Restoring Tradition

[Bbigam]

and which protestants believe that there is One Truth? what diference does it make if they dont believe that CC is the One True Church? they just reject the Truth, dont they? all the Pharisees believed in God, didnt they? yet, they refuse to believe in Jesus. was there a problem with this? yes, there was.

Most evangelical, conservative, or fundamentalist Christian Protestant groups believe that there is One Truth. I’m not saying that what they actually believe actually is the One Truth that we profess. It’s not, only partially so. Yes, they have rejected part of the One Truth that we profess, and of course this is a problem. All I’m saying is that it’s not fair to suggest that all Protestants are relativists, which your post that I had replied to sounded like (whether you meant that or not).

Yes, they are wrong. But it’s not helpful to use straw men in our arguments.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Most evangelical, conservative, or fundamentalist Christian Protestant groups believe that there is One Truth. I’m not saying that what they actually believe actually is the One Truth that we profess. It’s not, only partially so. Yes, they have rejected part of the One Truth that we profess, and of course this is a problem. All I’m saying is that it’s not fair to suggest that all Protestants are relativists, which your post that I had replied to sounded like (whether you meant that or not).

Yes, they are wrong. But it’s not helpful to use straw men in our arguments.

ok, i got it.

 

[StAnastasia]

Either we’re right, or they are. And we’re right.

I was trying to remember where I last heard someone assert this. I remember now – it was in kindergarten. But like most people, I grew up and learned that the world is not black and white, right or wrong, us or them.

 

[Layman]

I was trying to remember where I last heard someone assert this. I remember now – it was in kindergarten. But like most people, I grew up and learned that the world is not black and white, right or wrong, us or them.

Matthew 18:3: *And [Jesus] said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. *

You understand that religions like Islam and Protestantism are hostile to Catholicism?
Do you believe the Catholic religion contains the fullness of the truth?

The world is not “right or wrong”? Please explain what you mean by this.

 

[CradleCath]

I’m sure that most of our posters know what a troll is. Some are quite obvious, they come into CA. blow a few threads & move on.

There are other kinds of trolls, too. In our multi-faceted Catholic Answers forums, one…who posts to brag, to disrupt, to “stir the pot”…can indulge in trolling simply by going from the “Back Fence”, the Philosophy forum, the Traditional, etc., etc. as most of us tend to send our messages in certain groups which truly interest us. For instance, the two I post on most are this Traditional board & the Prayer Intentions board (BTW., you’ll never find a troll on that message board.)

You might find it interesting to meet Blowhard:
redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm

or Imposter:
redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/impostor.htm

or Tireless Rebutter:
redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm

We all know what trolls do to a discussion…“ignore” is our friend.

 

[Timothy17]

But like most people, I grew up and learned that the world is not black and white, right or wrong, us or them.

And when I was an atheist, this was my favourite starting grounds for preaching secularism, being pro-choice, etc; afterall, if we are incapable of knowing absolute right from absolute wrong, then the world becomes a very fun place where the best sophists can argue anything. It’s great if you’re gifted at debating and argument; not so great if you’re the one suffering the consequences of a society built upon lies.

No, my dear, there is a right and there is a wrong, and when we don’t believe that, then all sorts of wrongs become rights.

 

[TMC]

What I find striking and hard to understand is when greater charity and understanding is shown to every other faith tradition and religion in the world than the traditionalist within the Catholic family. While I do not agree to some of the extremes that a few traditionalist adhere to on the topic of other religions, salvation outside the Church and how many go to Hell, a fairly strict interpretation of Extra Ecclessia Nulla Salus is allowable. The Church has never said more than the* possibility* exists for some to obtain salvation without a direct tie to the visible Church. Their inclusion into the salvation of God is through what they hold in common with the Catholic Church, not their diversity.

