Radbod, Wolfram, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

[PumpkinCookie]

Find the magisterial documents that say these things, then we can have a discussion about them. In the body of magisterial teaching on these subjects, you will find the necessary contextual subtleties and distinctions that clear the difficulties. As long as you live in the shadows, there can’t be meaningful discourse…

And you are still operating under a super-ultramontanism, where anything any Christian says is “what the Church teaches” or some such thing.

NEWSFLASH: IT AIN’T.

So… Can we put Wolfram to bed? Please?

How about this: why don’t you tell me precisely how I can distinguish infallible magisterial statements from opinion. Once you tell me that, I can proceed. What would be better is an official list of Church teachings dating from from the first century. You know, cuz Catholicism is 2,000 years old right? And it’s always been true right? And truth doesn’t change right?

Wolfram shows us that a saint and bishop somehow managed to get to that status while being woefully poorly catechized. Or, he was well catechized (like we would expect of a saint and bishop) and the Church has changed its teachings.

 

[goout]

How about this: why don’t you tell me precisely how I can distinguish infallible magisterial statements from opinion. Once you tell me that, I can proceed. What would be better is an official list of Church teachings dating from from the first century. You know, cuz Catholicism is 2,000 years old right? And it’s always been true right? And truth doesn’t change right?

Wolfram shows us that a saint and bishop somehow managed to get to that status while being woefully poorly catechized. Or, he was well catechized (like we would expect of a saint and bishop) and the Church has changed its teachings.

Why is a tree not a seed?
Why is a tree a seed?
Is a tree a seed, at all?

This is such a simple question, and you avoid it as if you can’t answer it.,

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Why is a tree not a seed?
Why is a tree a seed?
Is a tree a seed, at all?

This is such a simple question, and you avoid it as if you can’t answer it.,

The growth of a tree and the truth claims of Catholicism are not analogous. If you want to discuss trees though:

A tree is not a seed by definition, they’re two different organisms according to our taxonomy.

It isn’t.

A seed can grow into a tree, with the right conditions.

---

Also, another answer to “why would people believe in Christianity, if it is so false and ridiculous?”

Millions of people follow Alex Jones and David Icke. Humans are obsessed with the outlandish, the apocalyptic, and the secret. The truth however, well that’s quite boring apparently.

(This isn’t written to you specifically goout, but to others on this thread)

 

[goout]

The growth of a tree and the truth claims of Catholicism are not analogous. If you want to discuss trees though:

A tree is not a seed by definition, they’re two different organisms according to our taxonomy.

It isn’t.

Really?
Do you want to reconsider your view of this?
I’ve never heard it proposed that a tree and the seed it grew from are two different organisms.

 

[e_c]

OK PC. You can easily get that information… Extraordinary and ordinary magisterium and all that.

Wolfram was not badly catechized. Your persistence in ignoring the explanations given in this thread prove that continuing this discussion is pointless. You’re the expert after all…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

OK PC. You can easily get that information… Extraordinary and ordinary magisterium and all that.

Wolfram was not badly catechized. Your persistence in ignoring the explanations given in this thread prove that continuing this discussion is pointless. You’re the expert after all…

Am I correct in understanding that your “explanation” is to merely assert that this story probably doesn’t point to a historical reality so it’s not worth discussing? Or, that we don’t know for sure what Wolfram said because the sources of this story are hostile?



I accept that, but I don’t understand why you fail to apply the same skepticism to the new testament.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Really?
Do you want to reconsider your view of this?
I’ve never heard it proposed that a tree and the seed it grew from are two different organisms.

I thought you meant “trees in general” and “seeds in general.”

A specific Oak tree grows from a specific acorn, yes.

 

[e_c]

Am I correct in understanding that your “explanation” is to merely assert that this story probably doesn’t point to a historical reality so it’s not worth discussing? Or, that we don’t know for sure what Wolfram said because the sources of this story are hostile?



I accept that, but I don’t understand why you fail to apply the same skepticism to the new testament.

No, it’s not that at all.

I think the story is probably pretty accurate. I also think that what he said is perfectly in line with what the Church teaches.

 

[goout]

I thought you meant “trees in general” and “seeds in general.”

