Who settles disagreements for non-Catholics?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dangerzone said:
The short answer is you don’t. You simply go church shopping until you find one that suits you.
Click to expand...
I did go church shopping - but I wasn’t looking for the easiest church, I was looking for a truthful, rigorous, and loving church.

God calls us to him, and we often respond as better people than we really are.
 
mathematoons said:
As I read the threads here, I see all kinds of different opinions on other religions, both by believers and unbelievers. For example, in one thread I just saw, some Muslims believe that God is love and loves all people (just like Christianity) and others don’t. So who settles that one, without a living teaching body like the Magisterium to do so?

It’s not just Muslims I wonder this about. I have asked Protestants this question. They either tell me that it doesn’t matter as long as you believe in Jesus (so a Protestant can find a church that lines up with his beliefs no matter what they are), or they tell me their interpretation of the Bible is right (in spite of the fact that no two seem to agree).

So, I don’t get it. Without the Magisterium, how do you know what to believe? Without the Church, I would be lost, trying to find a school of thought that made sense, just like I was before I converted.
Click to expand...
You ask these questions toward people of other Christian expression … yet you completely ignore the fact that the Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden wing can do whatever they choose… and lead as many as they want … Proven by the fact that they led the way to convince more than half of the voting Catholics to elect a president with one of the absolute worst records on abortion of any elected human being on the planet. Magisterium? Nancy and Joe dont seem to have to answer to a Magisterium … and prove clearly that it is completely ok to ignore and still be accepted within the Catholic communion.
 
My impression is that this is very much more a Christian problem rather than a Non-Christian problem because ‘correctness of belief’ is core to the Christian worldview (necessary for ‘salvation’ in some way) where for Jews, for example (I suspect Muslims are similar in some respects), the focus is more ‘correctness of action’ - we tend to get cross with one another about how more or less strict we are in what we do.
 
Kaninchen said:
My impression is that this is very much more a Christian problem rather than a Non-Christian problem because ‘correctness of belief’ is core to the Christian worldview (necessary for ‘salvation’ in some way) where for Jews, for example (I suspect Muslims are similar in some respects), the focus is more ‘correctness of action’ - we tend to get cross with one another about how more or less strict we are in what we do.
Click to expand...
Do Reform and Orthodox Jews ever talk about which circumstances warrant what type of crossness? And do the Orthodox have any ways of trying to bring the Reformed into orthodoxy- or is their main strategy to simply address correctness of action?
 
Sixpence said:
Do Reform and Orthodox Jews ever talk about which circumstances warrant what type of crossness? And do the Orthodox have any ways of trying to bring the Reformed into orthodoxy- or is their main strategy to simply address correctness of action?
Click to expand...
We shout at one another a lot, we’re good at that.

A core feature of Jewish life and thought could be summed by ‘it depends on what you mean by . . . .’ and ‘on the one hand, while on the other hand, meanwhile on yet another hand . . .’ So, even if one takes Maimonides’ 13 Principles (what we’re supposed to believe) interpretation is an inevitable process. It started very early with the concept of ‘Oral Torah’ itself - tradition, interpretation and debate.

There is not one ‘Orthodox Judaism’, by the way, there are different kinds of ‘Orthodox Jews’ (who often shout at one another a lot), Orthodox Jews are ‘more observant’ - though some, inevitably, are rather like Catholics who belong to the Church but don’t necessarily do what they’re told, it being a matter of affiliation more than anything else.

So, do Jews discuss why we’re cross with one another and try to convince other Jews of how observant/strict or not we should be and why? You betcha and often loudly.
 
Kaninchen said:
We shout at one another a lot, we’re good at that.

A core feature of Jewish life and thought could be summed by ‘it depends on what you mean by . . . .’ and ‘on the one hand, while on the other hand, meanwhile on yet another hand . . .’ So, even if one takes Maimonides’ 13 Principles (what we’re supposed to believe) interpretation is an inevitable process. It started very early with the concept of ‘Oral Torah’ itself - tradition, interpretation and debate.

There is not one ‘Orthodox Judaism’, by the way, there are different kinds of ‘Orthodox Jews’ (who often shout at one another a lot), Orthodox Jews are ‘more observant’ - though some, inevitably, are rather like Catholics who belong to the Church but don’t necessarily do what they’re told, it being a matter of affiliation more than anything else.