I understand your frustration, and I apologize if at times my posts come across as uncharitable. I can’t speak for others, but I can tell you why I may sometimes seem to have less patience for some Catholic traditionalists than for those of other faiths. I have no problem respecting the views of traditionalists, just as I respect the views of those of completely different faiths. I do have trouble accepting it when traditionalists misstate the teachings of the Church. Anyone that searches for my posts here will likely find occasions when I have disagreed with Church teaching - but I own up to it and admit that I differ from Church teaching on that point. I expect the same intellectual honesty from my traditionalist friends. Too often I see tradtionalists post here that “the Church teaches X”, when they know full well (or ought to ) that the Church does not teach as they say.

 

[TMC]

I don’t believe in anyone’s imaginary ramblings about hell. Humans have been imaging hells for their opponents probably since the evolution of spiritual consciousness. It’s a useful tool for eternally isolating someone with whom you disagree.

I don’t disagree, but I would extend the thought to most imagining about what’s next. IMO, people over-focus on Heaven, Hell etc. (and that has had some bad results, as you suggest). I read a comment from a Jesuit - can’t remember his name - it was originally told in the form of a conversation between a student and teacher but the punch line was something like: “The folks that spend so much time worrying about what the next life will be like is are those that don’t know what to do with the life they have now.”

 

[StAnastasia]

I don’t disagree, but I would extend the thought to most imagining about what’s next. IMO, people over-focus on Heaven, Hell etc. (and that has had some bad results, as you suggest). I read a comment from a Jesuit - can’t remember his name - it was originally told in the form of a conversation between a student and teacher but the punch line was something like: “The folks that spend so much time worrying about what the next life will be like is are those that don’t know what to do with the life they have now.”

Indeed. The human eschatological imagination has been active since the first hominids poured worked flints and baskets of provisions into graves fifty thousand years ago. And this imagination has provoked some beautiful theological flights of fancy, ranging from Elysian fields to heavenly banquets to gold-paved streets of Jerusalem to rewards of seventy dark-eyed houris.

I believe it is important for people to imagine and hope for such things, but always to remember that they are only symbols of the indescribable.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

it is time to make an assesessment of what it has been accomplished so far.

"In a moderated panel discussion, five religious leaders of different faiths addressed the backlash after 9/11 and stressed the need for interfaith programs to dispel misunderstanding and media misconceptions that spread hatred and false information about different faiths. The panel included an imam, a reverend, a rabbi and other religious leaders who outlined their missions toward finding common grounds and building trust and respect among all religions.

…One of the most interesting institutions represented was The Chicago Coalition for Inter-Religious Learning, a group of Catholics, Jews and Muslims working together with an approach based on a spirit of respectful inquiry, neither attempting to “convert” nor claiming that there is no difference between the three Abrahamic religions.

Indeed, this new approach of accepting and respecting the differences between Muslims, Christians and Jews could put an end to hostilities and eliminate the tension and conflict that mars relations between the Muslim world and the West. The coalition includes educators, writers and book publishers who came together after 9/11 to confront teachings of hatred, contempt and damaging stereotypes that can be found in religious school classrooms."

interfaith-peace.blogspot.com/

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I understand your frustration, and I apologize if at times my posts come across as uncharitable. I can’t speak for others, but I can tell you why I may sometimes seem to have less patience for some Catholic traditionalists than for those of other faiths. I have no problem respecting the views of traditionalists, just as I respect the views of those of completely different faiths. I do have trouble accepting it when traditionalists misstate the teachings of the Church. Anyone that searches for my posts here will likely find occasions when I have disagreed with Church teaching - but I own up to it and admit that I differ from Church teaching on that point. I expect the same intellectual honesty from my traditionalist friends. Too often I see tradtionalists post here that “the Church teaches X”, when they know full well (or ought to ) that the Church does not teach as they say.

I don’t think pnewton was talking about you. I’m pretty sure he meant someone else.