A specific Oak tree grows from a specific acorn, yes.

So the acorn and the tree are one continuous developing organism. Once the organism looked like this, now it looks different. You can’t see the acorn, but it’s part of the same organism.
That is the same with the Church.

The Church is organic, or living. It grows and develops.
As it grows and develops what came before is not refuted, because it’s part of the organism.

 

[o_mlly]

The official backing of the Roman Empire explains the spread and popularity of Christianity in that sphere of influence sufficiently, just like crazed violence and zeal explains the rapid spread of Islam in the 7th-8th centuries (rather than it being a sign of God’s exclusive ordination in either case) …]

It’s just that one of these mystery religions happened to be adopted by an influential Emperor and become the official state religion of the Roman Empire while the others did not. The rest is documented history.

Christianity did not just happen to be adopted.

Persecuted sporadically, the early Christians hid in their homes to worship, cloistered themselves in catacombs to celebrate Eucharist, and existed apart from the world of the Roman Empire. The early Church insured its very survival by closeting itself from a sometimes-hostile world. Living apart from the world was not strange for the early Christians. Christ’s first disciples were untutored men, his initial followers were the poor and the already marginalized in the Empire. But by the third century, Christianity began to spread. The loss of appeal of the Graeco-Roman paganism brought on by the advances of Greek rational monotheism made Christianity attractive to both the rich and poor, educated and illiterate. By the early fourth century the number of Christians had so increased that some form of recognition became inevitable. Legally tolerated by Constantine’s Edict of Milan (313), Christianity quickly flourished in the following decades becoming the imperial religion in 381 under Emperor Theodosius. In just four centuries, Christianity had triumphed over its external enemies, and begun a new relationship with the world, a relationship, no longer apart from, but very much in the world.

Called under the auspices of Constantine, the Council of Nicea sought to address the problem of heresy. When church and state are one so heresy and treason become one, and, left unchecked, heresy threatens the commonwealth. Heresy demands two types of action: first, formal and precise definition of the dogma questioned; and second disciplinary measures to suppress the heresy. Nicea, the first of several ecumenical councils, demonstrated the Church’s early ability to organize itself and coordinate its authority against its enemies. The councils also served to perfect and adapt the Church’s internal organization. Although generally conciliar in its governance, the Council of Chalcedon was further distinguished by the active leadership of Pope Leo I. His letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which was accepted by the assembled prelates as the authoritative expression of orthodoxy, establishes the importance of the bishop of Rome. By 451, the councils firmly established the institutional model of church by adapting the political model used by Rome.

Early Christianity developed a visible human organization, known as clergy, primarily to administer the sacraments. These successors to the twelve apostles came to be called bishops and, under their leadership, the Church grew organically for the first four centuries. Bishops and their helpers, presbyters and deacons, instructed and baptized the catechumens bringing them into the community. The new members in time catechized others and the movement grew at a natural geometric rate. Theodosius’ action, however, accelerated Christianity’s growth rate (being Christian now had positive political consequences; not being Christian, negative consequences) beyond the organization’s ability to indoctrinate newcomers in the ordinary way. As a result, new members were poorly formed in the faith, and heresies resulted. The Church, to protect its unity, responded by centralizing its authority. Ecumenical in their formation, but central in their governance, the early councils prototyped the preferred method, the conciliar method, for resolving attacks on the oneness of the Church. This new ecclesiology for projecting its authority emphasized the institutional model of Church and mimicked the political structure of the time, centralized Roman governance.

To summarize this period, the third and fourth centuries, the Church commenced the work of adapting itself to the conditions of the world. The Romans, who had a genius for law and governance, conquered the world, but, in a sense, their Greek captives culturally conquered them. Christianity conquered Graeco-Roman paganism because the Homeric deities were incompatible with the rational monotheism of Plato and Aristotle. In need of an infrastructure to support and defend its newfound “empire,” the Church simulated the best working institutional structure of its time. The foundations for European civilization, a Graeco-Roman-Christian civilization, are now set. The chaos of the fifth and sixth centuries will plunge the Church even more into the world. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire made the Church the only viable political system providing not only order, but also preserving and extending Graeco-Roman-Christian civilization to the invading barbarians. The fact that it was Pope Leo the Great, not the Emperor, who in 451 went out to persuade Attila the Hun to not ransack Rome testifies to the slippage of the imperial government in Italy and the emergence of the Bishop of Rome as its successor.

