Shifting sand or solid rock?

[TOmNossor]

Thank you for the summary. I think you are very close to understanding what I am saying (which I recognize does not mean that you agree with what I am saying, but it is wonderful to be understood).

You don’t believe that Revelation has ended, there being no ‘new’ revelation, as it were

This is correct. I do not believe revelation has ended. “False Revelation” is a problem for God’s Church. The response to the Montanist “Revelation” was to solidify truth and deny that public revelation would continue to guide the church. This was a human response. God pierced this human position regularly both with private revelation (which is not technically denied, but this has not been perfectly clear over the years) and revelation that could have been public/corporate revelation, but such was not part of the institutional church so it was not viewed as public revelation.

articles of faith should not be fixed

I have zero doubt that the fact that Christ died for our sins is a fixed article of faith. There are many others.
The proper teaching concerning unbaptized infants or the proper teaching concerning second marriages or the proper teaching concerning global warming are areas in which God could provide revelation to firm up and/or correct Catholic teaching, but with the rejection of public revelation leaves such firming up and/or corrections to be defined by good men who plumb the deposit of faith for principles that can be extended to situations we face. This is the right course until God provided revelation, but if ones church declares that there is no new public revelation, such does not readily happen.

neither can they develop as doctrinal continuity does not seem to run through to the OT

Doctrines do develop whether this development is guided by revelation OR just good men doing their best as they deny that new revelation is possible.
The CHANGE from the Old Testament teachings to the New Testament teachings does not follow a doctrinal development paradigm with the denying of new revelation. The CHANGE from the Old Testament to the New Testament is a product of Public Revelation. The CHANGE from Edenic Faith to post-Exilic Faith was a product of Public Revelation. These changes are not doctrinal development in the absence of public revelation (they are also not solid-rock-ness).
Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

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?

I am not sure I understand what you say here. Above, I explain why I think God’s ultimate plan is to lead His Church via Public Revelation. This means that solid-rock-ness is not God’s way. This is point #1.

In addition to this, I suggest that the self-conception of Catholicism was (before Newman) and to a lessor extent is still solid-rock-ness. But that Newman’s development theory is a blow to solid-rock-ness. Vatican II is a blow to solid-rock-ness. And the prevalent “spirit of Vatican II” is a large blow to solid-rock-ness. Were all the departures from solid-rock-ness produced by a church that embraces Public Revelation AND they came through Public Revelation they would be good things, but still not solid-rock-ness things. So point #2 is that solid-rock-ness does not describe the modern Catholic Church with the “spirit of Vatican II” and Pope Francis at its head.

I offer #1 and #2 to challenge your initial post that the Catholic Church is solid rock and that it is good that the Catholic Church is solid rock.
Charity, TOm

 

[ATraveller]

Fundamentalism is an extreme.

That’s not necessarily true. Fundamentalism could mean focusing on and retaining the fundamentals of the Faith.

The term originated in the early 20th century when a schism occurred in America’s main Presbyterian denomination. It’s known as the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy and it quickly spread to a number of the America’s other Protestant denominations, which resulted in more schisms. Essentially, the fundamentalists opposed the modernists’ proposals to reject Scriptures’ central role in the Faith, Atonement, the Resurrection, the existence of an all knowing God and even the concept of sin, which are fundamentals of Christianity. The Modernists won and the Fundamentalists in those denominations were essentially forced out/self-exiled. And the latter are split between what many consider Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.

And the Modernists are still victorious despite their institutions being in steep decline because look at how ‘fundamentalist’ is used in a derogatory way. I’m guilty of that too by the way because I’m lazy.

 

[JonNC]

I am reasoning, objectively, not subjectively. Idolatry is specifically in relation to Christianity, as all things measure up to God, through this religion.

No, you’re not. You’re making unsubstantiated accusations

 

[Wannano]

friardchips:

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.

Thank you Jon for pointing out what is so obvious.