So, do Jews discuss why we’re cross with one another and try to convince other Jews of how observant/strict or not we should be and why? You betcha and often loudly.
Click to expand...
Yet from the perspective of the significantly less Orthodox (Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jews), the Orthodox, though certainly not uniform, do as they are told with respect to their own affiliations. Even their “cheating” appears inconsequential from the viewpoint of the non-Orthodox. And also from the perspective of the less Orthodox, the loudest discussion, when it occurs at all, comes from the more Orthodox, at least in the States. Primarily though, in my personal experience, each branch is discreet enough not to infringe on the behaviors of the other. I don’t know whether this is the case in Europe, and is probably not the norm in Israel.
 
meltzerboy said:
Yet from the perspective of the significantly less Orthodox (Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jews), the Orthodox, though certainly not uniform, do as they are told with respect to their own affiliations. Even their “cheating” appears inconsequential from the viewpoint of the non-Orthodox. And also from the perspective of the less Orthodox, the loudest discussion, when it occurs at all, comes from the more Orthodox, at least in the States. Primarily though, in my personal experience, each branch is discreet enough not to infringe on the behaviors of the other. I don’t know whether this is the case in Europe, and is probably not the norm in Israel.
Click to expand...
Ah but the various branches of the rabbit families do loud - except for my father and myself, I inherited smiling wryly from him. 😉
 
mathematoons said:
As I read the threads here, I see all kinds of different opinions on other religions, both by believers and unbelievers. For example, in one thread I just saw, some Muslims believe that God is love and loves all people (just like Christianity) and others don’t. So who settles that one, without a living teaching body like the Magisterium to do so?

It’s not just Muslims I wonder this about. I have asked Protestants this question. They either tell me that it doesn’t matter as long as you believe in Jesus (so a Protestant can find a church that lines up with his beliefs no matter what they are), or they tell me their interpretation of the Bible is right (in spite of the fact that no two seem to agree).

So, I don’t get it. Without the Magisterium, how do you know what to believe? Without the Church, I would be lost, trying to find a school of thought that made sense, just like I was before I converted.
Click to expand...
Simple,

The new denomination and the new pastor. They start their own “new church” and preach the thing that caused the “sub-schism”.
 
ConstantineTG said:
But at the top, is it still strong? I mean, if you look at the lay Catholics, we’re in as every bit scattered. But at least our leadership is staying strong with the teachings trying to get everyone in-line. But its like herding cats.
Click to expand...
Remember that Lutheranism is not hierarchical in the way the Catholic Church is. This, of course, has its benefits, but also its detriments. Without a strong hierarchy, we see with some synods a drifting from the confessions. For example, my synod does not ordain women, and we see that practice, as done by other synods, as a drift from scripture, the confessions, and the historic Church. But it also leads to flexibility of congregations, as BenJohnson pointed out.

Regarding my synod, I am very pleased, generally, with the leadership of synod president Matthew Harrison. He has taken a strong stance on the HHS mandate. I would, however, like to see the LCMS become more active and less reluctant in ecumenical discussions with Rome, as they have done with the ACNA.

Jon
 
Sixpence said:
Christianity can be a democratic society (in a certain sense of the word) if that’s what we decide to make it. And just as it was with kings and emperors who claimed a divine initiative and authority for their position of power, the question of whether they’re right or not becomes something of a moot point once that position is either done away with or its role and influence is dramatically curtailed. I believe that the lion’s share of what influencea Christianity as a whole should come from a place that is more democratic and less a monarchy.
Click to expand...
So you believe in putting God’s laws to a vote?

“Let’s vote on the commandments… ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ All in favor? Only one in five? Great. I didn’t like that commandment anyway. It was too old-fashioned.”

If God is real, then doctrine and morals are true whether or not we agree. Deciding it democratically is like voting on whether 2+2 really is 4. It’s the height of arrogance. Christianity is a monarchy because God is king.
 
Kaninchen said:
My impression is that this is very much more a Christian problem rather than a Non-Christian problem because ‘correctness of belief’ is core to the Christian worldview (necessary for ‘salvation’ in some way) where for Jews, for example (I suspect Muslims are similar in some respects), the focus is more ‘correctness of action’ - we tend to get cross with one another about how more or less strict we are in what we do.
Click to expand...
I’m sure it looks like that from the outside, but as an example take a really close look at how Catholics and Lutherans bicker: The Catholics charitably say “We have the fullness of truth”, while Lutherans say “We agree with -current- teaching of the Magisterium.”

Those sentences are loaded with charity given the history of the the two Churches. At not point would I ever (or allow to be said) to a Catholic - “you’re going to h$@$”, nor do Catholics sat that to me. Because we know it’s not true.