I know you knew all that but thought a rebuttal to “just happened” was in order.

 

[MarkInOregon]

1. If I were to reconvert to Catholicism today, not a single thing about my life would change. I would do the same work, live in the same house with the same family, and continue to go to mass every week and continue to be bored to death by intolerably ignorant homilies and empty rituals. I have no reason not to be a Catholic, other than I don’t think it is true.

This tell’s us more about you and what may be lacking in your understanding of living a Christian life than it does of anything that is lacking in Catholicism.

If you’re bored at Mass --that’s a you issue–not a Mass or even a priest issue. It shows you don’t truly know/understand what occurs at Mass. If one comes to Mass to ask for their sins to be forgiven, to hear the scripture proclaimed, to worship and give glory to God, to receive him in the Eucharist, and to offer this praise in union with fellow Christians–it’s hard for me to see how one can be “bored”. Again if you find the rituals empty–that’s a you problem–not a ritual problem. The rituals are far from empty. Perhaps others are not as ignorant as you believe them to be and perhaps you are not as enlightened as you believe yourself to be. I don’t know but when I read a statement like the one above–it gives me pause.

The Christian faith should be life transforming and if properly lived should bring one a peace and joy in life that transcends all the troubles that life can bring. It’s what early Christians had and it is what transformed the world. Unfortunately today–most Christians live no differently or so little differently than those of no faith that it is hard to tell what distinguishes them from their secular neighbor. This is not a problem of the faith but of people and their fallen natures. It is a problem of people being culturally Christian as opposed to actually being Christian and attempting to live the faith.

While I hesitate to mention this book – as it is not written by a Catholic, but rather by a protestant pastor–I think it make a good point. It is called Not a Fan by Kyle Idelman – it discusses the difference between being a fan–what a lot a Christians are today and what most people think being Christian entails and being a truly committed follower of Christ–what Christians are called to be. A fan is an enthusiastic admirer. We are all fans of different things–many of us are sports fans. We watch games. We cheer on our team. Some people own jerseys of their favorite team. We understand the concept of being a sports fan. Kyle’s expressed concern is that churches have the potential to very easily become filled with fans of Jesus. And his point is that Jesus never cared much about having fans. If you define a fan as an enthusiastic admirer–then fans were not important to Jesus, he says. We tend to come together once a week–some are really big fans–they know all the songs, the readings etc., but when it’s done they get in their cars evaluate the homily/sermon, the songs sang and give it a thumbs up or thumbs down and come back and do it again the following week. But being a follower of Jesus requires complete commitment. A follower of Jesus will do whatever it takes to follow Jesus. On the whole many of us don’t do to well in this area --myself included. We have a tendency to customize Christianity. We pick and choose the areas where we will follow Christ. We tend to follow Jesus only in the areas that are comfortable. We say I’ll follow Jesus but don’t ask me to forgive so and so. I’ll follow Jesus but don’t talk to me about my money–I work hard for that money. I’ll follow Jesus but don’t tell me to abstain from these sexual desires–I can’t help the fact that I have them. I’m a follower of Jesus but that won’t stop me from getting what I want. So it is this customized Christianity (cafeteria Catholicism) that says I will follow Jesus but only in the areas that are comfortable, only in the areas I agree with. I’m a Christian but I’m not all in. His question is are we Christians or are we
simply fans? It’s worth the read.

To be truly Catholic/to be truly Christian is to live a radically transformed life–not the same old life we lived before our conversions to the Lord. Every one raised Catholic/Christians needs their own conversion experience to make the faith their own.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

The official backing of the Roman Empire explains the spread and popularity of Christianity in that sphere of influence sufficiently, just like crazed violence and zeal explains the rapid spread of Islam in the 7th-8th centuries (rather than it being a sign of God’s exclusive ordination in either case).

Christians can’t even agree about what constitutes the “central visible authority,” and they never have. All we have are various contradictory understandings of what Christianity means and a bunch of garbled texts and competing traditions, the meaning of which has always been hotly debated.

