BUT, we also don’t have a proof that it IS meant literal!Alright then! One less battle.
So, we are agreed that he didn’t always talk in symbolic language.
Therefore, we can’t assume that his discourse in John 6 was symbolic.
Agreed.BUT, we also don’t have a proof that it IS meant literal!
Hi, Shawn38,
Actually,it was the Holy Spirit that guided the early Catholic Church to adopt the Canon of the Bible before the 5th Century. So, between the 5th and 16th Centuries - there was no dispute as to who determined which books were Inspired by God.
Pope Leo to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople
What can be worse than to have an irreligious mind and to pay no heed to those who are wiser and more learned? The people who fall into this folly are those in whom knowledge of the truth is blocked by a kind of dimness. They do not refer to
the sayings of the prophets, nor to
the letters of the apostles, nor even to
the authoritative words of the gospels,
but to themselves.
I missed the magisterium in this.
Well I would simply interpret it this way: Jesus has talked to them very often that he is going to die - and not going to free Judaea from the Romans. I think this is the reason why they left… They maybe thought: “He can’t be the Messias, a Messias wouldn’t talk such nonsense. He won’t save us from the Romans.”
*Esdra why don’t you read Posts #413 and #414 on page 27 by tlqualey. He gives a good explanation of why we do not believe that it was symbolic.
* **But here's my point.** Christianity should be broad enough to permit different people who seek to follow Christ to have different views. If they can accept transubstantiation, fine. If they can't fine. If they think Jesus fed 5000+ with a few loaves and fishes, fine. If they interpret that more spiritually than literally, fine. After all, when Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life he didn't answer by citing a creed or some church affiliation. He said love God and one another - and illustrated that by giving us a powerful parable. Who was the hero? Not one of his disciples. Not even a Jew. But one of the despised Samaritans who not only followed an 'heretical' religion but also had married outside the 'chosen race'. (Oh, and I don't believe in any chosen people, either.)
So, hurrah for a big tent Christianity. That, in my view, is my difficulty with traditional Catholicism and with most evangelical Protestantism. Both claim to have the one and only true religion. One cites the divine authority of the magisterium. The other finds justification in the Bible. Gosh, I look forward to seeing Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and friends of all faiths in heaven. I'm happy to let God do the judging, and I'm sure that as a God of love and mercy he won't condemn folks on the basis of their doctrines or religious affiliation. Did they love God? Did they love one another? The rest is peripheral. I find that most Catholics and Protestants I know share this overall view.
God bless people of every creed, color and country. And let's make religion a bridge leading to peace and mutual respect rather than a barrier that continues to erect walls and creates misunderstanding and hostility.Look at that verse again. John 6:60. It says, "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
Except those whose views you disagree with, right? If someone says that they are a cross-dressing Christian who serves the poor–I’m guessing you’d accept them into your Tent. But a polygamist wife-beating Christian? Not so much. A white supremacist Christian? Nope. Not welcome.
Or a Christian who believes that Christ has only one view and He demands that those who serve Him also hold the same view as Him. That doesn’t fit into big tent Christianity, either.Except those whose views you disagree with, right? If someone says that they are a cross-dressing Christian who serves the poor–I’m guessing you’d accept them into your Tent. But a polygamist wife-beating Christian? Not so much. A white supremacist Christian? Nope. Not welcome.
Hi,
It is the teachings of Jesus Christ. The whole teaching. Best summarized in Matthew Chapters 5-7.Gosh, you always want to go to extremes. Because I believe in a 'big tent' when it comes to doctrine doesn't mean that the Church should permit a wife-beating polygamist into the church. I guess it's a matter of degree. Someone who tells a social lie, for example (we can't attend because I'm not feeling well), is not equivalent to someone who has committed murder or robbed a bank. Everybody knows that.