For example - some Protestants believe that once they are saved, they are saved forever. I think this is wrong, and I think it’s fundamental, but I don’t think they’re going to suffer for it. In fact… they have it easy. Those lazy buggers. 😉
 
Jim_Dandy said:
Ummm, this is a Catholic forum. And the OP is a Catholic. And I used to be a Protestant. And there are Catholics other than myself, and Orthodox, and at least one Jew who have contributed their comments… This isn’t your thread. So pardon me if I’m totally confused by your post. Could you explain your request, please?
Click to expand...
Jim Dandy—

I see Dangerzone’s post, my response to it, and the other posts from you, me, and another person were deleted last night. I don’t know if they were all deleted for going off topic or if things got heated later.
 
mathematoons said:
So you believe in putting God’s laws to a vote?
Click to expand...
Monarchy is no more a law of God for church governance than it is in state governance. If I am wrong about either of these things, however, I expect the ill consequences would be quite similar. In either case, the monarch has the most to lose- and from where I’m standing, his loss is everyone else’s gain.

I’ll put it to you this way. A thousand years ago, you would have said the same thing about your king or your emperor or whatever. Kings derive their authority from God by divine right and so forth- it’s the monarch’s first line of defense against people who say there are options that are superior to a monarch. Well, suppose they were right all along and hereditary monarchies really were put in place by God. We got rid of them anyway, we found that the alternatives to that type of leadership really are vastly superior, the monarchists all died and their descendants got used to it.

There are alternatives to the Catholic monarchy that are far superior to the current system. Your current visible hierarchy was not developed by God and put in place by Him, but even if it was, the important thing is that we can do better. Maybe one day your leadership will start doing better- and then they’ll just have to wait for your descendants to grow up and get used to it.

Until then, go ahead and leave it as is. We’ll enjoy the competitive advantage.

And if you can’t tell yet, I am entirely nonplussed by the God-origin argument. What matters to me is quality. Does that factor into your assessment at all?
 
AbideWithMe said:
Jim Dandy—

I see Dangerzone’s post, my response to it, and the other posts from you, me, and another person were deleted last night. I don’t know if they were all deleted for going off topic or if things got heated later.
Click to expand...
**Three years experience as a mod have taught me one way of making sure a circumventer does not return is to delete his posts. But only if the thread is young and he joined the day before. If I left them up, as I have in the past, thats like the red rag to the bull and he’ll circ again.
If ever I delete a particular post you guys want to see again, because you were particularily profound that night, 😃 I can retrieve it no problem.

Have a happy Memorial Day!
👍**
 
Eric_Hilbert said:
**Three years experience as a mod have taught me one way of making sure a circumventer does not return is to delete his posts. But only if the thread is young and he joined the day before. If I left them up, as I have in the past, thats like the red rag to the bull and he’ll circ again.
If ever I delete a particular post you guys want to see again, because you were particularily profound that night, 😃 I can retrieve it no problem.

Have a happy Memorial Day!
👍**
Click to expand...
Well, my posts weren’t particularly profound yesterday. Was my response to Jim Dandy part of the problem? I certainly didn’t mean it to be, and I hope it wasn’t.
 
mathematoons said:
If God is real, then doctrine and morals are true whether or not we agree. Deciding it democratically is like voting on whether 2+2 really is 4. It’s the height of arrogance. Christianity is a monarchy because God is king.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about deciding on who’s going to lead you, how accountable and transparent they must be, and what the separation of powers is going to look like. Would you suggest that leaders, like doctrine, can be divided neatly into “true” and “false”? Furthermore, if an unaccountable opaque monarch with absolute authority holds power that is not derived from thw will of the people and only maintained by their passive consent, I’d very much like to know what sort of rationale places him as a true leader while a democratically elected transparent accountable leader with limited powers is somehow false. To my analysis, this can only be based on a presupposition of divine initiative in the example of an inferior system of leadership.
 
Diana_Catherine said:
Most times they don’t get settled. As others have said that is why there are so many different denominations. Some of the mainline denominations have a type of hierarchy but it is based on votes, so their interpretation of scripture can change by majority rule of bishops or elders or congregation.

Sometimes it is just one person who everyone has allowed to lead them.

Jesus said in Matthew 18:17 when you disagree with someone or have an issue with someone and you can’t come to an agreement, “take it to the Church.” If there is no church behind you with final authority people become angry and split, so even though some of the protestants are uniting and starting councils or already have hierachy set up, there is no final church authority.

Also, Jesus promised that when the Holy Spirit would come he would lead us into all truth. Another reason for a need for Church authority. In protestantism, there can’t be a walking in all truth if everyone is dividing and splitting.

In my little town, we have seen many protestant churches come and go, divide and leave, from Baptist to Evangelical to Lutheran over arguments they have not been able to settle.

This is the issue that brought me home to the Catholic church and what brings so many others in also.

I heard someone say once that protestantism is a spirit that continues to divide and divide.
Click to expand...
There doesnt have to be any division or subdivision …
It looks like Catholics can be pretty much anything that they want to be … and still be perfectly accepted within the Catholic communion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top