Shifting sand or solid rock?

[RandomAlias]

What other consequences are there?

I think of worldliness, that is, being of this world, adapting to the needs and exigencies of our time. In this view, it need not be banal.

 

[friardchips]

To the extent that Christ is the Rock, the Rock is great. To the extent that Peter is the rock, the rock is great. To the extent that revelation is the rock, the rock is great.

Right.

To the extent that the rock is the position that revelation ended with the apostles and the deposit of faith is fixed, the rock is particularly problematic. There are problems in this world that concern faith and morals and in their ancient manifestation appeared solved (to every Catholic thinker who put pen to paper without being condemned as a heretic), but in their modern manifestation are so clearly not solved that either the original solution was WRONG or there is a need for change to respond.

We are told in Scripture: Ephesians 3:16-20 ‘Out of His infinite Glory, may He give you the power through His Spirit for your hidden self to grow strong, so that Christ may live in your hearts through faith, and then, planted in love and built on love, you will with all the saints have strength to grasp the breadth and the length, the height and the depth; until, knowing the love of Christ, which is beyond all knowledge, you are filled with the utter fullness of God.’

So, the Deposit of Faith, is always true, but it is that it can grow in those ways mentioned by St. Paul, not in the sense that, what was there before, was wrong, but that the Church continues, grows, in her discovery. God’s grace manifesting throughout Salvation History.

I can see the appeal of fixed truth, and I think there is fixed truth.

Right.

I even believe that God could have inspired the Apostles to write scripture that applied to problems that would be and have been in small Catholic country AND similar problems that would be and have been in large secular societies. But God didn’t do that.

They were Gospel writers, not Apostles. God was the Author behind their ‘inspiration’ (for want of a stronger word), yes.

 

[friardchips]

God also didn’t do that for the Jews. He could have inspired ancient Jews to write that if your brother dies marry his wife (even if you already have a wife) until a future time when this will no longer be necessary and as good Christians you will help take care of her and any children. God’s chosen people before Christ received truths that do not align with the truths Christians received in the first century. This was/is revelation. It is my position that “solid rock” without revelation is nowhere evident in the Bible and is thus not a mark of the true church.

I am not completely understanding this premise. Are you saying that you think that the Old Testament does not align with the New, and so, therefore, there is no consistency, and so, no revelation?

So, I think the first century Christians were lead by Peter.

They were.

He had a vision concerning clean and unclean food. The gospel was extended to the gentiles.

If it was, which it was, then it always was going to be.

This is the model that I think is God’s model and is thus the “mark of the true gospel” not solid-rock-ness. It is also not idolatry, banality, or individualism. I choose God’s way not solid-rock-ness.
Charity, TOm

I am not seeing a great disparity between what you believe and what the truth is, in terms of being on ‘solid rock’. Apart from your assertion that the OT is so different from the NT, that there is no apparent revelation. Are you maybe suggesting that Christianity has no foundation, and God’s (new) design is a separate covenant to the old?

 

[friardchips]

Adapting to the needs of our world, is not banal, it is essential. But adapting to those needs, as a Catholic, in faith, is not a means unto itself, but is for the glory of God - just found an example: John 11:4.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

To the extent that the rock is the position that revelation ended with the apostles and the deposit of faith is fixed, the rock is particularly problematic. There are problems in this world that concern faith and morals and in their ancient manifestation appeared solved (to every Catholic thinker who put pen to paper without being condemned as a heretic), but in their modern manifestation are so clearly not solved that either the original solution was WRONG or there is a need for change to respond.

We are told in Scripture: Ephesians 3:16-20 _‘Out of His infinite Glory, may He give you the power through His Spirit for your hidden self to grow strong, so that Christ may live in your hearts through …, which is beyond all knowledge, you are filled with the utter fullness of God.’
So, the Deposit of Faith, is always true, but it is that it can grow in those ways mentioned by St. Paul, not in the sense that, what was there before, was wrong, but that the Church continues, grows, in her discovery. God’s grace manifesting throughout Salvation History.

