fallacy.
Who says they didn’t? I wouldn’t know…I never saw Jesus rise from the dead either. So this argument is pretty suspect. As far as I’m concerned no one rose from the dead. The table’s claim was that Jesus was one with the father because he said that, and no mere teacher would say that, and I say to the table, that your reasoning is flawed and therefore incorrect. I am not trying to debate Christ’s divinity with “the table”, I am trying to inform said table that it needs a new line of reasoning to arrive at this conclusion.
OK. Try this.