How could they possibly be so confused? How can anyone believe in Mormonism? How can anyone embrace Hinduism? It all seems so manifestly false and fraudulent from the outside doesn’t it? Herd-mentality, superstition, and ignorance were and are powerful influences on us, unfortunately. People, to this day, still believe in astrology. Goodness, gracious! How is that possible? People engage in superstitious ritualistic behavior for their sports teams, people consult “psychics,” people go to psychologists even though there are dozens of contradictory theories of the human mind and they all stand up to scientific testing equally well.

They weren’t telling lies. They were confused and mistaken, just like the rest of us about nearly everything! If there were so many primary witnesses, why weren’t their names and testimony recorded? Paul says “500.” Why didn’t he name them and state where they could be found?

I can offer you a fuller and more coherent explanation of Christianity if you want, but this particular thread doesn’t seem to be the right place.

Here is one possible explanation for why people today believe in various forms of Christianity: badnewsaboutchristianity.com/id0_christianity.htm

Why did the earliest members of the Christian cult believe? For the same reason the followers of Mithras, Isis, Attis, Cybele and members of other mystery cults from that period believed. Novelty, exclusivity, excitement, mystery: these things appealed to the bottom rung of the society at the time.

It’s just that one of these mystery religions happened to be adopted by an influential Emperor and become the official state religion of the Roman Empire while the others did not. The rest is documented history.

Are you sure you know as much about actual history as you claim? Can you provide a list of the historians you are reading?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

T
Here is one possible explanation for why people today believe in various forms of Christianity: badnewsaboutchristianity.com/id0_christianity.htm

.

There so much wrong with this article it’s hard to know where to start, but lets start with this as applied to the Christianity: “We often believe things not because they are true, but because we would like them to be true.” I don’ think I know one person who believes Christianity because they want it to be true. The faith makes certain demands on us, requires us to live our lives according to a set of beliefs–I don’t know anyone who thinks life would be harder without these beliefs. I also don’t know anyone who likes the idea of Hell and of people going there.

I don’t believe in Christianity because I want it to be true–quite the opposite in fact–but because I believe it to be true, because I believe Christ rose from the dead, because I believe that best explains the facts.

A better statement would be that: People refuse to believe Christianity, refuse to believe in the resurrection (or in other faith traditions) because they don’t want it (them) to be true. They believe it (them) to be false because they want the kind of permissive, secular, relativistic world that allows them to do whatever they want without consequence. They don’t want to live the demands of the Christian faith (or other faith traditions). They don’t want to forgive offenses. They don’t want to abstain from sex outside of marriage. They don’t want to love their neighbor as themselves. They don’t want to make their life about doing for others at the expense of doing for themselves. They don’t want to take the narrow road. They want to live as they see fit and they won’t believe anything that gets in the way of that.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[goout]

There so much wrong with this article it’s hard to know where to start, but lets start with this as applied to the Christianity: “We often believe things not because they are true, but because we would like them to be true.” I don’ think I know one person who believes Christianity because they want it to be true. The faith makes certain demands on us, requires us to live our lives according to a set of beliefs–I don’t know anyone who thinks life would be harder without these beliefs. I also don’t know anyone who likes the idea of Hell and of people going there.

I don’t believe in Christianity because I want it to be true–quite the opposite in fact–but because I believe it to be true, because I believe Christ rose from the dead, because I believe that best explains the facts.

A better statement would be that: People refuse to believe Christianity, refuse to believe in the resurrection (or in other faith traditions) because they don’t want it (them) to be true. They believe it (them) to be false because they want the kind of permissive, secular, relativistic world that allows them to do whatever they want without consequence. They don’t want to live the demands of the Christian faith (or other faith traditions). They don’t want to forgive offenses. They don’t want to abstain from sex outside of marriage. They don’t want to love their neighbor as themselves. They don’t want to make their life about doing for others at the expense of doing for themselves. They don’t want to take the narrow road. They want to live as they see fit and they won’t believe anything that gets in the way of that.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Very good.
You’d have to be a fool to go looking for Christianity to verify your “worldview”
Yes, a fool.