Hopefully I can respond to this section and clarify what I am saying.
It is my position that God inspired the authors of the New Testament (many of whom were apostles, but certainly they were all called of God) with divine revelation. That God inspired the authors of the Old Testament with divine revelation. That the authors of the Old Testament received guidance/revelation from God concerning things such as marrying one’s brother’s wife if the brother dies. That the authors of the New Testament received guidance/revelation that did away with some of the previous guidance. That without accepting the New Testament, there are a number of things done that would never be done if the Old Testament was the end of revelation.
It is my position that in response to Tertullian embracing “The New Prophecy” the authorities of Christianity declared that there is no new revelation. We do not receive it, and neither did the purported prophets Tertullian embraced. The teaching of the Catholic Church is that it possess all truth and that this truth does not change. One might call this solid-rock-ness.
It is my position that such fixity is not Biblical and it is not good. Thus this type of solid-rock-ness is not something to celebrate.
Now, I am familiar with the idea that “doctrine develops” and I have read Newman’s essay. But, I am skeptical and I think Newman would be appalled by the “Spirit of Vatican II” even though it was called “the Newman Council” by some. All that being said, the CHANGE from the Old Testament to the New Testament was not doctrinal development. And I do no think the solutions to modern problems are to be found in doctrinal development.
So, I am saying that solid-rock-ness as defined by the idea that public revelation ended and all truth is contained within scripture and Tradition is not something that I consider a mark of God’s truth.
Charity, TOm

 

[friardchips]

Before I respond, could you edit our quotes, in your post, so that they are clearly distinct from one another. You made it look as if I had said what you said. To do this, all one needs to do, is to type: > Then copy and paste your text next to it, then, press enter, then type: > and copy and paste my text next to that mark. It ends up looking like this:

your text

my response

 

[TOmNossor]

I hope that fixes it.
Sorry, TOm

 

[JonNC]

People who are fundamentalists, are expressing an attitude of fundamentalism, which gives expression to their inner-attitude.

There is a difference between being able to tell when someone is being fundamentalist and a fundamentalist admitting that they are being fundamentalist - one does not equal the other.

Christian fundamentalists typically will tell you they are fundamentalists. It isn’t a matter of “admitting” it, anymore than me “admitting “ I am continuing Anglican or you are Catholic, as if it is a flaw.

Self-accusation is the same as saying, on more extreme and definitive terms, that people send themselves to Hell. This is objectively true.

Paul accuses himself in Romans 7 of doing the wrong he wishes not to do. Does that send him to hell?
Is it your determination that Christian fundamentalists go to hell? Is that objectively true?

Fundamentalism is, as has been stated, wilfully, and possibly obstinately, making one’s own ideas the first priority, before God’s Will.

You’ve stated this before with no evidence. A fundamentalist will tell you, I believe, that they subordinate their ideas to that which is revealed to them in scripture by the Holy Spirit.

So the idol is one’s own mind, oneself, and/or the object being put before God, as priority. Both, even. One’s own choice-preference and one’s own will (possibly).

Idolatry is a conscious decision. One chooses to worship a particular idol. The Hebrews in the desert chose to worship the calf they made.
Where do fundamentalists say they worship their own minds?

 

[gazelam]

Then, I looked at the first response, and thought…that makes this thread a sort of statement rather than a place of debate. But now, debate we must, for the tide has changed:

Well, I guess tossing a statement into a debate forum will result in… (drumroll, please) debate! From Galatians 6:7 (KJV) …for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

 

[gazelam]

I think the only problematic aspect of venerating images is to do with Scripture, where we are told not to make carved images, but I think that this reference is not in context with the worship of God. We are not venerating a blessed image as a final object of desire as something in itself, but venerating it, in knowledge of the fact that it is inspired by Heaven, to please God. If the Church announces a blessing, then a blessing is what comes of it.

Whatever new emoticon is equivalent to ‘my two-cents’.

For purposes of this thread I wasn’t challenging the practice, just the change in practice between the Synod of Elvira and the Second Council of Nicea. Just seems non-rock solid to me.

 

[friardchips]

Still a bit confusing, but slightly better.
That’s okay.

Do you have some reference or quote for Tertullian, and too, for the ‘New Prophecy’ - does not have to be a great amount, just a paragrpah or even just a sentence, so as to get a better idea of your angle on things.

Similarly, could you provide a small reference and quote for something for Newman, on-topic?