You know what I mean. I think the Church should tolerate and even welcome Christians who love God and one another but may hold different doctrinal positions. I don't believe in Adam and Eve as an historic couple, buy my grandmother certainly did and the Church certainly should have welcomed her. I have serious doubts about many Old Testament stories and even some things in the New Testament. Women should cover their during worship (as Catholicism once required). Or, women should be ordained or not ordained. Or clergy should be permitted to marry or not marry. Personally. I think these and many others should be optional opinions. There are many questions on which Christians should be entitled to disagree and not feel that they are somehow bad 'heretics'.
That's my point. Apparently you disagree. I would even feel that you should be welcome into a "big tent' Christianity. Disagreement should not disquality us, unless we clearly take a position (like wife-beating polygamists) that clearly conflict with Christ's command to love God and one another - "do unto others as...."
But I'm not interested in engaging in petty knit-picking. We do disagree. You apparently would not want me in your church and I would be happy to have you in mine, even with your harsher views. Unless you are a polygamous wife-beater. I trust you are not one of those. Even then, you would be welcome if you repented and changed your lifestyle.But don’t you see, Roy, that you’re doing the same thing to which you object? You feel that Catholicism, when it declares something to be a doctrinal truth, is exclusive to others who don’t feel that way.
Hi
I'm beginning to think that you either like to gaggle or you don't understand my position. I am saying that the Christian Church should be broad enough to welcome people of differing views, except for those who might advocate murder, theft, etc. So, you would be welcome in the Church I envision, despite views of yours with which I may not agree. No big deal, Christians disagreeing among themselves on many issues. Some day we will know who was right, if any of us, which I rather doubt. My guess is that we, with our finite minds, don't have much of a clue when it comes to ultimate spiritual truth. That's why humanity has concocted all sorts of beliefs. Trust in God and love of one another - as Christ stated - is basic, Much of the rest is conjecture.
The problem is that I apparently would not be welcome in your church unless I accepted all of its doctrines etc. Fine. But people like you here on CAF have about convinced me that I don't belong in the Catholic Church. However, most of my Catholic friends, like most of my Protestant friends, seem to be far more relaxed about such matters and don't insist that their concept of truth is the only correct one. I find the UCC, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, and others - 'big tent' churches - all the more appealing now that I have been on CAF for awhile. But one of my favororite columnists, Fr. NcBrien of Notre Dame, seems to embrace and promote a very different Catholicism. Is Catholicism divided rather like Protestantism, but it operates behind a facade of unity? I'm beginning to wonder. Most Protestants I know don't seem to feel the need to agree on everything, but allow for a wide variation without condemnation. They appear to range from very liberal (Unitarianish) to mildly evangelical.True.
When a person finds themselves looking for “big tent” churches they are only falling further into division…believe me, I have a lot of relatives outside of the CC.
Hi,
Don’t know what “like to gaggle” means in this context.
But of course they don’t, Roy. I would be very surprised if you hung out with orthodox, pro-life, anti-contraceptive Catholics. Despite your preaching about being ecumenical and tolerant, I am quite certain that you don’t have any orthodox Catholic friends.
Don’t have to accept anything like the rest of you do. I believe in some things and don’t believe in some things. Some things that the CC teaches just don’t stand to reason, like the bread becoming Jesus.Well sorry to disapoint you Rev Kev but when Jesus comes back and changes his word then it will be changed. Until then you will have to accept like the rest of us the same boring stuff.
Just wondering Rev Kev what is it about the CC being around for over 2000 years and being started by Jesus himself that seems to bother you so much. Personally I can’t hear it enough
As far as the Trinity Rev Kev do you accept the Trinity?
As a general rule I have found that people who claim to be broad-minded and enjoy a diverse group of friends, actually are quite selective with their social group.But of course they don’t, Roy. I would be very surprised if you hung out with orthodox, pro-life, anti-contraceptive Catholics. Despite your preaching about being ecumenical and tolerant, I am quite certain that you don’t have any orthodox Catholic friends.
It’s consistent with your “I’m open to anyone, except those that I’m not open to” paradigm.
Now, perhaps it’s that these orthodox, prolife Catholics don’t like you, but I’m guessing you really don’t seek out their friendship very much.
)