 

[TMC]

"In a moderated panel discussion, five religious leaders of different faiths addressed the backlash after 9/11 and stressed the need for interfaith programs to dispel misunderstanding and media misconceptions that spread hatred and false information about different faiths. The panel included an imam, a reverend, a rabbi and other religious leaders who outlined their missions toward finding common grounds and building trust and respect among all religions.

…One of the most interesting institutions represented was The Chicago Coalition for Inter-Religious Learning, a group of Catholics, Jews and Muslims working together with an approach based on a spirit of respectful inquiry, neither attempting to “convert” nor claiming that there is no difference between the three Abrahamic religions.

Indeed, this new approach of accepting and respecting the differences between Muslims, Christians and Jews could put an end to hostilities and eliminate the tension and conflict that mars relations between the Muslim world and the West. The coalition includes educators, writers and book publishers who came together after 9/11 to confront teachings of hatred, contempt and damaging stereotypes that can be found in religious school classrooms."

interfaith-peace.blogspot.com/

I think this sounds like a good effort. I am continually amazed and appalled at the errors and misinformation one sees about various religions - even other Abrahamic religions and even in religous venues like this CAF.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think this sounds like a good effort. I am continually amazed and appalled at the errors and misinformation one sees about various religions - even other Abrahamic religions and even in religous venues like this CAF.

That’s why a basic course in the world’s faith traditions is so important. Huston Smith once said in a keynote address at the American Academy of Religion that schools that graduate brilliant computer-savvy engineers who have never studied the history or literature or religion of people unlike themselves are essentially turning out “skilled barbarians.”

We have an unwritten policy at our university, a bit of oral wisdom transmitted from generation to generation. You have to earn the right to criticize a position different than you own: you have to know it so well that you can represent it faithfully before you are entitled to critique it.

StAnastasia

 

[qui_est_ce]

We have an unwritten policy at our university, a bit of oral wisdom transmitted from generation to generation. You have to earn the right to criticize a position different than you own: you have to know it so well that you can represent it faithfully before you are entitled to critique it.

StAnastasia

I guess the rest of us dimwits who don’t have your degrees aren’t qualified to know Truth from a hole in the ground.

Satanism anyone?

 

[TMC]

I guess the rest of us dimwits who don’t have your degrees aren’t qualified to know Truth from a hole in the ground.

Satanism anyone?

I have to agree with StAnastasia, although I might have a somewhat lower standard of understanding than StAnastasia does. I think the point is to understand what one is criticizing - which does not take an expert or any particular degrees. Honest criticism also requires the ability to honestly retract and re-evaluate if you come to realize that you were mistaken about your understanding of the other side. That is easy to say, but hard to do - at least in my experience.

I don’t understand how the reference to Satanism fits in?

 

[Layman]

Indeed, this new approach of accepting and respecting the differences between Muslims, Christians and Jews could put an end to hostilities and eliminate the tension and conflict that mars relations between the Muslim world and the West. The coalition includes educators, writers and book publishers who came together after 9/11 to confront teachings of hatred, contempt and damaging stereotypes that can be found in religious school classrooms."

interfaith-peace.blogspot.com/

Islam is a martial religion. Christians in Islamic countries are second-class citizens. I don’t think Westerners realise how much many Muslims hate the West and Western Society. Jihad is a logical outcome of Islam: Kill the decadent Christians who are polluting our culture and occupying our lands.

We are expected to let imams condemn us and our society whereas if we applied their own rules, to them, in our countries, their feet wouldn’t touch the ground before they were flogged and imprisoned. Or worse.

It was really funny here in Britain to have imams slagging off the society they were drawing the dole from, which, if it applied their own rules to them, well …

As for Israel and Judaism; there have been attempts by Western Christians to ‘solve’ the Middle-East problem for longer than I’ve been alive. Good luck with that, as a fair amount of the problems in the area seem to have been caused by Western Christians.