There are a lot of areas in what you’ve written that could do with being addressed.

 

[friardchips]

Christian fundamentalists typically will tell you they are fundamentalists. It isn’t a matter of “admitting” it, anymore than me “admitting “ I am continuing Anglican or you are Catholic, as if it is a flaw.

Fundamentalism, is always about extremes. For someone to state that they are a fundamentalist, would be the same as for someone to state that they hold extreme views. ‘Extreme’, in the very definition of the word, equals severity.

Paul accuses himself in Romans 7 of doing the wrong he wishes not to do. Does that send him to hell?
Is it your determination that Christian fundamentalists go to hell? Is that objectively true?

In context, it can be seen that St. Paul is demonstrating his empathy for people’s struggles, if one were to read on a bit further in that passage.

Idolatry is a conscious decision. One chooses to worship a particular idol. The Hebrews in the desert chose to worship the calf they made.
Where do fundamentalists say they worship their own minds?

A consious decision to idolise anything, is to worship one’s own preference, be it the object of one’s idolising, and/or one’s own mind or heart, from which the action of idolizing begins (whereby a choice is made). Opportunities and potential for edification, turned down when offered, means a refusal, on some level.

The matter also raises the interesting question, as to whether people who are not consciously committing idolatry, while having fundamentalist tendencies, are actually doing so.

 

[friardchips]

Another way of approaching the subject, might be to look at all the physical items used in religion, e.g:- candles during Mass, at Easter. What about holy items, such as Sacramentals? These are objects that in themselves do hold symbolic meaning, but the power is in the expression, the Truth behind them, what they represent, the grace that flows through their usage. There is, too, Biblical foundation, in the New Testament.

 

[Wannano]

Using your own framework for judging idolatry in other people puts many Catholics in the same boat as they then idolize the Church.

 

[TOmNossor]

Do you have some reference or quote for Tertullian, and too, for the ‘New Prophecy’ - does not have to be a great amount, just a paragrpah or even just a sentence, so as to get a better idea of your angle on things.

Tertullian is a much celebrated ECF and there are volumes of his writings preserved to this day (which is rare for an author who broke with the “orthodox”). Here is a small section that shows his break over the recognition of the “New Prophesy” AND his claim that the church he left behind is full of “natural men” (some translations render it “carnally-minded” rather than those who recognize the Holy Spirit through revelation.
In Against Praxius, Tertullian writes:

“For at that time the bishop or Rome was on the point of recognizing the prophecies of Montaneus and Prisca and Maximilla, and as a result of that recognition was offering peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygis; but this man, by false assertions concerning the prophets themselves and their churches, and by insistence on the decision of the bishop’s predecessors, forced him both to recall the letters of peace already issues and to desist from his project of receive the spiritual gifts. Thus Praxeas at Rome managed two pieces of the devil’s business: he drove out prophesy and introduced heresy: he put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father.”

Tertuallian continues and says that he separated

“from the natural men by my acknowledgement and defense of the Paraclete.”

TRANSLATION from Ernest Evans 1948.

Again there are volumes written by Tertullian some of which we only have from critics of his. It is my position that these words of Chadwick capture well the full sweep of what Tertullian claimed and what this ultimately did to the idea that God directed His church via Revelation:

“For a considerable time his advocacy of Montanism was conducted from within the catholic Church, but as it became clear that the Church was not going to grant recognition to the New Prophecy Tertullian passed outside the Church condemning it as unspiritual, institutionalized and compromised by worldliness.”

Chadwick Continues:

“The chief effect of Montanism on the Catholic Church was greatly to reinforce the conviction that revelation had come to an end with the apostolic age, and so to foster the creation of a closed canon of the New Testament. Irenaeus is the last writer who can still think of himself as belonging to the eschatological age of miracle and revelation. “

The Early Church By Henry Chadwick

I pointed to this because while I think one could certainly argue against the solid-rock-ness of Catholicism, I also do not believe solid-rock-ness is necessarily an asset. And to the extent that it exists because continued public revelation was denied in response to purported revelations (revelations that I do not necessarily claim were from God, but evidence that many believed such was possible and even the regular way God’s Church would function), solid-rock-ness is a large negative.
Charity, TOm

 

[friardchips]

We are called to judge between what is good and what is not; different to judging people.