 

[friardchips]

In a matter-of-fact, objective, and non-subjective way, I am reasoning that you are being judgemental, in the personal sense, by asserting that I am not posting objectively.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

'objective
adjective

_ 1(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts._
_ ‘historians try to be objective and impartial’_
_ Contrasted with subjective_

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

'subjective
adjective

_ 1Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions._
_ ‘his views are highly subjective’_
_ Contrasted with objective_
_ ‘there is always the danger of making a subjective judgement’_

_ 1.1 Dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence.’_

 

[friardchips]

According to those who see the Church in ways, void of convolution, would not see Fundamentalism as being the necessary means to tackling problems of Modernism.

The Church is ‘orthodox’ in her beliefs (not to be confused with Orthodox Churches).

If there is error - as in Modernism - then it is simply a case of needing to rinse the areas within the Church, not really of the Church - those with modernist ideas - that are in error.

Why bring in more error in order to tackle present error. Terms being misunderstood and taken outside of their proper meaning by certain groups or individuals, past and present, does not change the definition of Fundamenalism.

When it comes down to it, the Church herself is spotless. While the people who make up the Church, from within, have the potential to err - except all Popes, i.e:- ‘papal infallibility’: ‘ex-cathedra’ and in the defining of doctrine, pertaining to matters of faith and morals:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

So, in short: the Church is free from error. She is orthodox. Neither modernist or fundamentalist.

 

[TOmNossor]

friardchips:

Fundamentalism is an extreme.

That’s not necessarily true. Fundamentalism could mean focusing on and retaining the fundamentals of the Faith.

The term originated in the early 20th century when a schism occurred in America’s main Presbyterian denomination. It’s known as the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy and it quickly spread to a number of the America’s other Protestant denominations, which resulted in more schisms. Essentially, the fundamentalists opposed the modernists’ proposals to reject Scriptures’ central role in the Faith, Atonement, the Resurrection, the existence of an all knowing God and even the concept of sin, which are fundamentals of Christianity. The Modernists won and the Fundamentalists in those denominations were essentially forced out/self-exiled. And the latter are split between what many consider Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.

And the Modernists are still victorious despite their institutions being in steep decline because look at how ‘fundamentalist’ is used in a derogatory way. I’m guilty of that too by the way because I’m lazy.

Thank you. This is not something I had seen spelled out, but it makes a lot of sense of the history I have seen.

Pope Pius X brought the word “Modernist” into Catholic circles by frequently using it to condemn ideas becoming prevalent in the Catholic Church.

I would suggest the words “Fundamentalist” and “Modernist” are so pregnant with meaning they must be defined by their users. Even then the baggage will carry over on an emotional level.
Charity, TOm

 

[friardchips]

St. Paul, a few sentences later, states that he has ‘kept the faith’, and so it stands to reason, that when he said earlier, that he doesn’t do the things he should, and does do the things he shouldn’t, that this is his way of preaching - not necessarily a planned one but a gifted one, speaking with the words the Holy Spirit inspires him to speak; he also says in other area: we don’t have to act this way, now, because we have been given whom we need (not in those words). Those areas cannot be separated, because to do so, would be to risk drawing false conclusions.

 

[friardchips]

Your currently held position:

Argument 1: Public Revelation not does equal ‘solid rock’.

Argument 2: Contemporary Church history in contrast with early times does not equate to ‘solid rock’.

Correct?

 

[JonNC]

In a matter-of-fact, objective, and non-subjective way, I am reasoning that you are being judgemental, in the personal sense, by asserting that I am not posting objectively.

It isn’t personal since I don’t know you. I am reading your posts in which you have made a judgment about a group of Christians based upon a subjective, unsubstantiated opinion. Then you used the term idolatry in a clearly polemical way, clearly polemical because you used it as a comparison.
Posting the definition of objective and subjective is, therefore, meaningless. Instead, link to Fundamentalist practices that support your premise