Always a good idea to imagine your ideas are being applied to you: The chief Imam of, ooh, say, Saudi Arabia wafts into Northen Ireland to ‘dialogue’ with Catholics and Protestants with a view to solving the ‘problem’ of Northern Ireland. His co-religionists are patrolling the place with guns and occasionally shooting the locals. Waddya think the chances of success are?

I’m all for dialogue if it keeps the chattering classes busy. As long as we’re not obliged to change one comma or full stop of our doctrine to accomodate people who will not convert.

Political Correctness: why waste your resources attacking a society when you can propagandize it into attacking itself?

 

[TMC]

Islam is a martial religion. Christians in Islamic countries are second-class citizens. I don’t think Westerners realise how much many Muslims hate the West and Western Society. Jihad is a logical outcome of Islam: Kill the decadent Christians who are polluting our culture and occupying our lands.

We are expected to let imams condemn us and our society whereas if we applied their own rules, to them, in our countries, their feet wouldn’t touch the ground before they were flogged and imprisoned. Or worse.

It was really funny here in Britain to have imams slagging off the society they were drawing the dole from, which, if it applied their own rules to them, well …

As for Israel and Judaism; there have been attempts by Western Christians to ‘solve’ the Middle-East problem for longer than I’ve been alive. Good luck with that, as a fair amount of the problems in the area seem to have been caused by Western Christians.

Always a good idea to imagine your ideas are being applied to you: The chief Imam of, ooh, say, Saudi Arabia wafts into Northen Ireland to ‘dialogue’ with Catholics and Protestants with a view to solving the ‘problem’ of Northern Ireland. His co-religionists are patrolling the place with guns and occasionally shooting the locals. Waddya think the chances of success are?

I’m all for dialogue if it keeps the chattering classes busy. As long as we’re not obliged to change one comma or full stop of our doctrine to accomodate people who will not convert.

Political Correctness: why waste your resources attacking a society when you can propagandize it into attacking itself?

Islam does not support the flogging and imprisonment of Christians and Jews for their religious beliefs (or to my knowledge other religions, but I am certain of the stance on “People of the Book”). Saudia Arabia does not have a “Chief Imam.” The point of dialogue is neither to change any of our doctrines or to attack our own religion in any way. What makes you think any of these things are true?

 

[StAnastasia]

I have to agree with StAnastasia, although I might have a somewhat lower standard of understanding than StAnastasia does. I think the point is to understand what one is criticizing - which does not take an expert or any particular degrees.

TMC, I’m not sure what you mean by “lower standard of understanding.” the students at my university are probably average students.

The essential point (as you say) is to understand what we are criticizing. If you misrepresent something out of either ignorance or malice, you are calumniating that position. Buddhism was misrepresented in post # 421, in the same way that Catholicism would be misrepresented if someone were to claim that Catholics worship Mary. Both statements are false, and neither can be left unchallenged.

StAnastasia

 

[Layman]

Islam does not support the flogging and imprisonment of Christians and Jews for their religious beliefs (or to my knowledge other religions, but I am certain of the stance on “People of the Book”). Saudia Arabia does not have a “Chief Imam.”

Heh, do you mean that if I, as a Christian and foreigner, made a speech in public in a Muslim country attacking Islam or the local society as being decadent, I’d be allowed to go home to my tea?

I don’t know what the equivalent of BridgeBuilderForSocialJusticeAndPeace is in Islam, so I said Chief Imam.

The point of dialogue is neither to change any of our doctrines or to attack our own religion in any way. What makes you think any of these things are true?

Oh, well I thought our clergy attending pagan rites validates them. We, as laymen, are warned off participating in other religion’s rites.

The president of Ireland publicly received Communion at an Anglican rite in Ireland. That sort of thing.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t believe in anyone’s imaginary ramblings about hell. Humans have been imaging hells for their opponents probably since the evolution of spiritual consciousness. It’s a useful tool for eternally isolating someone with whom you disagree.

The wise person does not consider hell some kind of symbolic tool.