 

[TOmNossor]

Similarly, could you provide a small reference and quote for something for Newman, on-topic?

I am not sure what in Newman you are looking for from me.
I claimed I was familiar with Newman because you suggested that the Catholic Church moves towards truth. This movement strictly speaking would be a deviation from solid-rock-ness. When Newman put forth his essay and left Anglicanism to become Catholic, Rome looked upon his essay with suspicion. Some American Bishops encourage another Protestant convert, Orestas Bronson to write a harsh criticism of Newman’s essay. The “solid-rock-ness” of Catholicism pre-Newman was an internal conception (IMO born of the rejection of continuing revelation) that was challenged by Newman. Today whatever “solid-rock-ness” remains is different than this internal conception.
I also said that Newman would be appalled by the “spirit of Vatican II” and likely find the claim that Vatican II was the Newman council problematic too. This is born of my reading of Newman. While the “spirit of Vatican II” is condemned by Catholic apologists of many strips, there are things that are not condemned by all but the Ultra-Trad folks that I think Newman would find problematic due to the complete absence of “early anticipation.”

I am not sure which of the above two Newman points you find unlikely, but I think I could defend both of them.

That being said, Newman is not particularly important to either of the points that I think undercut your position. First, solid-rock-ness is not desirable in that God did not provide a deposit of faith that can be DEVELOPED into all truth in all situations without public revelation AND God never intended to do so as God’s pattern is to give public revelation to His chosen leaders. Second, there is much that is not solid-rock-ness in the MODERN Catholic Church, and to the extent that the Catholic Church has had a theoretically irreformable self-conception of solid-rock-ness, this is problematic too.

Charity, TOm

 

[JonNC]

Fundamentalism, is always about extremes. For someone to state that they are a fundamentalist, would be the same as for someone to state that they hold extreme views. ‘Extreme’, in the very definition of the word, equals severity.

Why? Why is it your opinion ( this is your opinion ) that fundamentalism is always about extremes?

In context, it can be seen that St. Paul is demonstrating his empathy for people’s struggles, if one were to read on a bit further in that passage.

Is this your fundamentalist view on the context of Paul’s words.
He is clearly speaking about his struggles. Oh, he hopes others will learn from it, but it is his struggle.
Further on, he tells us how we overcome our sin. “Thanks be to God.”

A consious decision to idolise anything, is to worship one’s own preference, be it the object of one’s idolising, and/or one’s own mind or heart, from which the action of idolizing begins (whereby a choice is made). Opportunities and potential for edification, turned down when offered, means a refusal, on some level.

Interesting. They accuse you, and me, of idolatry for our worship of the Eucharist. If you can accuse them of idolatry, so can they accuse us.
And yours is no better than theirs.

 

[friardchips]

Fundamentalism is an extreme. Dictionary terms. In all areas of life.
St. Paul goes onto say that he has 'kept the faith’, a few lines later, following the area you mentioned.
He doesn’t speak of personal weakness anywhere but rather his strength (or trust) e.g:- when feeling as if he must speak of some of the things he has done for the faith when people are being critical (in another area of Scripture). The only time that he speaks of struggling to cope, is when he asks for a thorn in his side, to be removed (in another area).
I am reasoning, objectively, not subjectively. Idolatry is specifically in relation to Christianity, as all things measure up to God, through this religion. One side is justified (made righteous), while the other (non-sacramental) is not. Which makes Christians more accountable. But then, Christians are not relying on outside opinions to form their knowledge, but rather, faith and reason. So, it cannot be idolatry to put God, first. This would make nonsense of the very word.

 

[friardchips]

I am going to condense your posts and attempt very brief summary:

You don’t believe that Revelation has ended, there being no ‘new’ revelation, as it were, and that articles of faith should not be fixed and neither can they develop as doctrinal continuity does not seem to run through to the OT, and too, because the Church in today’s era seems to contradict notions held in the early Church and because the New Testament seems to do away with many OT beliefs / views, and you neither believe in Scripture and Tradition, or that God intended public revelation to be handed to the Church, via apolostic succession; leading to the premise that the Church is not on solid rock, based on those terms?